DRAFT
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 9, 2012
Members Present: Katheryn Holmes, Chair; Peter Fichter, Vice-Chair; Barbara Richmond, Harry Seidel, Members.
Ms. Holmes called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 14, 2011 and made corrections. Ms. Richmond made a motion to accept the minutes of November 14, 2011 as corrected. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Holmes introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.
Notice is herby given that the Newbury Zoning board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on Monday, January 9, 2012 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH:
At 7:15 p.m., Donald & Joan Lemay for property located at 19 Birch Bluff Rd, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.11 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Raise the ventilation tower an additional 8’ in order to improve its function. Newbury Tax Map 019-058-121.
Ms. Holmes noted that the address stated in the Public Notice is incorrect. It should be 76 Birch Bluff Road, not 19 Birch Bluff Road. The Recording Secretary asked if the Tax Map/Lot number is correct in the Public Notice. The applicant said it was correct. It was the Board’s consensus to correct the address and proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Lemay presented to the Board. He said he got the necessary permits from Paul LaCasse, Code Enforcement Officer, for the various jobs to be done to the house. Mr. Lemay said the ventilation tower currently does not function as it should since the prevailing winds are interrupted by the roof and therefore cannot be harvested efficiently by the ventilation tower. Before work began on the ventilation tower, the contractor recommended that the Code Enforcement Officer revisit the project. Mr. LaCasse did so and issued a verbal stop order letter for permit # 11-025.
Ms. Holmes read into the record the verbal stop order letter as follows:
A verbal stop order and agreed to by owner is being issued on permit # 11-025 because of a change of height which will raise the building 3’ above the 34’ limit. This will have to go before the ZBA for permission to raise the building the extra 3’ to accomplish the desired ventilation requirement because of existing height of existing house. The original permit was for a 34’ height which was found insufficient to meeting the venting requirements of the home.
Mr. Seidel raised concerns about the measurements of the house as indicated on the submitted drawings. He said he made a site visit and took measurements which differed from those on the drawing. Mr. Lemay said the measurements on the drawing were taken by Greg Kelly, the project contractor.
Discussion followed regarding the methodology used to arrive at the submitted measurements versus the data gathered by Mr. Seidel. Mr. Fichter pointed out that the Code Enforcement Officer determined that the height measurements for the ventilation tower was in violation of permit requirements and that is what is before the ZBA for consideration.
Mr. Fichter added that the submitted drawing was a sketch and not an architecturally generated drawing containing industry-standard measurements.
Discussion followed regarding the components of an architectural drawing.
Ms. Holmes noted that the Code Enforcement Officer’s concerns have to do with the proposed height of the ventilation tower roof, namely that it is three feet higher than the 34 foot maximum roof height. Ms. Richmond said the applicant wants to raise the tower by three feet so it will ventilate properly.
Mr. Seidel reviewed Paragraph 5.11 Maximum Building Height as follows: Buildings, other than agricultural buildings, shall not exceed thirty-four (34) feet. Apartment structures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height above the building height. No eave or window sill of an occupied space shall be more than thirty (30) feet above the grade adjacent to the foundation directly below it. The grade at that point shall extend out from the foundation sufficiently to support a ladder.
There was further discussion concerning the accuracy of the measurements submitted on the sketch/drawing. Mr. Fichter suggested that the Board accept the measurements as submitted since both the contractor and the code Enforcement Officer have reviewed the building height. The Board agreed.
There was discussion concerning how the ventilation tower works, specifically how it should work if it is high enough to capture the prevailing winds.
Mr. Lemay described the interior of the tower as being seven (7) feet by seven (7) feet, containing a staircase to the second floor and the remaining unfinished space above that accessed by a trap door. Windows at the top are opened via access through the trap door. Mr. Fichter noted that the trap door must be left open in order to access the ventilation. Mr. Lemay said yes.
There was discussion about the way the ventilation tower worked to cool the house. Mr. Lemay said this is a feature of the existing house that is currently under performing. He added that if the Board grants a variance, the ventilation tower will be improved so its functionality will be maximized.
There being no more questions from the Board, Mr. Lemay addressed Article 16.7 of the zoning ordinance:
16.7.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: it will improve the aesthetics and will not significantly change the appearance of the house. We are seeking to raise the height of the tower by eight (8) feet to have it clear the roof ridge of the main part of the house thereby increasing it’s ability to function as originally intended by the architect.
16.7.2 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance
results in unnecessary hardship,
a. There are special conditions in the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area because: The tower is a distinguishing feature.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: I do not see any differences other than the tower and that the house is the last house at the end of a dead end road.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The tower is not functioning to its full capacity because the main roof of the house blocks the prevailing winds.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: It will not significantly change the look of the house, it will improve function, and it does not change the footprint of the building on the property. It will improve access by the fire department since larger windows will be added bringing the window sill to 29 feet above grade.
16.7.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: It will bring the tower more closely to meeting the requirement of having a window sill not more than 30 feet above grade.
16.7.4 Substantial justice is done because: The added height will allow for better ventilation of the house.
16.7.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The work we have done and what is proposed will serve to improve the aesthetics and increase the value of the house.
There being no further questions from the Board, Ms. Holmes opened the hearing to the public for comment.
Charles Kennedy, P.O. Box 112, Newbury, an abutter, discussed the wooded lot that he owns on the northern side of Mr. Lemay’s property. Mr. Kennedy also discussed the lot he owns directly across from the wooded lot on Route 103A. He noted that Mr. Lemay’s proposed plans would have no affect on his (Mr. Kennedy’s) property.
There being no further comment from the public, Ms. Holmes closed the publi9c portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.
Mr. Seidel said he sees no negative affect to the public interest with the applicant’s request. Ms. Holmes agreed, adding the applicant is trying to improve the original purpose of the ventilation tower.
Ms. Holmes questioned the added tower height in terms of fire apparatus accessibility. Mr. Fichter said the proposed sill height is under the requirement (30 feet) and there is no bedroom in the tower, just a staircase.
Mr. Seidel agreed, adding that firemen often look for ways to allow the heat to escape and the tower windows would do that.
Ms. Holmes asked if the fire department should inspect the tower and sign off on the proposed height increase. Ms. Richmond said the sill height is 29 feet and is not in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Fichter agreed, saying meeting the requirement of the sill height is adequate.
There being no further discussion from the Board, Ms. Holmes called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Fichter made a motion to vote on the request for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.11 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: to raise the ventilation tower an additional eight (8) feet in order to improve its function, Newbury Tax Map 019-058-121. Ms. Richmond seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Richmond voted to Grant the variance from Paragraph 5.11.
Mr. Seidel voted to Grant the variance from Paragraph 5.11.
Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the variance from Paragraph 5.11.
Ms. Holmes voted to Grant the variance from Paragraph 5.11.
Ms. Holmes advised Mr. Lemay that there is a 30-day appeal period in which an abutter or party of interest may appeal the Board’s decision(s).
Ms. Richmond made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
