Zoning Board Meeting
Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 27, 2022
Approved October 12, 2022
Members Present: David Blohm, Chair; Henry Thomas, Vice-Chair; Larry Briggs, Member; Gary Budd, Member; Steve Hurd, Member
Members Not Present: Alex Azodi, Alternate; Katheryn Holmes, Alternate
Public Present: James Bruss; Laura Raymond, Michael Webster
Mr. Blohm called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of June 8, 2022. Mr. Briggs made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.
Board introductions.
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. Blohm asked the applicant what, if anything has happened since the last hearing. Mr. Webster said he called Mr. Abbott on July 5th, Mr. Abbott said he had not spoken with anyone so he would call the applicant in a week, which he didn’t. Mr. Webster called Mr. Abbott again and was told by Mr. Abbott that he didn’t have any idea how to permit the house and didn’t know what to do so he went to the SelectBoard who had the Town Manager send the applicant a letter. Mr. Briggs asked if there were ever anymeetings to find some way to resolve the issue. Mr. Webster said that Mr. Abbott was pretty resolute that he didn’t even want to come out and look at it. Mr. Webster continued that Mr. Abbott said no foundation, can’t permit.
Mr. Blohm said that as it turns out with study of the zoning regs, it can’t receive a permit, so that is why Mr. Abbott is taking his point of view. Mr. Webster said the Town has permitted a tree house and has other tree houses that aren’t permitted. Mr. Webster said that Paul Lacasse had told him that a permit was not needed if there was no electricity, plumbing or a kitchen, so the applicant built the treehouse about seven years ago.
Mr. Briggs asked what the treehouse is used for. Mr. Webster said right now, not a lot, his wife goes down there to work once in a while, they used to rent it. Mr. Blohmasked about the intended use going forward. Mr. Webster said to go there during the day and get some peace, there is a firepit there which Mr. Thomas permitted. Mr. Thomas said the heat inside the treehouse has been permitted, there is a propane fireplace inside the treehouse. Mr. Thomas said he believes that this is an accessory use of the property. Mr. Thomas said sheds obviously do not sit on full foundations. Discussion followed.
Mr. Briggs said that he has some sympathy for a father that wants to build a treehouse for his kids, and it is clearly not clearly defined within the Ordinance. Mr. Briggs said he was asking his fellow Board members if it would be appropriate and the applicant was willing, to table this once more and schedule a session with Mr. Abbott, a member of the Board, Mr. Briggs said he would volunteer, to try to find an interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Briggs said there are per the Ordinance, section 5.4, uses permitted by special exception, things like a private recreational facility, it seems the Board should have some latitude. Discussion followed.
Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no comment from the public, Mr. Blohmclosed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Blohm said if the Board goes down the route Mr. Briggs is suggesting, it has to be defined as something, it’s either defined or ignored, it’s one or the other. Mr. Briggs said he is going to suggest that the Board not call it a structure, so it doesn’t require the building permit, interpret as a children’s, big children playset. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Thomas if he liked private recreational facility. Mr. Thomas asked if that is like a tennis court. Ms. Favreau said the Zoning Ordinance defines private recreational facility as any establishment not opened to the general public whose main purpose is to provide its bona fide members and guests with an amusing or entertaining activity. Typical uses include meeting facility, golf course, tennis court and other court games, health club, and bowling alley. Mr. Thomas said a meeting place is part of the definition. Mr. Briggs said if the applicant does it that way he needs the special exception, which means he needs the building permit, needs inspections and all that stuff. Mr. Thomas suggested that before the applicant goes through the route of a special exception, he gets the code enforcement personbehind this, because if he gets a special exception and then goes for a permit that is still denied for other reasons the Board will be hearing from the applicant for the next six months or so.
Mr. Blohm said that Mr. Briggs had suggested continuing this one more time. Mr. Briggs said his intent for the first continuance was to provide some time for the two parties, the building inspector and the applicant, to meet and find some common ground. Mr. Briggs continued that for whatever reason, it sounds like that meeting didn’t happen. Mr. Webster said they did it over the phone, but Mr. Abbott did not want to come out because he said flat out that he couldn’t permit it. Mr. Briggs said he didn’t see the harm in trying for one more continuance and he will volunteer to express his view. Mr. Hurd asked if the Board continues this, then what, come back and go around in circles again. Mr. Blohm said that right now the SelectBoard is saying take it down, code enforcement officer is therefore saying take it down and the Board has no choice the way it stands except to say take it down. Mr. Briggs said a literal interpretation says take it down. Mr. Blohm said correct, so the only alternative is to come up with a different definition and if the other people do not get on board with that, then it’s take it down. Discussion followed.
Mr. Briggs made a motion to continue this hearing until September 14, 2022 at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.
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, July 27, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:10 p.m.,James Bruss (agent), Heath Family Trust (owner), for property located at 1485 Route 103, Newbury, NH, will seek a Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: A contractor’s yard as a permitted use in the Business District. Newbury Tax Map 007-549-130. 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.
James Bruss from Relax & Co. presented to the Board.
Mr. Bruss said Relax & Co. does building maintenance and construction services basically to the second home market on Lake Sunapee. Mr. Bruss continued they have been in business since 2014 and currently located at 276 Mountain Road, here in Newbury, not in a district they are supposed to be and wanting to get into a district where they are legally allowed, and this is as close as they have been able to come in a three-year search. Mr. Bruss continued because they work around Lake Sunapee being on an access to Lake Sunapee is obviously a big benefit and makes the business much more efficient. Mr. Blohm asked what the day-to-day operation of the business looked like and how would the contractor’s yard fit in. Mr. Bruss said contractor’s yard, offices and shop space. Mr. Bruss continued that the business provides anything you need for a second home, from grocery shopping, cleaning services, maintaining landscaping to renovating a kitchen. Mr. Bruss said for the most part the business is run with their own employees, there are very few subcontractors used, there are 50 full-time year-round employees and in the summertime that number grows. Mr. Bruss continued that generally speaking most of the hours are 7am to 5pmMonday through Friday, however they are staffed 24/7 since plumbing and other things don’t necessarily break between 9 and 5, but most of those people are responding to those calls from home and are coming to the office or shop space only on occasion. Mr. Bruss said that in the summertime and heart of wintertime the shop is busy on Saturdays, as well, because they work for people who rent their properties and go to clean or repair on that turnover day.
Mr. Blohm said the plan submitted with the applicationshows a bunch of trucks and vehicles. Mr. Blohm asked the applicant to talk about those. Mr. Bruss said they have a total of fifteen vehicles between cleaning cars, pick uptrucks for pulling lawnmowers. Mr. Bruss continued that the biggest piece of equipment they have is an F550 dump truck and one small tractor loader.
Mr. Briggs said with 50 employees he sees ten cars are shown on the plan. Mr. Bruss showed the Board the Site Plan that was submitted to the Planning Board which shows a total of 37 parking spaces which was developed further from the plan submitted to the Board. Discussion followed.
Mr. Hurd asked if this property was already a commercial property. Mr. Bruss said yes. Mr. Thomas said this would be a change of use.
Mr. Blohm asked if any material would be stored there. Mr. Bruss said they may have mulch in the summertime and sand in the winter. Mr. Blohm asked where they would be stored. Mr. Bruss said behind the fence. Mr. Briggs asked how high would the fence be. Mr. Bruss said about 40 feet beyond the building it starts to slope dropping about 5 feet over 10 feet and then flattens out again, so from the roadside, no matter how tall you build the fence you will be looking down into that yard. Mr. Bruss continued that it is proposed as a six-foot solid cedar shiplap fence all along the road and returning to the building and then chain link across the back. Mr. Briggs asked the distance from the fence line to the edge of Route 103. Mr. Bruss said about 20 feet. Discussion followed.
Mr. Budd asked if the applicant was planning to do anything with the building. Mr. Bruss said there are a lot of repairs that need to be done, needs new floor systems,needs a new roof on part of the building, a new septic system will be put in. Mr. Bruss continued that they would be pressure washing the building, replacing the sign and landscaping the islands that are up by the road.
Mr. Hurd asked if the applicant had purchased the property already. Mr. Bruss said they were leasing the property but have a purchase option. Mr. Hurd asked how many acres. Mr. Bruss said 23 acres. Discussion followed.
Mr. Budd said that he likes this proposal because there have been so many different entities that have tried and there has been such a lack of stability over the last 20 years or more. Mr. Bruss said it is just beyond where a retail or restaurant would have a traffic flow. Mr. Budd said he sees it as an ideal situation because the applicant is not relying on the traffic.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Brussaddressed Article 16.7 of the zoning ordinance:
16.7.1 The use will not be detrimental to the character or enjoyment of the neighborhood because: Relax and Companies use will not negatively affect the surrounding property as all storage areas are planned to be screened from the road use. In addition, we plan other exterior improvements including gardening, regular mowing and maintenance work to take what was an abandoned building back to life again.
16.7.2 The use will not be injurious, noxious, or offensive and thus detrimental to the neighborhood because: The property located on Route 103 will not see significant increased traffic due to the location of our business there. The services we provide are at the customers property so there will be no significant work being done on site. All screening will be in place to both secure and make a clean and neat appearance from the roadside.
16.7.3 The use will not be contrary to the public health, safety or welfare by reason of undue traffic congestion or hazards, undue risk to life and property, unsanitary or unhealthful emissions or waste disposal, or similar adverse causes or conditions because: With our business located on Route 103 we will not in any way overburden the area roadways. We do not work with hazardous material and all waste on site is put in our dumpster which is emptied on a weekly basis.
16.7.4 The size of the site in relation to the proposed use and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future street giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with the neighborhood because: The location of our business there will be in harmony with the neighborhood for several reasons. First, there have been many retail or entertainment businesses that have tried to make a go on this site and all have failed. We do not need foot traffic for our operations so where they failed, it will not negatively impact us. Second, this site is 20 acres in total and is fronted on the major highway serving the area, so the addition of the relatively small amount of cars our business adds will not unduly disturb or hurt the neighborhood in any way.
16.7.5 The operations in connection with this use shall not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, odor, or vibration , than would be the operations of any permitted use in this district which are not subject to special exception procedures because: Our business does not generate fumes, odor or vibration and the noise level is one that will not cause noise pollution extending off the property.
Mr. Briggs asked if the plan is to park the trailers and trucks within the fenced area versus out in the employee parking lot. Mr. Bruss said that there is a phase two that the applicant would look to add to the property at some point in the future as the business continues to grow, to add a secondary area if and when the yard can no longer contain the equipment. Mr. Blohm asked it that area abuts the cemetery. Mr. Bruss said it is over 800 feet from the cemetery.
Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no comment from the public, Mr. Blohmclosed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Briggs made a motion to vote on the request fromJames Bruss (agent) for Heath Family Trust (Owner) for property located at 1485 Route 103, Newbury, NH for a Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: A contractor’s yard as a permitted use in the Business District. Newbury Tax Map 007-549-130. Mr. Thomasseconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Gary Budd voted to Grant the Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2.
David Blohm voted to Grant the Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2.
Larry Briggs voted to Grant the Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2.
Steven Hurd voted to Grant the Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2.
Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Special Exception as provided for in Article 4.3.2.
Mr. Blohm 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 Board discussed suggestions for Zoning Ordinance amendments to prepare for the Joint Board meeting with the Planning Board scheduled for August 1, 2022.
Mr. Budd made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 July 27, 2022