Zoning Board Minutes

Zoning Board of Adjustment

April 8, 2019

Approved May 13, 2019

Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; Nancy Marashio, Gary Budd, Members; Henry Thomas, Alternate.

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

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

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Election of Officers

Mr. Fichter noted that a full Board was not present for tonight’s meeting and recommended that election of officers occur at the next ZBA meeting. The Board agreed.

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of December 10, 2018 and made corrections. Ms. Marashio made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.

The Board reviewed the minutes of February 11, 2019 and made corrections. Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.

At 7:15 p.m., Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.

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, April 8, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Peter & Nancy Keenan, for property located at 19 Lakewood Manor Place, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 25’X26’ garage within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, within 15’ of the rear setback, and within the 30’ right of way setback.  Newbury Tax Map 019-706-519. 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 informed the applicant that a full ZBA board is comprised of five members and that the Board needs three members to conduct business. He added that there are four voting members present for tonight’s meeting. He asked the applicant is they wish to proceed, given the reduced number of voting members. The applicant said yes, they would like to proceed.

Mr. Fichter reviewed the applicant’s application and noted that several references were not needed for Board consideration. Paragraphs 7.7.1, 7.3.1, and 7.8.1 referred to definitions. Mr. Fichter stated that the Board will be examining the Variance request for Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1.  

Peter & Nancy Keenan, applicant, agreed and Mr. Keenan presented to the Board.

Mr. Keenan noted that the house was built in 1972 (Lot 13) and reviewed the original subdivision plans for Lakewood Manor from 1969. He stated that Lakewood Manor Road is a paved road and Lakewood Manor Place is not. In 1987 the Keenans purchased Lot 13 with included a house. They razed the house 30 years ago and built a new house in its place. Their intent is to retire and live in their house full time.

Mr. Keenan explained that Lot 14 was a pre-existing, non-conforming vacant lot and that he and his immediate abutter co-purchased the lot and divided it in half. Mr. Keenan stated that he met with the Planning Board and received approval for a lot line adjustment and an annexation for the ½ portion of Lot 14. Mr. Keenan added that the intent of purchasing Lot 14 was to prevent a house from being built and to accommodate future needs for a garage. He noted that a house on Lot 14 would have created increased density, added another septic system to the neighborhood, and increased vehicle congestion.

The proposed garage will be placed on the newly annexed ½ of Lot 14 and abuts to the south side of Lot 13. The lot is narrow and is within the 75-foot setback in its entirety. Mr. Keenan noted that placement of the proposed garage on the lot is challenging and indicated on the plan the setback restrictions.

He noted that parking is currently on the right-of-way and having a garage will improve that situation. He reviewed the temporary and permanent stormwater management controls and measures, per the engineer-stamped plan prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, White River Junction, VT.

Ms. Marashio commended the Keenans on the purchase of Lot 14 and improving the non-conformance of that lot.

Mr. Fichter asked about the intended materials for the surface between the garage and the house and if it was pervious or impervious, citing concerns of its proximity to the lake and stormwater runoff issues.

Mr. Keenan said he envisions a paved 10-foot strips between the two buildings and noted that the existing right-of-way is bluestone. Discussion followed about the degree of effective drainage provided by bluestone.

Ms. Marashio asked about the maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management measures. Mr. Keenan said that maintenance was included in the plan and said there will be two inspections annually. He added that they will do whatever is needed to meet with the town’s recommendations regarding same.

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

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: (1) The property is in the Residential Zoning District.  The proposed garage is a residential use.  Our proposed use does not conflict with the basic zoning objectives of the ordinance.  Literal enforcement of the zoning provisions from which this variance is requested would unreasonably restrict our residential use and the grant of the variance will cause no harm to our neighbors or the public interest. The proposed garage and its location on the Current Lot will be consistent with the other structures in the neighborhood, all of which are within the Article 7.3.1 Shoreland Overlay District and, in many cases, within the setbacks from which we request a variance. (2) The Annexed Parcel was one-half of a legal pre-existing nonconforming lot prior to the annexation.  The lot was a "lot of record" and was shown as a lot on a recorded subdivision plan.  We purchased the parcel for the purpose of securing all necessary permits and to construct a garage.  We also were motivated, as was our co-buying neighbor, to prevent construction of a house on the lot.  By purchasing and dividing the vacant pre-existing lot, we and our neighbor prevented construction of a house which would be a larger structure, would generate more cars, congestion and other potential environmental concerns arising out of sewerage disposal, fuel storage, etc. (3) The garage construction will include temporary and permanent stormwater management measures, none of which currently exist.  The treatment plan was prepared by Fuss and O'Neil, Professional Engineers, to protect the quality of the Lake Sunapee water from the effects of erosion, prevent siltation and turbidity, stabilize soils and prevent nutrient pollution. Our construction will respect the overall natural condition of the protected shorefront to the greatest extent possible. (4) The grant of the variance will not "...unduly and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance’s basic zoning objectives."  Harborside Assocs. v. Parade Residence Hotel, 162 N.H. 508, 514 (2011).  In addition, granting the variance will not "...alter the essential character of the locality or threaten public health, safety, or welfare." Nine A, LLC  v.  Town of Chesterfield, 157 N.H. 361, 366 (2008).

 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 site plan, Exhibit A, clearly depicts the unique aspects of the Current Lot.  The Current Lot contains 12,990 square feet with 254 feet of lake frontage and approximately 80 feet of frontage on the right-of-way.  Our lot makes up most of a peninsular facing north on the lake.  The lot is a very narrow one, approximately 70 feet at its widest point.  There is no other location on the lot upon which to construct the garage other than on the Annexed Parcel.  Our home, the existing underground propane gas tank and septic tank prevent placing it elsewhere on the Original Lot. The proposed garage will be placed with the greatest setback compliance possible and so as to have the least possible impact on the shoreland.  The garage will have no eavestroughs and downspouts so that roof runoff will fall into the permanent stormwater management system to protect the lake.

            b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The addition of the Annexed Parcel has made our Current Parcel larger than most of the lots in the neighborhood.  It is however, extremely narrow which prevents it from use in strict conformity with the setback provisions of the ordinance from which we request a variance.  Because it is so narrow and on the peninsular, most of the lot is within the 50' waterfront buffer.  The entire lot is within the 75' building setback, the 150' natural woodland buffer and the 250' Shoreland Overlay District.  It is impossible to conform with the setback requirements.  Our proposed garage placement is reasonable and observes the setbacks to the greatest extent possible while also respecting the protected shorefront. The only area of the lot on which the garage can be constructed is the Annexed Parcel which consists of .096 acre or 4,181.76 square feet.  At the widest point it is approximately 68' x 78', making it impossible to comply with the dimensional setbacks as well.

            c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The fact that our Current Lot makes up most of a narrow peninsular makes conformance with the dimensional setback requirements and the shoreland setbacks impossible.  The house, septic tank and propane tank make construction of the garage on the Original Lot impossible.  The Annexed Parcel is the only area on which it can be constructed.

            d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The proposed garage is a residential use which is dramatically less intensive than a home would have been to the neighborhood.  The garage will be aesthetically pleasing.  It will reduce congestion in the neighborhood by providing garage space for our cars and boat and eliminate outdoor storage boxes in our yard.  In addition, maneuverability on the right-of-way and at our house will be dramatically improved for us and our neighbors.  The proposed location of the garage in relation to the zoning provisions from which a variance is sought is reasonable.  The zoning restrictions unduly interfere with the residential use of the property.  Therefore, the grant of the variance is warranted.  

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The use is a residential use in the Residential Zone.  The shoreland will be protected by the stormwater management measures to be installed.  The garage will be set back 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.  This will provide an additional 10 feet of needed space to maneuver cars because the right-of-way is only approximately 10 feet wide.  The rear lot line setback variance of 5 feet will not adversely affect our abutting neighbor.  That house will be approximately 75 feet from the garage and there is a steep slope between the two.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: We will be substantially harmed if the variance is not granted; on the contrary, if it is granted, not only will we benefit, but our neighbors will benefit as well as a result of the elimination of outdoor parking, boat storage and storage boxes.  The shoreland will benefit by the addition of the planned stormwater maintenance measures which currently do not exist. We have made a significant investment in purchasing the Annexed Parcel to prevent overdevelopment of it by construction of a house and so that we could construct a garage.  The garage will be a benefit to us and our neighbors, whereas a house would have had a dramatic negative effect on the neighborhood, the abutters, and the lake.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: (1) The garage will be barely visible from the lake because of the significant number of trees on our Current Lot. (2) The rear setback variance of 5 feet will not affect that abutter because that house will be approximately 75 feet from the garage.  A significant slope exists between them as well. (3) The construction of the garage will result in greater maneuverability on and about the right-of-way and will eliminate frequent outdoor parking and our storage boxes. (4) The garage will be attractive with materials and style to match our house.

Ms. Marashio asked if the large tree on the property that is flagged is coming down. Mr. Keenan said yes, it was unavoidable. Ms. Marashio noted that the hardship on that point of land is its narrowness.

Mr. Thomas discussed the right-of-way in front of Lot 14 and noted that the road stops before reaching Lot 14. He added that the right-of-way is really a glorified driveway for all the neighbors beyond that point. Mr. Keenan agreed, adding that it is for everyone. He noted that the description of the right-of-way centerline is odd and that is allows for everyone to pass over it.

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

The Recording Secretary read into the record the following submitted letter: February 20, 2019, Dear Mr. Fichter, My name is Dr. Francis Murray and I am writing in support of Peter and Nancy Keenan in their petition to build a garage on their property in Newbury. I am a direct abutter to the Keenan’s property and have been shown the plans for this structure and fully support the proposal. Sincerely, Francis Murray, MD.

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

Mr. Fichter noted that this is a good plan and a reasonable approach to stormwater runoff. He added that the planned maintenance of the stormwater management components is also good. He noted that the applicant showed forethought in purchasing the adjacent lot in anticipation of this project.

Mr. Budd agreed with the points stated by Mr. Fichter.

Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant did a good job in locating the garage on the parcel. He added his support of the use of pervious pavers and maintenance of same for stormwater, noting that the system will quickly identify accumulated silt for removal.

Ms. Marashio stated that the applicant showed good foresight in purchasing the adjacent lot (Lot 14) for the purpose of building the garage.

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 Peter & Nancy Keenan, for property located at 19 Lakewood Manor Place, Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 25’X 26’ garage within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, within 15’ of the rear setback, and within the 30’ right of way setback.  Newbury Tax Map 019-706-519. Mr. Budd seconded the motion.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1.

Mr. Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1.

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1.

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.

Mr. Fichter called for a break at 8:07 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 8:12 p.m.

At 8:13 p.m., Mr. Budd recused himself to the audience.

Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.

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, April 8, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:30 p.m., RCS Designs (agent), Kristen Schultz (owner), for property located at Shore Dr., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 24’X36’ garage within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, and within the 30’ right of way setback.  Newbury Tax Map 020-172-544. 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 informed the applicant that a full ZBA board is comprised of five members and that the Board needs three members to conduct business. He added that there are three voting members present for tonight’s meeting. He asked the applicant is they wish to proceed, given the reduced number of voting members. The applicant said yes, they would like to proceed.

Robert Stewart, RCS Designs, agent, presented to the Board.

Mr. Stewart noted that there is no number on Shore Drive for the property under discussion because a driveway permit has not yet been obtained. He added that the driveway permit, and NH DES Shoreland Permit may be included as conditions for the granting of the Variance.

The lot is 0.183 acres and 100-feet deep. The plan calls for a proposed garage measuring 24-feet by 36-feet. Mr. Stewart described the erosion control measures. He said the roof pitches are towards the road and the lake. All stormwater runoff will be directed to gutters that empty into a drywell with a storage capacity of 600 gallons. The stormwater measures are designed to contain all stormwater runoff and direct it into the ground.

Mr. Stewart explained the pervious grass-paver system to be used for the garage. Prep work includes sinking the plastic pavers into the ground, covering them with filtration fabric and placing grass on top. Maintenance consists of mowing the grass. He added that the pervious area is 950 square feet.

Mr. Stewart noted that two trees will be removed – and the existing stockade fence and a shed also will be removed. He added that the proposed garage will also act as storage for the array of equipment currently stored in the elements on the property.

There being no more 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:  The proposed building setbacks are similar to other buildings fronting on Shore Drive. All new stormwater, as a result of the proposed construction, is treated to prevent direct discharge to the lake. The proposed garage does not require a septic system. Therefore, the variances sought do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or threaten the health, safety or general welfare of the public.

16.8.2  Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance

results in unnecessary hardship,

There are special conditions in the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area because: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property. It is the intent of the ordinance that a legal lot of record should be allowed to be used in accordance with permitted uses as described in the zone in which the property is located. The property is located in the Town of Newbury Residential zone. The proposed use is for a residential garage. When the lot was created, the lot was a conforming lot and should now be considered a legal, developable lot.

Mr. Stewart added that the lots were created in 1906 and that the lot in question is undeveloped.

b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The property and its proposed use are different in that the lot is currently an undeveloped non-conforming lot of record. The intended use as a garage is to be used residentially. The use is not to be used as housing and therefore the use of the property will be less than a residential home and no need for an on-site sewage disposal system.  

c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The site consists of an undeveloped lot of 0.183 acres in size. The site is located on the shore of lake Sunapee within the Residential District. The lot is approximately 100-feet deep. With a building setback of 75-feet from the reference line of the lake and a frontage setback of 30-feet from Shore Drive, this results in no building envelope to place a building. Given the above-noted lot constraints it is physically impossible for this legal non-conforming lot to be used in strict conformance with the ordinance.

d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The lot has been a residential lot since 1909. It is located in a Residential Zone fronting on Lake Sunapee. The lot is a small parcel of land, 0.183 acres. The lot is presently undeveloped. Because this lot fronts on Lake Sunapee, it is subject to the 75-foot lakefront/wetland buffer. Given the zoning constraints, this legal non0conforming lot cannot be used in strict conformance with the ordinance. As proposed, a garage, it has less of an impact than a residence. With an aggressive stormwater management plan, it minimizes the stormwater impact making it a reasonable use.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The subdivision for which the subject lot was created predates the current Newbury Zoning Ordinance. Greater than 70% of the homes fronting on Shore Drive are within or at the proposed front setback of the proposed building of 21-feet. They are either closer than 21-feet or at 21-feet from Shore Drive. Of the (9) lots fronting on shore Drive and Lake Sunapee, (8) are within 75-feet of the lake – on the lake side of Shore Drive. The garage is proposed 54-feet to 60-feet from the reference line of the lake. Stormwater management via rain gutter downspouts to a concrete drywell are proposed to control stormwater from the roof of the building. A grass pave structure, pervious, is proposed in lieu of an impervious drive. Total post construction impervious area is 12%, far below the impervious area threshold requiring stormwater measures of 20% No disturbance within the NHDES Shoreland primary building setback of 50-feet is proposed and it is not necessary to remove any trees within that zone.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: It is reasonable to allow the proposed garage with the proposed stormwater measures, which offers protection for the lake. The proposed front setback allows ample room for snow removal of the road and is consistent with most front setback[s] in the area.

Mr. Stewart added that a driveway permit will be pursued from the highway department and all needed inspections will be completed by the fire department.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: Many properties in the area are within the 50-foot Waterfront buffer and/or current side or front setbacks. The proposed structure is situated on the lot in a similar fashion to other structures in the immediate vicinity. The applicant believes that the proposed residential development, built to current building codes will not diminish the values of surrounding properties. Stormwater measures to mitigate the development will protect the lake.

Mr. Fichter asked about the storm drain on Shore Drive to the right of the property.

Gary Budd, Frost Top, Newbury, said the storm drain leads to a retaining wall and then empties into the lake. Mr. Fichter asked if the drainage is untreated. Mr. Budd said yes.

Mr. Stewart said the Newbury Conservation Commission and the Code Enforcement Officer have reviewed the plans and signed off on them.

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

            John D’Alelio, 21Shore Drive, Newbury, stated his opposition to the proposed plan, noting that it will diminish his property values. He cited that the existing stockade fence reduced his view of the lake and a three-car garage measuring 22-feet high will further reduce his lake view.

There was discussion about Mr. D’Alelio’s right-of-way on the Schultz property. Discussion included the future impact the proposed plan may have on Mr. D’Alelio’s ability to remove tress from his right-of-way. His concern is that if the applicant removes trees for the building of the garage, Mr. D’Alelio will not have enough points to allow him to remove trees in the right-of-way to improve his access to the lake. Discussion followed.

            Mr. D’Alelio stated that the right-of-way was created about a year ago and was filed with the Deed of Registry.

Mr. Fichter noted that the content of deeds is a civil matter and is not within the purview of the ZBA.

            Mr. D’Alelio stated that he will get a court injunction if needed. He added that his lake view will disappear, and the applicant cannot demonstrate hardship.

Mr. Fichter read into the record the definition of hardship from Paragraph 16.8.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance as follows: “…an “unnecessary hardship” will be deemed to exist, if and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of it. The definition of “unnecessary hardship” set forth in Section 16.8.2.1 above shall apply whether the provision in the Ordinance from which a variance is sought is restriction on use, a dimensional or other limitation on a permitted use, or any other requirement in the ordinance.”

Ms. Marashio noted that part of the reason people buy property at the lake is for the view, but the state does not have any regulations that address that.

There was discussion about the reference line and the mean highwater mark and the impact on the elevation calculations. Mr. Stewart noted that the jurisdiction for determining the reference line and mean high water mark lies with the NH DES Wetlands Bureau.

There was discussion regarding possible modifications to the location of the garage on the property to improve the lake view from Mr. D’Alelio’s property. Also discussed was a modification to the proposed height of the building, namely lowering the roofline.

Ms. Marashio asked if the applicant might consider a smaller garage than the proposed three-car garage.

Mr. Stewart noted that the building is currently centered on the lot but could be moved five feet closer to the house. Discussion followed.

Mr. Budd, Frost Top, Newbury, said he thought the lot was attached to the house lot. Mr. Stewart said no, it was a separate lot of record. 

Mr. Stewart requested a break to confer with his client.

Mr. Fichter called for a break at 9:06 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 9:09 p.m.

Mr. Stewart stated that the right-of-way is exclusive to 21 Shore Drive and that moving the proposed garage will require taking down more trees.

Mr. Fichter asked about the height of the other buildings on Shore Drive. Mr. Thomas said the height varies up and down.

Mr. Fichter suggested making the garage smaller and narrowing the width. Mr. Stewart said the applicant is spending a lot of money for the building and to make it smaller would result in a loss of use.

Mr. Thomas noted that a two-car garage with a 13-foot height would provide practically no storage above. He suggested trimming the adjacent trees to enhance the lake view. Discussion followed.

            Mr. D’Alelio noted that, like the applicant, he plans to move to his property full time in the future.

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

There was discussion regarding whether the area in dispute was an easement or a right-of-way.

Mr. Thomas asked about the definition of right-of-way. Mr. Fichter read into the record the following definition taken from Article 2 Definitions Paragraph 2.119 Right-of-Way in the Newbury Zoning Ordinance: This means and includes all public bodies of water and all town, state and federal highways, roads rights-of-way, public or private, and the land on either side of same as covered by statutes to determine the widths of rights-of-way. 

Mr. Thomas noted that the lot is a lot of record and added that the stormwater management measures are good.

Ms. Marashio stated that the easement is not the issue. The issue is whether the plan devalues an abutter’s property value and lessens the lake view.

Mr. Fichter stated that the easement is a civil issue. The question is whether the requested variances meets all the criteria of 16.8. He added that this is a lot of record, which means a house could be built there.

Ms. Marashio noted that a garage has a lower impact than a house. She added that the stormwater management measures are good. However, she noted that the proposed garage is as large as a house.

Mr. Fichter stated that a garage instead of a house on the lot is a better use.

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 RCS Designs (agent), Kristen Schultz (owner), for property located at Shore Dr., Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 24’X36’ garage within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, and within the 30’ right of way setback.  Newbury Tax Map 020-172-544. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.

The Motion was amended to include two conditions:

Obtain a Driveway Permit.

Obtain a NH DES Shoreland Permit.

Ms. Marashio made a motion to amend the original motion to include the above two conditions. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. All in favor.

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 with the stated conditions.

Mr. Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 with the stated conditions.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 7.4.2 and 5.9.1 with the stated conditions.

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.

Mr. Budd rejoined the Board.

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

Mr. Budd made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Whittemore

Recording Secretary