Meeting Minutes

Meeting date: 
Wednesday, September 14, 2022

Zoning Board of Adjustment

September 14, 2022

Approved April 6, 2023

 

Members Present: Henry Thomas, Vice-Chair; Larry Briggs, Member; Katheryn Holmes, Alternate

Members Not Present: David Blohm, Chair; Steve Hurd, Member; Gary Budd, Member; Alex Azodi, Alternate

 

Public Present: John Hatem; Jeffrey Christensen; Ben Lewis; Mohsen & Joanne Elmasry; Mike Minutolo; Michael Webster

 

Mr. Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Board introductions.

 

Mr. Thomas appointed Ms. Holmes as a voting member for the meeting.

 

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of July 13, 2022. Ms. Holmes made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Briggs seconded the motion. All in favor.

 

The Board decided to hold the review of the minutes of July 27, 2022 for the next meeting with a quorum, Ms. Holmes abstained from voting as she did not attend the meeting.

 

Continuance- David C. Tencza, agent for Michael J. Webster & Ai Qunwei, will seek an Appeal From an Administrative Decision as follows: The March 9, 2022 decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to completely remove an unpermitted “tree house” structure as stated in the Notice of Violation. Newbury Tax Map 041-084-309.

 

Mr. Thomas advised the applicant that a full Board is five members, business could be conducted with the three members present however a minimum of three affirmative votes are needed to grant the administrative appeal. Mr. Thomas continued that the applicant could choose to go forward with tonight’s hearing or continue the hearing to a future date and time certain.

 

The applicant chose to proceed with the hearing at this time.

 

Mr. Thomas asked the applicant if he had any new information for the Board. Mr. Thomas continued that the Board received the photos that were requested. Mr. Webster said that no one has used the treehouse, waiting on a decision. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant had any time to meet with the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Webster said he had called the CEO and was told that the CEO can’t inspect it.

 

Ms. Holmes asked if there have been alterations. Mr. Webster said that it has been as it is for seven years. Ms. Holmes asked how long it was a commercial thing. Mr. Webster said since 2018. Mr. Thomas said that when the applicant received the letter from the Town, the applicant terminated the commercial use. Mr. Webster said that was correct.

 

Mr. Briggs said this is the third time the applicant has been before the Board. Mr. Briggs said he has given this appeal a great deal of thought and has vacillated, sometimes thinking he was going to deny it, sometimes going to grant it. Mr. Briggs continued that it’s time for a decision. Mr. Briggs said that he thinks all at the table would agree that it is very clear that the current Town of Newbury Ordinances, they’re silent on the subject of treehouses and silence means that unless it’s specifically allowed than it’s not permitted, that’s the strict interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Briggs continued that the Board continued the applicant’s first hearing trying to find a way to maybe explore a more liberal interpretation, tried again at the second meeting, but it became apparent that the parties are not likely to change their respective positions.

 

Mr. Briggs said since the last hearing, there was a joint meeting with the Planning Board that took place on August 1st, where the Zoning Board presented to the Planning Board because they are the ones who draft any potential changes to Ordinances. Mr. Briggs continued the Zoning Board presented a recommendation and language to allow treehouses. Mr. Briggs continued that he thinks of a father that wants to build a treehouse for their children, there ought to be a way, Mr. Briggs said that Mr. Webster’s treehouse is an adult treehouse.

 

Mr. Briggs made a motion to Grant the administrative appeal. Ms. Holmes seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Briggs said his rationale includes the following points, what weighed heavily on him was in good faith, Mr. Webster went to the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Lacasse, and sought a building permit, was told he did not need one, and given that assurance initiated and completed construction of the treehouse. Mr. Briggs continued that there is no question that the applicant seriously erred when advertising the treehouse for rental. Mr. Briggs continued that Mr. Webster has assured the Town that the treehouse will never be rented out. Mr. Briggs said that he thinks it would be an absolute travesty if the Board denied the appeal, which would then force the applicant to remove the treehouse, or the applicant could appeal the Board’s decision, and possibly later allow, if the Town adopts an Ordinance amendment.

 

Ms. Holmes said that she agrees with Mr. Briggs in that because the Town didn’t have a law or a regulation pertaining to treehouses, it’s like getting a building permit, you didn’t need one and then there wasn’t a regulation to cover it, and so then, because it wasn’t a regulation the Board has been told by Town Counsel that if it’s not a regulation, it’s prohibited. Ms. Holmes said that could be a long list of things, actually. Ms. Holmes continued that she thinks that the trade off is that the applicant can keep the treehouse, but he can’t rent it. Mr. Webster said that is totally fine. Discussion followed.

 

Mr. Thomas said he could see it in the zoning as a structure, sheds, treehouse, let’s not call it a treehouse anymore, let’s just call it an outbuilding, outbuildings are legal, sheds are legal, so he can see as long as it is not used in a commercial aspect, that this treehouse is no different than his sugarhouse in the backyard. Mr. Thomas continued that it does not say that sugarhouses are permitted in the Ordinance, but he has one in the backyard, he doesn’t have a difficulty with it.

 

Roll Call Vote:

Katheryn Holmes voted to Grant the Administrative Appeal on the grounds of in the near future that the Town will have regulations for it.

Larry Briggs voted to Grant the Administrative Appeal.

Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Administrative Appeal.

 

Mr. Thomas 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.

 

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 Wednesday, September 14, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:10 p.m., Cleveland, Waters & Bass, P.A. (agent), 5H Living Trust (owner), for property located at 295 Bay Point Road, Newbury, NH, will seek Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 20’ x 24’ covered and screened porch within the 50-foot waterfront buffer and within the 75-foot lake setback. Newbury Tax Map 006-170-443. Copies of the application 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.

 

Mr. Thomas advised the applicant that a full Board is five members, business could be conducted with the three members present however a minimum of three affirmative votes are needed to grant the administrative appeal. Mr. Thomas continued that the applicant could choose to go forward with tonight’s hearing or continue the hearing to a future date and time certain.

 

The applicant chose to proceed with the hearing at this time.

 

Jeffrey Christensen and John Hatem presented to the Board.

 

Mr. Christensen said this is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot, it has an existing residence on it on the shores of Lake Sunapee. Mr. Christensen said the proposal is for a screened in porch on the side attached to the existing residence and replacing the stairs on the lakeside of the house that go down to the lake to bring them up to code.

 

Mr. Hatem said he and his family live in Fort Worth Texas and have spent the entire summer in Newbury for the last seven years. Mr. Hatem continued that the current house is small and felt the best option to increase living and entertaining space, without demolishing and building a new house, was to add a screened in porch. Mr. Hatem said this will allow the family to enjoy the outdoors throughout the summer without worrying about the bugs and the weather. Mr. Hatem continued that they love the lake and want to make as small an impact as possible in the design by positioning the porch as far back from the lake as possible, the slope on the west side of the house is greater than 25% which limited how far back the applicant could go. Mr. Hatem said the addition of the porch will not require the cutting down of any mature trees and designing the porch on a concrete slab there will be minimal excavation work required. Mr. Hatem continued as part of the design stone infiltration trenches will be added on both eaves of the proposed porch as well as along the back of the existing house improving the stormwater management on the property. Mr. Hatem said additionally the change to the current steps facing the lake is twofold, the current steps are not to code, they are very steep and a hazard, in the design of the new landing and steps, the intrusion in the 50-foot buffer is reduced by a couple of feet. Discussion followed.

 

Ms. Holmes asked what kind of foundation. Mr. Hatem said a monolithic slab since the applicant didn’t want to do a lot of excavation. Discussion followed.

 

Mr. Christensen said the proposal is within the 75-foot shoreline setback, the existing house is pretty much all of the buildable area on the lot, it is squeezed between the lake and the steep slopes. Mr. Christensen continued that within the 50-foot setback is about 104 square feet of the porch, the stairs will be within this setback as well, they are being pulled further back from the lake a couple of feet, but the stairway is larger because of the landing that turns to the side. Discussion followed.

 

There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Christensen addressed Article 16.8 of the ordinance:

 

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because:  A variance is contrary to the public interest when it unduly, and in a marked degree, conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance such that it violates the Zoning Ordinance’s basic zoning objectives. Malachy Glen Assocs., Inc. v. Town of Chichester, 155 N.H. 102, 105 (2007). There are two methods for determining whether a variance would violate a Zoning Ordinance’s basic zoning objectives: (1) “whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood” or (2) “whether granting the variance would threaten the public health, safety or welfare”. Harborside Assocs., L.P. v. Parade Residence Hotel, LLC, 162 N.H. 508, 514 (2011).

The variance requested here would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is quite common for residences around Lake Sunapee to have screened-in porches. A screened in porch allows residents and visitors to enjoy the natural beauty of the lake while minimizing disturbances from pesky mosquitos and insects. The Porch will be set farther back from Lake Sunapee than the existing house, and the Proposal includes drainage and erosion controls to protect the environment in the area.

There is also no reason to suspect that the Proposal would threaten the public health, safety, or welfare in any way. The environmental controls will improve, rather than threaten the public welfare. Similarly, the new Landing is required because the existing stairs on the Property are unsafe and do not comply with existing building codes.

There will be no impact on the health, safety, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, nor on any of the other harms the Ordinance seeks to prevent. Instead, the variance will allow the Applicants to put the Property to it most appropriate use. Denying the Application would serve no rational purpose in these circumstances.

16.8.2 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship

  1. There are special conditions in the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area because: The Property is unique in its slope, size, and configuration. In particular, the Property is closely nestled in between Lake Sunapee and a steep slope, leaving only a small portion of the Property near the shoreline which can be reasonably used. As a result of the slopes on the Property, neither the existing residence nor the Proposed Porch could be feasibly constructed farther from the shoreline.

Similarly, while the Zoning Ordinance contemplates a minimum of 2 acres for properties within the Residential District, the Property is only 0.9 acres. The Property contains a pre-existing nonconforming use which further limits the potential improvement. Because of the topography, size, and configuration of the Property and the setback requirements of the Ordinance, any alteration, renovation or construction on the Property would likely require a variance.

  1. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: For the same reasons that the special conditions on the Property distinguish it from other properties in the area, the Property is also different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area. In particular, size, location, and slope of the Property significantly limit the buildable area and make any feasible improvement a difficult task, such as the construction of a Porch similar to those already enjoyed by many of the other lots in the area.
  2. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: As set forth above in connection with the unique conditions of the Property, those unique conditions result in more severe burden on the Property. Minimum setbacks on bodies of water are generally enacted to protect surface waters from pollution, protect structures from flooding or erosion, and protect water bodies from being adversely affected by construction and human inhabitation. The size and slope of the Property, as well as the configuration of Lake Sunapee, make any construction or improvement unfeasible, as there is not enough buildable area permitted by the Ordinance. The other properties in the area enjoy screened in porches, but the Ordinance would prevent the Applicants from enjoying their own screened in porch.
  3. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable [and no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the Ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the Property, Relating to Sections 16.8.2.1 of the Ordinance which is not included on the Town’s Variance Application Form] because: A screened in porch is a permitted use on the Property and is therefore presumptively reasonable. See Vigeant v. Town of Hudson, 151 N.H. 7477, 753 (2005) (uses that are permitted by the Ordinance or by existing variances are presumptively reasonable). The extent to which the Proposal encroaches onto the setback is relatively minor compared to the existing conditions of the Property and will have no impact on the neighbors or the public. The permit from DES confirms that there should be no environmental impact. The porch, however, is important to allow the Applicants to meaningfully enjoy their Property. The small size of the existing residence limits the ability to entertain guests or otherwise enjoy the Property indoors. Outdoor use of the Property, however, is often impacted by insects, weather, or other inevitable factors. The addition of the Porch, therefore, will vastly improve the utility of the Property with little disruption or impact to the neighborhood. None of the general purposes of the Ordinance, set forth in Section 1.2 would be impaired by this variance or the Proposal as a whole. In fact, many of those purposes would be supported by the Proposal, such as promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, encouraging the most appropriate use of land; and allowing individual landowners as great a degree of freedom in the use and enjoyment of their land as is consistent with the accomplishment of these purposes. See Ordinance, §1.2. The Property already contains a single-family home; building an attached screened-in Porch utilizing a slab foundation will be a minimal disturbance. Likewise, the associated drainage and erosion controls, including the installation and maintenance of a silt fence and silt sock would be a benefit to the public by protecting not only the area and surrounding land but also the environment of Lake Sunapee. The encroachment into the shorefront setback is benign. The Proposal is no closer to Lake Sunapee than the existing building. The Landing is farther from the shoreline than the existing stairs, and the Porch is constructed on the western side of the building, farther from the shoreline than the building itself. The Proposal actually decreases the nonconformity on the Property in certain respects by reducing the encroachment into the waterfront buffer created by the existing stairs by almost 3 feet.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The requirement that the variance not be “contrary to the public interest” is “related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance.” Malachy Glen, 155 N.H. at 105. The Proposal will be consistent with the public interest as discussed above. As mentioned above, the Ordinance is expressly intended to “allow individual landowners as great a degree of freedom in the use and enjoyment of their land as is consistent with the accomplishment of [the Ordinance’s] purposes.” See Ordinance, §1.2. The Proposal is consistent with the character of the area, as many of the nearby properties already enjoy screened-in porches with scenic views of Lake Sunapee. The Proposal will allow the Property to be put to its highest and best use without any negative impact to any neighbor or the public at large.

The Proposal will be similar in nature and aesthetic to the existing dwelling and other properties in the area. The purposes of the shoreland overlay district will be met by the inclusion of drainage and erosion controls to minimize the environmental impacts. The spirit of the Zoning Ordinance would thus be observed by granting this variance.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The “substantial justice” element of a variance is guided by two rules: that any loss to the individual that is not outweighed by a gain to the general public is an injustice, and whether the proposed development is consistent with the area’s present use. Malachy Glen, 155 N.H. at 109. The harm to the Applicants of strict enforcement of the Ordinance will far outweigh any benefit to the public in this case. The Proposal allows the Applicant to gain important utility from the Property, including improving the safety conditions thereon by replacing the existing stairway. Denying this variance, on the other hand, would have no material or practical benefit to the public that would outweigh the harm to the Applicants. The DES permit demonstrates that the Proposal would not be environmentally detrimental. The support of the neighbors indicates that the Proposal would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. In short, the Proposal will not create any of the harms zoning ordinances are designed to prevent. There is little to no public benefit in denying the variance that outweighs the loss to the Applicants. Granting the application will therefore result in substantial justice.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The Proposal will have little, if any, impact on the overall character of the area. Most of the other lots in the area already enjoy screened-in porches with access to Lake Sunapee. There is no reason to suspect that the addition of a screened-in porch on the Property will have any negative impact on property values. Additionally, the unanimous support of the neighbors demonstrates that there is no reason the Proposal would diminish the value of surrounding properties.

 

Mr. Thomas opened the public portion of the meeting.

 

Mr. Thomas read into the record a letter from Carl Eberth:

 August 6th, 2022

Dave Blohm

Town of Newbury

937 Route 103

PO Box 296

Newbury, NH 03255

Re: Letter in Support of Variance for 295 Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-170-443)

Dear Chairman Blohm:

My name is Carl Eberth and I am the owner of the property on Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-165-430) abutting 295 Bay Point Road.

John and Stacey Hatem have shared with me their plans to construct a screened in porch and renovate the steps leading towards the lake at 295 Bay Point Road. After learning about their plans, I have concluded there will be minimal negative impact, if any, to my property as an abutter. I have no objection to the plans and fully support their variance application.

Sincerely, Carl Eberth

 

Mr. Thomas read into the record a letter from John Tracey:

 August 6th, 022

Dave Blohm

Town of Newbury

937 Route 103

PO Box 296

Newbury, NH 03255

Re: Letter in Support of Variance for 295 Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-170-443)

Dear Chairman Blohm:

My name is John Tracey and I am the owner of the property at 305 Bay Point Road.

John and Stacey Hatem have shared with me their plans to construct a screened in porch and renovate the steps leading towards the lake at 295 Bay Point Road. After learning about their plans, I have concluded there will be minimal negative impact, if any, to my property as an abutter. I have no objection to the plans and fully support their variance application.

Sincerely, John Tracey

 

Mr. Thomas read into the record a letter from Cynthia Canaday:

 August 7th, 2022

Dave Blohm

Town of Newbury

937 Route 103

PO Box 296

Newbury, NH 03255

Re: Letter in Support of Variance for 295 Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-170-443)

Dear Chairman Blohm:

My name is Cynthia Canaday and I am the owner of the property at 315 Bay Point Road, as well property on Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-210-444).

John and Stacey Hatem have shared with me their plans to construct a screened in porch and renovate the steps leading towards the lake at 295 Bay Point Road. After learning about their plans, I have concluded there will be minimal negative impact, if any, to my property as an abutter. I have no objection to the plans and fully support their variance application.

Sincerely, Cynthia Canaday

 

Mr. Thomas read into the record a letter from Nicole St. Mary

 August 6, 2022

Dave Blohm

Town of Newbury

937 Route 103

PO Box 296

Newbury, NH 03255

Re: Letter in Support of Variance for 295 Bay Point Road (Tax Parcel 6-170-443)

Dear Chairman Blohm:

My name is Nicole St. Mary and I am the owner of the property at 285 Bay Point Road.

John and Stacey Hatem have shared with me their plans to construct a screened in porch and renovate the steps leading towards the lake at 295 Bay Point Road. After learning about their plans, I have concluded there will be minimal negative impact, if any, to my property as an abutter. I have no objection to the plans and fully support their variance application.

Sincerely, Nicole St. Mary

 

There being no further comment from the public, Mr. Thomas closed the public portion of the meeting.

 

Deliberation

Mr. Briggs said he thought the package was well done, in particular he appreciates getting the letters from the abutters. Mr. Briggs continued that the plan was complete and with the two conditions the Board has talked about he feels comfortable.

 

Mr. Thomas said he thinks the applicant has done a good job with the stormwater management that is shown on the plan. Mr. Thomas continued that the applicant should be able to expand with a screen porch and the only place is right there and not backwards into the steep slope.

 

Mr. Briggs made a motion to vote on the request from Cleveland, Waters & Bass, P.A. (agent) for 5H Living Trust (qwner) for property located at 295 Bay Point Road, Newbury, NH for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 20’ x 24’ covered and screened porch within the 50-foot waterfront buffer and within the 75-foot lake setback, Tax Map 006-170-443 with the following conditions:

  • Mitigate the environmental impact on drainage infiltration systems by extending the drainage trench across the driveway and eliminating the drain that goes to the lake, update the plan by Mr. Bedard that was presented to the Board and present to the Code Enforcement Officer with request for building permit.
  • Submit a planting plan for the southern area of the property and by the garage to mitigate runoff into the lake.

Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.

 

Roll Call Vote:

Katheryn Holmes voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

Larry Briggs voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

 

Mr. Thomas 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.

 

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 Wednesday, September 14, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Mohsen Elmasry (agent), Joanne Elmasry (owner), for property located at 50 Fowler Mill Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an 8’ x 8’ deck, and a 12’ x 12’ deck connected by a 4’ x 4’ deck walkway within the 50-foot waterfront buffer and within the 75-foot lake setback. Newbury Tax Map 050-513-231. Copies of the application 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.

 

Mr. Thomas advised the applicant that a full Board is five members, business could be conducted with the three members present however a minimum of three affirmative votes are needed to grant the administrative appeal. Mr. Thomas continued that the applicant could choose to go forward with tonight’s hearing or continue the hearing to a future date and time certain.

 

The applicant chose to proceed with the hearing at this time.

 

Mohsen & Joanne Elmasry presented to the Board.

 

Mrs. Elmasry said currently on the back side of the house, there is a cement slab with the steps that actually sit below the slider, so the proposal is to improve that with the 8’ x 8’ deck over the cement slab to level it off and make it safer. Mrs. Elmasry continued the other piece of the project is to add the 12’ x 12’ deck on the side of the house. Discussion followed.

 

There being no further questions from the Board, Ms. Elmasry addressed Article 16.8 of the ordinance:

 

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because:  The variance to allow construction of the decks would not affect public interest because every effort is and would continue to be used to protect the shoreline from excess water run off.

16.8.2 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship

  1. There are special conditions in the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area because: The property was built very close to the lake. We have already taken care to protect the shoreline from erosion and pollution. We have built up the rock “wall” along out shoreline to prevent erosion. There are several large trees and bushes along the shoreline which provide an extensive rooting system which also aids in the protection of the shoreline.
  2. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: A large percentage of the property is direct waterfront.
  3. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Due to the location of the home, in regards to the shoreline, it is very difficult to adhere to the zoning restrictions. If allowed a variance, we would be able to enhance the property, add necessary safety measures, and put in place our plan to preserve the shoreline.
  4. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: Replacement of the cement steps in the back of the house is necessary due to safety and insurance issues. The construction of the deck on the side of the house provides an additional option to entry, especially in the winter months when snow accumulation from the roof falls in the rear and front of the house, causing safety concerns. The decks would be an improvement and add value to the property, as well.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The construction of the decks would include some additional improvements to prevent the erosion of the shoreline. Currently there are several large trees on the shoreline which provide great root structure along the shore, protecting from erosion. Also, over the last few years, we have been adding a rock “wall” along the reference line to stop erosion. Our plan is to add a rain barrel to the back side of the home and more shoreline vegetation along shoreline to provide additional relief from water runoff to the lake and provide more root structure. Plan to use crushed rock under the deck to allow additional drainage.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Construction of the decks would provide safety, value and provide improvements to the property without creating shoreline issues. There would be no additional stress to the shoreline, as every precaution will be taken to protect the land.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The addition of the decks would not diminish the value of surrounding properties and would likely add value to this property as well as the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Thomas opened the public portion of the meeting.

 

There being no comment from the public, Mr. Thomas closed the public portion of the meeting.

 

Deliberations

 

Mr. Briggs said that he would emphasize to get with the Code Enforcement Officer to understand what is required.

 

Ms. Holmes said a great improvement would be the gutter and she would recommend crushed stone, maybe two feet down, that would be in compliance with good filtration.

 

Mr. Thomas said he doesn’t see a problem with what the applicant is proposing.

 

Mr. Thomas made a motion to vote on the request from Mohsen Elmasry (agent), for Joanne Elmasry (owner) for property located at 50 Fowler Mill Road, Newbury, NH for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an 8’ x 8’ deck, and a 12’ x 12’ deck connected by a 4’ x 4’ deck walkway within the 50 foot waterfront buffer and within the 75 foot lake setback.. Tax Map 050-513-231.

Mr. Briggs seconded the motion.

 

Roll Call Vote:

Katheryn Holmes voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

Larry Briggs voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.4.2.

 

Mr. Thomas 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. Briggs made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Holmes seconded the motion. All in favor.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Tiffany A. Favreau

Recording Secretary