Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 25, 2021
Approved November 22, 2021
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm,Vice-Chair; Gary Budd, Member; Henry Thomas, Alternate
Public Present: Jude Dallaire; Jeremy Bonin; Will Davis; Nancy Ydoate; Doug Gamsby
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Mr. Fichter advised the applicant that a full Board is five members, business could be conducted with three members however a minimum of three affirmative votes was needed to grant the variance. Mr. Fichter continued that the applicant could choose to go forward with tonight’s hearingor continue the hearing to a future date and time certain. Mr. Thomas came in late to the meeting. Mr. Bonin said the applicant would like to move ahead with the hearing at this time with four members of the Board present.
Board introductions.
Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Thomas as a voting member for this meeting.
The Recording Secretary read into the record the following Public Notice:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on October 25, 2021, at the Veterans’ HallBuilding at 944 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. At 7:05 p.m., Charles Ydoate Rev Trust & Nancy Ydoate Rev Trust (owners), Horizons Engineering, Inc. & Bonin Architects (agents), for property located at 10 Edgemont Landing, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of retaining walls, precast concrete steps and a terrace area between a redeveloped existing single-family residence and the shore of Lake Sunapee on steep slopes. Newbury Tax Map 007-115-108. Copies are available for review during regular business hours at the Newbury Town Office building. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 am-noon.
Will Davis from Horizons Engineering, Inc. presented to the Board.
Mr. Davis introduced Jeremy Bonin and Jude Dallaire from Bonin Architects.
Mr. Davis provided the Board with an updated Shoreland plan which includes a planting plan. Mr. Davis said the applicant has two parcels, one on the lake side and one on the upslope side. Mr. Davis continued that the focus of the application is on the steep slope section. Mr. Davis said the existing conditions on the upper side is the applicant has a driveway and garage with stairs down to the road. Mr. Davis continued that on the lake side there is an existing house with patio, deck and wooden stairs down to the lake. Mr. Davis said the pre-construction impervious area for the lakeside is 33.8%, for the upper side 29.8%. Mr. Davis said the proposed project includes building renovation and a small addition working within primarily the existing footprint. Mr. Fichter asked if the addition area was outside of the existing footprint. Mr. Davis said there is an overhang in that area. Mr. Fichter said the project would not make the building more non-conforming. Mr. Davis said correct.
Mr. Davis said there will be a similar path around the house and down to the lake; they are proposing impervious steps with pervious paver landings and pervious paver patios, the idea is to step it down with some landscaping and walls that’ll be a little less steep in the landscaped areas, a very robust planting plan. Mr. Davis continued that the existing slope there now is primarily grass, so it will have a lot of vegetation in that area to help improve the stabilization and the look and feel of the waterfront.
Mr. Davis said in the post development condition the impervious surface is reduced to 29.7% on the lakeside. Mr. Davis continued in terms of the stormwater management approach they are proposing a stone infiltration trench along the gravel surface with a drywell at the low end. Mr. Davis said around the house they are pretty much catching all the roof with the stone drip edges.
Mr. Davis said the primary purpose is the walkways in the steep slopes. Mr. Fichter asked if the width of the walkways and the stairs were within the four-foot requirement. Mr. Davis said correct.
Mr. Fichter asked for insight into the three walls being proposed and the heights of the walls. Mr. Davis said it was a four-foot wall at the bottom, seven-foot wall at the tallest part and less than eight feet closest to the patio. Mr. Budd said it ranges roughly between four and eight feet. Mr. Davis said correct. Mr. Fichter said the total height that is trying to be accommodated was 18 feet. Mr. Davis said 18 to 20 feet off the top of his head.
Mr. Fichter said that the plan shows a lot of vegetation being planted. Mr. Fichter continued that the Board has seen this type of approach, particularly on Edgemont Landing Road with the very steep walls. Mr. Fichter noted that there are no ordinances as far as permissibility of having these walls, there is safety regulations as far as railings on the top, but not so much the height. Mr. Fichterasked if the plants were going to be mature enough so that they visually interrupt the view of the precast stone. Mr. Bonin said the lilacs out of the nursery are three to four feet tall, the hydrangeas out of the nursery are two to four feet and the junipers are about 3 feet tall. Mr. Bonin said that he always takes the granting of a variance as what they are held to, so if the planting plan is here, other than nursery substitution that is what will be planted.
Mr. Blohm asked what material will go behind the walls. Mr. Davis said right behind the walls will be crushed stone, free flowing stone, common fill and in some areas the wall will be up against pervious pavers.
Mr. Fichter said that one wall being constructed is within the waterfront buffer and the Town ordinance does not allow mechanical equipment to be used in the fifty-foot buffer and asked what the plan would be to set those stones. Mr. Bonin said they will get the pallets as close as they can and then will hand carry the stones down.
Mr. Blohm said at the base of the wall water gets moved into a pipe and the pipe goes somewhere. Mr. Davis said the pipe goes to daylight. Mr. Davis said usually that gets sorted out during construction and it is to remove groundwater from behind the wall, to get outleted into vegetation. Mr. Blohm asked how’s it work. Mr. Davis said sometimes it goes through the wall but usually it goes around the backside of the wall depending on the situation. Mr. Davis continued that shouldn’t see a lot of flow, kind of if there is groundwater behind the wall and prevent it from staying behind the wall.
Mr. Blohm said the existing house is guttered, Mr. Blohmasked if that is something that was considered at all. Mr. Bonin said it is a tall house, and sometimes when gutters fail you end up with concentrated water loads two stories up so that is a little more disturbing to the landscape then actually just letting the water come down off the roof into the continuous drip edges. Mr. Blohm asked if that was a better solution. Mr. Bonin said it was easier for maintenance.
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed project includes an addition to the existing residence located at 10 Edgemont Landing Road and construction of retaining walls and a terrace area between the redeveloped residence and Lake Sunapee in Steep Slope Areas (slopes 25% or greater). The removal and replacement of existing impervious deck/patio surfaces with pervious paver walkways/terraces will ultimately reduce impervious surfaces areas on the lot. The large terrace along the lakeside face of the residence location and dimensions are roughly the same as the existing deck. There currently are wooden stairs to access the lakefront from the residence on the property down the Steep Slope Zone. The proposed project includes the construction of precast concrete steps that wind down the steep slope to access the Lake. There are (3) sections of engineered precast concrete block walls along the stairs to help grade the slope so as to provide a large ’pocket’ of landscaped area and provide minimal impact. Additional sections of the slope along the new concrete steps will be vegetated which will provide greater stabilization. There are no current stormwater management features on the property. This project will include stormwater management features to reduce stormwater runoff for the 50-year event, including pervious pavers, infiltration drip-edges, and bio retention area. The project is not contrary to public interest as it helps protect the slope and reduce stormwater runoff to the Lake.
16.8.2 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 lot includes roughly 27.5’ of grade change from the upper deck area down to the lower landing area near the Lake with slopes exceeding 68%. Retaining walls, concrete steps and vegetation will provide greater stabilization to the slope than the existing wooden stairs.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: Replacement of existing wooden stairs with retaining walls and concrete steps, which results in a more stabilized slope and access path to the water requires work in the Steep Slope Zone. Although the existing wooden stairs are presently in fair condition, the safety and integrity of the structure is expected to deteriorate much more quickly, presenting a safety and environmental hazard.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Due to the size of the existing lot (0.16 acres) and dimensions, a large area of the property which spans the entire width of the lot between the existing residence and Lake exists as steep slopes. Access to the Lake allows no other alternatives than traversing these steep slopes.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:The proposed use of the property is consistent with the existing use. The retaining walls and concrete steps along the slope will provide stability and there are stormwater management practices included in the design.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The variance is consistent with the spirit of the of the ordinance to promote health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed walkway and associated improvements allow for the Owner to safely access the Lake also helps protect the slope and surface waters from sedimentation and also stormwater runoff.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Substantial is done as this project includes improvements along the shoreline and improves the safety of lake access for the Owner as well as reducing stormwater impacts to the Lake.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The value of the subject property will increase as the proposed walkway and retaining wall are expected to be more aesthetically pleasing and are a more durable and long-lasting improvement for lake access than the existing wooden stairs. There are no expected negative impacts to abutting properties since this project requires work in the Steep Slopes Zone. Therefore, the value of surrounding properties will not be diminished as a result ofthis project.
Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Davis to show the existing conditions and the new building envelope on the plan. Mr. Davis said the existing building shows in light gray and the dark gray shows the addition. Mr. Davis continued there is a porch with an overhang, and essentially what the applicant is proposing to do is to enclose the porch as living space. Mr. Blohm asked when the building is done will it be greater than where the overhang is, including the eaves. Mr. Bonin said it will still be the same impervious area.
Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no comment from the public, Mr. Fichterclosed the public portion of the
meeting.
Deliberations
Mr. Fichter said it seems to him that this is an improvement to the property, and this is a difficult area to build on. Mr. Fichter said he thinks the proposed breaking of the walls down into steps is a positive thing from a visual standpoint and vegetation is always a positive thing, so it looks better. Mr. Fichter said he likes the fact that there is some addition of stormwater management which wasn’t there presently, so that is an improvement as it pertains to the lake.
Mr. Blohm said as long as they follow through with the robust planting plan, he thinks it will be okay. Mr. Blohmcontinued that a very important part of this is that the plantings are there and take hold.
Mr. Thomas said he agrees, and the plantings also are going to absorb some of that water. Mr. Thomas continued that it appears to be a lot more plantings here than what is currently there now, so that will work out good and will improve the quality of the lake water in front of the house with all of the aspects of the plan such as the retaining walls and stone drip edges.
Mr. Fichter asked if the applicant had the DES Permit. Mr. Davis said it has been submitted.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request from Charles Ydoate Rev Trust & Nancy Ydoate Rev Trust (owners), Horizons Engineering, Inc. & Bonin Architects (agents), for property located at 10 Edgemont Landing, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of retaining walls, precast concrete steps and a terrace area between a redeveloped existing single-family residence and the shore of Lake Sunapee on steep slopes subject to implementation of the planting plan as presented or equivalent. NewburyTax Map 007-115-108. Mr. Budd seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Henry Thomas-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 9.4
Dave Blohm- voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 9.4
Gary Budd-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 9.4
Peter Fichter- voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 9.4
All in favor.
Mr. Fichter advised that the applicant or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the ZBA within thirty (30) days of the decision pursuant to RSA 677:2. Said motion must set forth, in detail, all grounds on which the appeal is based.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Adjustment