Zoning Board Minutes

Meeting date: 
Monday, January 14, 2019

 

Zoning Board of Adjustment

January 14, 2019

Approved February 11, 2019

 

Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair; Nancy Marashio, Gary Budd, Members; Henry Thomas, Alex Azodi, Alternates.

 

Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

 

Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Azodi as a voting member for this meeting.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of October 9, 2018 and made corrections. Mr. Budd made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.

 

Rules of Procedure

Mr. Fichter noted that the Land Use Administrator informed him that the ZBA Rules of Procedure need updating, specifically in the costs assigned to certain application fees. Mr. Fichter asked Board members to review the Rules and present their suggestions at the next meeting.

 

Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) Meeting

Mr. Blohm said he met with the CEO regarding stormwater management plans. The CEO stated that the ZBA is the first line of defense in the protection of the lake via stormwater management plans and that the CEO works in conjunction with the ZBA on this matter. Discussion followed.

 

It was suggested that the ZBA schedule a Work Session meeting with the CEO to fully discuss the stormwater management plan area as it pertains to ZBA applications. Mr. Fichter stated that he would schedule a meeting with CEO and inform the Board.

 

Tiki Bar Update

Mr. Fichter informed the Board that the CEO is filing a complaint with the state regarding the Tiki Bar located at Chandler Beach. The CEO sent the owner a letter requesting the removal of the bar and received no response – and no removal of the bar. The matter is now in the hands of the state. The CEO also noted that an extra dock is in place at the location.

 

Variance

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 Monday January 14, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Colin & Melissa Nelson (owners), for property located at 142 Rollins Rd., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.7.9 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following:  Construction of an accessory apartment in a detached garage with floor area exceeding allowable square footage.  Newbury Tax Map 029-692-049. 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. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.

 

Colin Nelson presented to the Board. Mr. Nelson said the house and garage were built in 1965 or 1966 by his parents. He stated that the garage had a low ceiling – 5-foot 9-inch trusses and 3-foot hips. Over the years, the roof weakened. He said he decided to put in a knee wall to raise it, with the intention of putting in an in-law apartment.

 

He said he got a permit from John Greenwood (former Newbury CEO) for the above. At the time, he informed Mr. Greenwood that the project would proceed bit by bit, as monies allowed. The project was halted when the septic system failed and had to be replaced at a cost of $15,000. Mr. Nelson realized that the original building permit might expire.

 

After Mr. Greenwood’s departure and the current CEO’s arrival, Mr. Nelson found out that what he had called an “in-law” apartment was now called an ADU – and it carried different regulations. He added that his project is off by 46 square feet under the ADU regulations.

 

Mr. Nelson added that he had to “build in” instead of “out” to accommodate insulation for water and sewer pipes. This means that the square footage exceeds the 50% regulation.

 

Mr. Thomas said he measured all interior areas. He recited his measurements as 740 square feet in the upper level and 697 square feet in the lower level (with some deductions). The deductions brought the square footage to 572 square feet.

 

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

 

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The ADU is being built upon an older foundation footprint. The interior of this existing garage section is being framed down to provide enough room for new insulation to protect new water and sewer lines within the framing. This creates as imbalance regarding square foot allowances. The structure is not threatening the appearance of other structures nearby.  

 

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: We are modifying what was once unusable space, converting the garage to usable area, and adding an ADU over it.

            b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: When this project is complete, we plan to sell the property to a family member. We will stay on the property as part of our family and the community.

            c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: ADU regulations are very stringent regarding square footage allowances. By decreasing usable square footage in the garage section to protect sewer and water lines, our storage area was decreased. The ADU is on this footprint, but because of the very thick foundation and insulation, the square footage of the living space exceeds 50%.

            d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The space will now be usable and useful. The newer structure will improve the look of the property.  

 

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The addition of the ADU will allow us to remain on the property as we age, and allow our family to continue to enjoy the property. We hope to stay involved in the community long term, [and] this plan will allow for this.

 

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: We have owned the property for over 25 years. The garage has been on the property since our purchase but was unusable due to its low height – a car would not fit inside. This project improves the usability of the building.

 

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: We are improving on an existing foundation that has been here for over 25 years. This will improve the appearance of our property without impacting our neighbors.

 

Mr. Nelson noted that the building permit was initially approved and then denied because the project was being built bit by bit. Initially, we got a permit from John Greenwood (former CEO) to go from trusses to building an in-law apartment. Then, because money had to be spent on putting in a new septic system, the project was halted. Then, we got a permit to build a knee wall and storage. Mr. Nelson admitted that he simply forgot about the details in the permit. When he started to proceed with building an ADU, his permit was denied because it exceed the original permit for a knee wall and storage.

 

Mr. Azodi asked about plans to sell the property. Mr. Nelson said his daughter Melissa is buying the entire property and the ADU will be for her parents, Colin and his wife.

 

Ms. Marashio asked how the insulation changed the interior size. Mr. Nelson showed the Board pictures that illustrated how the build-out inside to include insulation decreased the interior square footage. He added that insulation will be included in the downstairs areas as well.

 

Mr. Budd noted that Mr. Nelson couldn’t build out so he had to build in and that threw off the measurements per the ADU regulations.

 

There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.

 

There being no Public present, Mr. Fichter closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.

 

Mr. Azodi noted that the situation as presented did not violate the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Blohm and Mr. Fichter agreed.

 

Ms. Marshio noted that the lot is over four acres and the applicant has clearly presented the situation as an unanticipated set of circumstances over time.

 

There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Vote.

 

Ms. Marashio made a motion to vote on the request from Colin & Melissa Nelson (owners), for property located at 142 Rollins Rd., Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.7.9 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following:  Construction of an accessory apartment in a detached garage with floor area exceeding allowable square footage.  Newbury Tax Map 029-692-049. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.7.9.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.7.9.

Mr. Azodi voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.7.9.

Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.7.9.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.7.9.

 

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 as per RSA 677:2.  Said motion must set forth, in detail, all grounds on which the appeal is based.

 

There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Adjourn.

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Meg Whittemore

Recording Secretary