Meeting Minutes

Zoning Board of Adjustment

March 16, 2022

Approved April 13, 2022

Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm,Vice-Chair; Henry Thomas, Member; Steve Hurd, Member; Alex Azodi, Alternate; Katheryn Holmes, Alternate; Larry Briggs, Alternate. Members Not Present: Gary Budd, Member

Public Present: Bob Stewart, Eli Buzzell, Jim & Joanne Lord, Doug Gamsby, Steven Gorey

Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

Mr. Fichter said that he would be retiring from the Board after tonight’s second case. Mr. Fichter continued that the Board would elect officers after the hearings. Mr. Fichtersaid that Steve Hurd was voted in as a member of the Board. Mr. Fichter continued that at the point he retires there will be two years left in his unexpired term which means there is an opportunity for the Board to vote on appointing a person to fill the first year, which is the second year of the unexpired term. Mr. Fichter noted that if that individual wished to continue for the third year of the unexpired term, they will have to run for the Board in 2023.

Mr. Fichter asked the Board for nominations for alternates to the Board. Mr. Fichter made a motion to nominate Alex Azodi as an alternate. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Azodi accepted the nomination.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to nominate Katheryn Holmes as an alternate. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.Ms. Holmes accepted the nomination.

Mr. Fichter made a motion to nominate Larry Briggs as an alternate. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.Mr. Briggs accepted the nomination.

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of February 9, 2022. Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the February 9, 2022minutes as presented. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. All in favor.

Board introductions.

Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Azodi as a voting member.

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, March 16, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:05 p.m., RCS Designs (agent), Allen P. Costigliola (owner), for property located at 279 Mountain Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a garage within the 30’ right of way setback. Newbury Tax Map 022-239-273. 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.

Bob Stewart from RCS Designs presented to the Board. Mr. Stewart said the applicant would like to raze the existing home and garage and build a new building. Mr. Stewart continued that he spent time on the property and delineated the wetlands. Mr. Stewart said this lot is in two different zones, the Shoreland zone because this is a named brook and under the Town’s zoning it does require a 75’ setback from the brook. Mr. Stewart continued that it is presently 90’ from the brook and the proposed plan will be 105’ well beyond the 75’ setback.

Mr. Stewart said the new proposed building will be in the front setback at 20.2 feet. Mr. Fichter asked where the current garage was in regard to the front setback. Mr. Stewart said the current garage is in the front setback at 16.7 feet, so the proposed is more conforming. Mr. Stewart continued that there is 169 square feet more of living space than in the existing and the garage will be connected withthe building, so it is one unit.

Mr. Stewart said the existing building is approximately 18’ from the wetland and the proposed building at its closest point is 32 ‘from the wetland. Mr. Stewart continued that the applicant decided that they wanted to pull it as far away from the wetland as possible which is why the applicant is asking for about a 10-foot relief to the road. Discussion followed.

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

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: A house and all it’s improvements currently exist on this lot, it is the owner’s intent to raze the existing building and construct a new home. In an effort to avoid building close to the existing wetland, the new home is proposed approximately 10 foot further away than the existing. Building further away from the wetland is in the public interest.

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: This property lies in a shoreland zone and a wetland conservation district. Not all properties that lie in a shoreland zone are also burdened by a wetland conservation district. Therefore it is different than most properties because of the multiple overlay districts.

b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: of the conditions listed above

c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: conditions listed above

d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonablebecause: The overall footprint of the home is more nearly conforming than the original footprint. Because the home will be further away from the wetland and brook.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: Because of the two overlay districts. Wetlands Overlay District and the Shoreland Overlay District will both benefit by a further setback. The reason for the placement of the home is to achieve a more responsible placement of the house.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The wetland will be more protected and the home with garage will be further from the wetland so the public and the applicant will both receive justice.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: This will be a residential home in a residential zone. No changes in use just a better new home in the neighborhood.

Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Briggs asked about tree cutting. Mr. Stewart said there would be no trees cut in the 50-foot buffer.

Ms. Holmes noted that 25% in the woodland buffer needs to be undisturbed. Mr. Stewart said this proposal maintains greater than 25%. Discussion followed.

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

Deliberations

Mr. Fichter said this looks like a responsible action, a positive for the particular area.

Mr. Blohm said he agrees with the whole approach, likes the fact that the septic system is put where it is and it’s new. Mr. Blohm continued that guttering is always a great way to go and this proposal is a good give and take.

Mr. Azodi said it seems that every effort has been taken to make it better.

Mr. Thomas said the efforts are good, they moved it back from the wetland and the brook and it fits the neighborhood.

Mr. Hurd said it looks good and makes sense.

Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request from RCS Designs (agent), Allen P. Costigliola (owner), for property located at 279 Mountain Road, Newbury, NH, for aVariance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a garage within the 30’ right of way setback. Newbury Tax Map 022-239-273. Mr. Thomasseconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote:

Peter Fichter-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.

Dave Blohm- voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.

Steve Hurd-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.

Alex Azodi- voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.

Henry Thomas- voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.

Five votes to Grant the Variance.

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.

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, March 16, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:20 p.m., Doug Gamsby (agent), Steven & Cynthia Gorey (owners), for property located at 17 Lakewood Manor Place, Newbury, NH, will seek Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Placement of a carport within the 15’ side setback and the 75’ lake setback. Newbury Tax Map 019-701-512. 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.

Doug Gamsby from Greenline Property Servicesintroduced Steven Gorey as the owner and presented to the Board.

Mr. Gamsby said what is being proposed is to build a carport type of structure, rather than a garage type structure in that it doesn’t have a full foundation. Mr. Gamsby continued that the reason was because it would be three feet from the property line. Mr. Gamsby said the reason for the placement of the carport is due to the juxtaposition of the existing house that was built in the 60s or 70s that is actually over the setback. Mr. Gamsby continued that the applicant had originally looked at placement of the carport on the northerly side of the house but determined that because this is a dead-end road and end of the driveway and abutter structures there is limited space for plowing and turning around for large trucks and the best fit for the carport would be on the other side. 

Mr. Blohm asked if the carport was going to have open sides. Mr. Gamsby said it will be a 10-foot-wide structure on piers rather than a foundation, so we don’t have to go further into the setback. Mr. Blohm asked if there will be a pitch to the roof. Mr. Gamsby said it will be a shed roof. Mr. Blohm asked if it will be attached to the house. Mr. Gamsby said yes it will be attached to the house and the applicant will need to make some changes to the house. Mr. Gamsby said it is a minimal area to protect a car in the winter and in the summer from pine pitch.

Mr. Blohm asked if the big tree will be taken down. Mr. Gamsby said that there will be three trees that will come out. Mr. Gamsby continued that there will be only one tree removed from the 50-foot buffer but there are still four trees left for a total of 30 points. Discussion followed.

Mr. Gamsby said another part of the proposal is lessening the impervious area of the lot by including a pervious parking area, pervious parking in front of the carport, getting rid of the shed and cutting back on the deck. Mr. Gamsby continued that the impervious area will be brought down from 23.05 square feet to 16.30 square feet, so from 33.8% to 23.9%. Mr. Blohm asked what the pervious driveway on the left was going to be. Mr. Gamsby said both driveways were going to be a paver block type.

Mr. Gamsby said as far as stormwater management, the house is guttered right now on both sides and that will be left as it is and put into the subsurface of pervious parking area which is essentially a large drywell. Mr. Gamsby continued that on the carport shed roof there will be a stone drip edge.

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

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The owners wish to have a very small single bay carport measuring 10 feet by 20 feet to protect their vehicle from both the weather and the pine sap from the overabundance of pine trees on the lot. They are also going to install a new septic system to meet current State standards. The septic tank and pump chamber are to be replaced near the house and the septic leach field will be replaced in the same location as the original on the far side of Lakewood Manor. Additionally, a portion of the existing impervious area on the lot will be converted to pervious area to lessen the impact 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 is very narrow and is on a peninsula, limiting the width of the lot and 2 abutting lots. The lot was created as part of a subdivision in 1969, prior to Town zoning regulations.

b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The way the house was originally constructed, it is close to the 15’ side setback on the easterly side. The road is a dead end at the end of this and the abutting properties, so there is little room for vehicular maneuvering. The westerly side of the lot is needed for maneuverability of snow plows, emergency and delivery vehicles to turn around.

c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The lot is narrow and small. Almost the entire lot is within the 75’ building setback of the lake and a portion of the lot is within the shared driveway. There is no place on the lot where a carport could be constructed and be compliant with the zoning regulations.

d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:The owners of the property are here seasonally right now but are anticipating a move to full time occupancy in the near future. Having a garage to keep a vehicle out of the weather, especially in winter, is a very reasonable request.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The proposed garage location will be farther from the lake than the existing house is located, minimizing the potential impact to the lake. Additionally, the impervious area of the lot will be diminished from 33.8% to 23.9% with the partial removal of the road sidedeck and addition of pervious driveway & parking area, further reducing the impact to the lake.

Mr. Blohm noted that the term garage was used twice, and carport was used earlier. Mr. Fichter asked Mr. Gamsby to define what this structure if going to be. Mr. Fichter asked if it will have a roof. Mr. Gamsby said yes. Mr. Fichterasked if it will have an inside surface of dirt. Mr. Gamsby said yes. Mr. Fichter asked if it was going to have sides. Mr. Gamsby said it is just going to be piers and probably a plywood border along the drip edge to kind of hold everything in. Mr. Fichter asked if there will be a garage door. Mr. Gamsby said yes there will be a garage door. Mr. Fichter asked if this was going to more like a garage then a carport. Mr. Gamsby said yes. Mr. Fichter said the traditional notion of a carport is there is a roof and open sides. Mr. Fichter continued that he doesn’t know that semantics make that much difference, but the Board likes to see consistency in the terminology and also a clear picture.Mr. Fichter said this is a mostly enclosed structure. Mr. Gamsby said yes, but the lack of a foundation makes it a carport in his mind. Mr. Hurd said especially being attached to the house, carports should be off on its own. Mr. Fichtersaid let’s not get hung up on the definition, let’s be clear on what’s being proposed. Mr. Azodi asked if a definition would make a difference in our Ordinance. Mr. Fichter said no. Mr. Thomas said it is a structure in the setback whether it has sides or a garage door. Discussion followed.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The owners will have a protected area for their vehicle, a new State approved septic system will be installed and a significant reduction in the lot impervious area are all being proposed, which will minimize disturbance to the lack.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The majority of the houses in the area have garages. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing house, making it less obvious and the smaller deck on the roadside of the house will not be as obtrusive looking. Additionally, limited landscaping can be installed in the area of the proposed septic tank & pump chamber, improving the curb appeal of the property.

Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Fichter read into the record a letter from Robert & Karen Stockton: March 4, 2022, Town of Newbury, State of New Hampshire, Zoning Board of Adjustment, RE: Variance sought by Cynthia and Steven Gorey, Tax Map 019-701-512, Dear Board Members, My wife and I are contiguous property owners at 15 Lakewood Manor PL. We are in receipt of Notice of the Variance Application of Cynthia and Steven Gorey seeking construction of a carport adjacent to their home and abutting our property. The Gorey’s are wonderful, responsible, neighbors who seek to improve their home while maintaining their stewardship of Lake Sunapee and its shoreline. We are confident that if the variance is granted, the placement and construction of the structure will be done properly using appropriate methods to protect the lake and will be attractive while adding greater function and value to their home. We do not oppose the application and encourage the Board to approve the variance. Very Truly Yours, Robertand Karen Stockton.

Mr. Fichter read into the record a letter from Peter & Nancy Keenan: March 14,2022, Peter Fichter, Chairman, Newbury Zoning Board, Town of Newbury, 937 New Hampshire Rout 103 Newbury, NH 03255, Re: 17 Lakewood Manor Place, Dear Mr. Fichter and Members, We are direct abutters of the above property which is the subject of a hearing before your Board on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. We own and reside in the property situated at 19 Lakewood Manor Place. The upcoming hearing is onthe petition of Steven and Cynthia Gorey who seek necessary variances to allow construction of a carport on the southerly side of their home. We write to express our unqualified support for the granting of the variances. Parking on Lakewood Manor Place is virtually impossible. Providing a safe, accessible and under-cover parking space for the Goreys will be a significant benefit to them. We are confident that the structure will also be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. We encourage you to grant the relief sought. Yours sincerely, Peter and Nancy Keenan.

Discussion followed. 

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

Deliberations

Mr. Blohm said he thinks it makes a difference whether the applicant is going to use piers to not damage the tree.

Mr. Fichter said he wanted to summarize what he thinks the Board has heard, it looks as though the construction is going to be based on piers, which may or may not be more favorable to the trees.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request fromDoug Gamsby (agent), Steven & Cynthia Gorey (owners), for property located at 17 Lakewood Manor Place, Newbury, NH, to seek Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Placement of a carport within the 15’ side setback and the 75’ lake setback. Newbury Tax Map 019-701-512. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote:

Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2.

Alex Azodi voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2.

Steve Hurd voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2.

Dave Blohm voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2.

Peter Fichter voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 7.4.2.

Five votes to Grant the Variances.

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. Fichter said as his last official act he would like to thank the Board for the privilege to serve with them. Mr. Fichter turned the meeting over to Ms. Favreau for election of officers. Ms. Favreau asked for nominations for Board Chair. 

Mr. Thomas made a motion to nominate Mr. Blohm for Board Chair. Mr. Azodi seconded the motion. All in favor.

Mr. Azodi made a motion to nominate Mr. Thomas for Board Vice-Chair. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to nominate Mr. Briggs to fill the second year of Mr. Fichter’s unexpired term. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Briggs accepted the nomination.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Thomasseconded the motion. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tiffany A. Favreau

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment                     Page 1 of 6                        March 16, 2022