Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 11, 2011
Approved October 17, 2011
Members Present: Katheryn Holmes, Chair; Peter Fichter, Vice-Chair; Barbara Richmond, Harry Seidel, Members.
Ms. Holmes called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Meeting Scheduling
Ms. Holmes discussed the possibility of limiting the length of upcoming meetings, noting that the past several hearings have lasted up to midnight. She expressed concern that meetings of that length are too wearing on the Board and the applicant. She suggested that if multiple cases are scheduled for one meeting, the Board consider splitting the cases over two consecutive evenings. The Board concurred.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of June 13, 2011 and made corrections.
Mr. Seidel made a motion to accept the minutes of July 13, 2011 as corrected. Ms. Richmond seconded the motion. All in favor.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on July 11, 2011 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH:
At 7:15 p.m., Raymond & Betsey Luscinski, for property located at 224 Rollins Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: To construct a garage within the front setback of the property. Newbury Tax Map 030-632-403.
Ms. Holmes introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant. There was no public present.
Mr. Seidel pointed out that there are only four Board members present for this hearing and added that it is in the applicant’s favor to have five members. Ms. Holmes reviewed the RSA 674:33.3 with Betsey Luscinski, the applicant, regarding this. Ms. Luscinski decided to proceed with the hearing.
Ms. Luscinski, and her son Robert, presented to the Board.
Ms. Luscinski said that she and her husband would like to build a two-car garage within 15’ of the road and acknowledged that location would fall within the 30’ setback requirement. She said there are two holding ponds on the property and the positioning of the proposed garage would not affect the ponds. She said the proposed location for the garage is the most logical and least invasive to the rest of the property. She said the open space look of the property will not be affected by this garage.
Ms. Holmes asked Mr. Seidel and Mr. Fichter if they each made a site visit. They said yes. Ms. Holmes said she visited the site, too.
Mr. Fichter asked if measurements had been taken from the footbridge near the ponds to the proposed footprint of the garage. Robert Luscinski said he measured it and it was 21 feet.
Ms. Holmes asked if the stream on the property is a permanent stream or a seasonal one, noting that a permanent stream requires certain specific setbacks. Ms. Luscinski said it is a seasonal stream and periodically dries up. She said the Land Use Coordinator researched the stream and decided it was a seasonal stream. Mr. Seidel added that the stream is fed by the culvert. Ms. Holmes said many streams are fed by culverts.
There being no more questions from the Board, Ms. Luscinski addressed Article 16.7 of the zoning ordinance:
16.7.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: it does not negatively impact the environment, cause any unsightly views, change the character of the neighborhood or impact any surrounding abutters.
.
16.7.2 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance
results in unnecessary hardship: If we are unable to build on the requested location, we will have to cut down a large number of trees and bring in a large amount of fill to create an alternate site to build the garage. In addition, areas of stone walls will have to be removed or altered. Not only would this be a less than desirable impact on the land, it will also add major costs to the project and will not be as visually appealing compared to our requested location.
a. There are special conditions in the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area because: The property has three holding ponds on the yard behind the home. To protect the boundaries of the ponds we would like to keep the building as far away from them as possible while building the garage on the most natural site on the property.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The property has a natural slope in the front of the home that has been cleared. We would like to keep this part of the property naturally landscaped as much as possible. A building in the middle of this sloped yard would not fit into this natural setting and would be unsightly.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Due to the natural restrictions of the ponds, build space is limited. The 30’ setback from the road does not allow for an adequate opportunity to build the garage in the most natural spot on the property. Other areas on the property would burden the homeowner with costs and would be unnatural with the landscape.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The proposed site for the garage allows for the best aesthetics and functional use. It is the most natural site for the garage, with the lease burden to construct and without altering the character of the landscape and neighborhood.
16.7.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: Our understanding of the ordinance is to protect the future widening of Rollins Road. Based on the current width and development, the expansion of Rollins Road at our property locale seems very unlikely.
16.7.4 Substantial justice is done because: The building of the garage will increase the visual appeal of the property, allow for protection of other parts of the property and will not burden the homeowner with an increase in cost in building the garage. The surrounding abutters will not be impacted negatively by the garage.
16.7.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The garage will add a visual appeal to the area that we are currently parking a boat, car, and tractor. The design is such that it will complement our home, enhance the property value and have a minimal impact on any surrounding property. The proposed site of the garage will not affect any of the abutter’s views.
Ms. Holmes questioned Ms. Luscinski’s answer to 16.7.3, with reference to the widening of Rollins Road. Ms. Holmes asked if Ms. Luscinski spoke with the Road Agent regarding this point. Ms. Luscinski said her husband received the information from the Code Enforcement Officer.
There was discussion concerning the meaning of the phrase “to protect the future widening of Rollins Road”. Ms. Holmes said dirt roads tend to widen over the years as ongoing grading takes place. Ms. Luscinski said there is an area of grass between the road and their stone wall. Mr. Luscinski said he measured the distance that morning and noted that the stone wall on the property is 8 feet from the road. Ms. Luscinski said the proposed garage would be placed behind the stone wall.
Ms. Holmes asked if the Code Enforcement Officer recommended talking with the Road Agent. Ms. Luscinski said no, the recommendation was to talk with the Land Use Coordinator regarding the variance application procedures.
Ms. Holmes noted that even if Rollins Road is widened three feet, the road edge will still be five feet from the stone wall.
Mr. Seidel pointed out that the 30 foot setback line is not correctly marked on the site plan. He said the 30 foot setback is marked from the right-of-way (ROW), not from the edge of the road. He added that the Code Enforcement Officer says an accurate ROW marker is a telephone pole location. Mr. Seidel said there is a telephone pole around the corner from the Luscinski property and he measured from the center of the road to the pole and it was exactly 30 feet.
There was further discussion concerning ROW measurements. Mr. Seidel noted that Paragraph 5.9 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to ROW, not “road”.
Ms. Holmes noted that Paragraph 5.8 refers to measuring from the center line of the road to determine frontage setback.
Mr. Fichter said the ordinance is clear regarding ROW and he questioned the assertion that telephone poles are the true markers of ROW.
Mr. Seidel offered some insight into the redrawing of the setback lines on the Luscinski’s site plan and suggested repositioning the garage to make it less non-conforming. Ms. Luscinski agreed with Mr. Seidel’s suggestions.
Ms. Holmes questioned the presence of two garages on the property. Mr. Luscinski said the existing garage is a one car garage attached to the house. Ms. Luscinski said the proposed garage will be used for storage and will have the same roof pitch as the house to maintain a visual flow.
Ms. Holmes noted that the garage will be built on a slab and questioned how water runoff will be mitigated. Ms. Luscinski said roof gutters will carry the water directly to the existing holding ponds and there will be crushed gravel surrounding the base of the garage.
Ms. Holmes asked if there were any plans for using the second floor of the garage as living space. Ms. Luscinski said no.
There was general discussion concerning French drains and how they work.
There was general discussion concerning the grade of the property and the natural direction of the water into the existing holding ponds.
There being no further questions from the Board, Ms. Holmes closed this portion of the hearing and opened the meeting to the public for comment.
There being no public present, Ms. Holmes closed the public session of the meeting. She noted that there were no letters received from abutters concerning this application.
The Board went into deliberation.
There was discussion regarding seasonal streams and the likelihood of seasonal brooks becoming permanent brooks.
Ms. Holmes expressed concern regarding the accepted definitions of ROW, setback and road frontage. There was discussion concerning same.
Mr. Fichter said clarification is needed from Town personnel concerning ROW, setback measurements and frontage. There was further discussion concerning the correct way to measure same.
Mr. Seidel made a motion to vote on the request for a variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9 of the Newbury Zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a garage within the front setback of the property of Raymond and Betsey Luscinski, Newbury Tax/Map 030-632-403, with the following condition: that the proposed garage be set obliquely from the front setback line to be less non-conforming. Ms. Richmond seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Seidel voted to Grant the variance from paragraph 5.9 with the stated condition.
Ms. Richmond voted to Grant the variance from paragraph 5.9 with the stated condition.
Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the variance from paragraph 5.9 with the stated condition.
Ms. Holmes voted to Grant the variance from paragraph 5.9 with the stated condition.
Ms. Holmes advised Ms. Luscinski that there is a 30-day appeal period in which an abutter or party of interest may appeal the Board’s decision(s).
Mr. Fichter made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Seidel seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
