Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 20, 2010
Approved June 14, 2010
Members Present: Katheryn Holmes, Chair; Peter Fichter, Harry Seidel, Members; Alex Azodi, Sue Russell, Steve Russell, Alternates.
Ms. Holmes called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
Ms. Holmes announced that the meeting was a work session.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 10, 2010 and made corrections.
Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the minutes of May 10, 2010 as corrected. Mr. Russell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) Conference
There was general discussion about the course content of the OEP Conference on May 8, 2010. Mr. Fichter commented that the day-long course was very useful, noting that the informational emphasis was on strengthening the ZBA’s application of criteria to cases. Additionally, he said the OEP instructors discussed the new criteria for variances that took effect on January 1, 2010, specifically on whether or not ZBA members should be more helpful to applicants regarding the criteria. He said the OEP cautioned against doing that since it poses the risk of setting a precedent that must then be applied to every applicant.
There was general discussion concerning the language of the new criteria as it appears on the application, the apparent difficulty applicants to date have had answering the criteria questions, and methods to improve the applicant’s preparation prior to his/her hearing.
Ms. Holmes stated the importance of making sure the applicant completes the Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Checklist and submits that with the application.
There was general discussion about the Board’s increased attention to erosion control plans and how water runoff and drainage are handled on site.
There was discussion about having a consulting engineer available to the Board when needed to review erosion control plans and/or provide erosion control guidelines specific to the environmental concerns in Newbury. It was also suggested that the responsibility for having the professional input of a qualified engineer be placed on the applicant.
There was discussion regarding the oversight to ensure that the applicant implements what the Board approved. It was noted that the Code Enforcement Officer inspects the property to verify that the property owner has implemented all of the items required by the Board prior to issuing an Occupancy Permit.
Ms. Holmes reminded the Board that if an applicant has not satisfied the necessary criteria or has not provided the Board with enough information, it is within the Board’s purview to request that the applicant get the necessary information and return for a second hearing.
There was general discussion regarding Blodgett’s Landing, the “spirit of the ordinance” as it applies to that district, and the ongoing challenge of obtaining property surveys.
There was further discussion regarding strengthening the requirements for erosion control plans and stormwater management as it appears in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. The Board referred to Article XXI (Stormwater Management), Paragraph 21.2.2 and Section 21.3 Landowner’s Responsibilities.
Ms. Holmes recommended that the Code Enforcement Officer include Article XXI on the rejection sheet and refer the applicant to the Article for guidance.
There was discussion about how to improve the information given to the applicant regarding stormwater management. It was suggested that a copy of the Stormwater Guide be made and given to applicants when picking up an application.
There was further discussion about the criteria language used in the Variance application. Ms. Holmes noted that it would be useful to have Town Counsel and/or Ken McWilliams, Town Planning consultant review the language and make suggestions for putting it into more understandable terminology.
There was general discussion about the “spirit of the ordinance” as it applies to the Newbury Zoning Ordinance.
The Board discussed the procedure when reviewing the Variance criteria on an application and decided to go into discussion after each criteria is read instead of having all the criteria read into the record before going into discussion.
Mr. Seidel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Azodi seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
