Zoning Board Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2021
Approved May 24, 2021
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm,Vice-Chair; Reed Gelzer, Member; Katheryn Holmes, Member
Public Present: Richard & Jody Krajcik; Kelly Murdock; Marilyn Gobin; Stewart Brown; John Creeden
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Ms. Holmes made a motion to invite Mary Saritelli as an alternate on the Board for one year. Mr. Blohm seconded. All in favor.
The Board re-appointed Mr. Azodi an alternate member of the Board for one year.
Mr. Fichter informed the Board that Mr. Budd will not be in attendance for this meeting or for the May 24, 2021 meeting. Mr. Fichter continued that there were four members of the Board in attendance tonight and welcomed Ms. Holmes back to the Board.
Ms. Favreau asked for nominations for Board chair. Mr. Blohm made a motion to nominate Mr. Fichter as Board chair. Mr. Gelzer seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Fichter made a motion to nominate Mr. Blohm as Board vice-chair. Mr. Gelzer seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Blohm made a point of order to defer the review of the Board’s last meeting minutes to the end of the meeting so not to hold up the hearings before the Board. The Board agreed.
Mr. Fichter advised the meeting participants that because this was a virtual meeting guidelines state that you identify yourself and any other individual in the room. Mr. Fichtercontinued that if anyone experienced technical difficulties the Board would be required to continue the meeting until such time the technical difficulties can be fixed.
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, May 10, 2021 by utilizing Zoom. Directions to enter the Zoom meeting will be available on the Zoning Board of Adjustment page of the Town’s website: At 7:05 p.m., Richard A. & Jody L. Krajcik(owners), for property located at 24 Route 103B, Newbury, NH, will seek a variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: A 2’ x 14’ addition, an 8’ x 30’ addition to a non-conforming building and construction of a farmers porch within the 30’ right of waysetback. Newbury Tax Map 007-556-159. 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 to noon.
Mr. Krajcik presented to the Board.
Mr. Krajcik said that he and his wife, Jody purchased the Blue Goose Inn in November. Mr. Krajcik continued that they would like to keep it an inn but not have the breakfast portion of things. Mr. Krajcik said that because of the nature of covid, there are some common spaces that they are trying to eliminate and create, with this small 256 square feet addition the opportunity to have access via outside doors to each room, as well as make it really prettywith the farmers porch on the other side that would wrap all around.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Krajcik addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed addition is very small (only 256 sq. ft) and makes the north side more symmetrical as well as more aesthetic. The proposed addition does not expand the front (roadside) any closer than the existing footprint of the current property. The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will not diminish any of the surrounding property values.
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 property has and continues to be a very small inn. With Covid 19, the proposed addition will allow for more private space/bathrooms and less common space/areas for increased safety.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The property is a very small business, which is close to 103B as compared to the other properties across the road. Compliance with the zoning laws would cause undue hardship on the landowners. The proposed addition is necessary for reasonable use of the property.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The property existed before the right of way; therefore, it is burdened and the building footprint exists outside of the right of way, but within the town setback, aka the building is and always was close to the road. In other words, this was not caused by anything that we did in the first place.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:The variance will not authorize a permitted use other than those set forth in the zoning district in which the variance is sought. Due to circumstances or conditions relating to the land or building for which the variance is sought literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and deprive us of a reasonable use of our land and building.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The proposed addition represents the least intrusive solution possible. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not substantially or permanently injure any adjacent conforming property. The variance will be in harmony with the spirit of the ordinance and will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Granting this variance will not only uphold the spirit of the ordinance butwill secure public safety and uphold substantial justice to the property owners in the district. Property values will be held and possibly increased due to the potential addition and its attractiveness. If granted this minimum variance will have the least modification and will afford the relief sought.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: Once again, the proposed addition represents the least intrusive solution possible. The proposed addition will not diminish or injure any of the neighboring properties. The proposed addition will be small and attractive and conforming to the character and charm of the property. Most importantly the proposed addition will improve our property and should help other property values maintain and increase, aka great curb appeal.
Mr. Fichter asked if the proposed canopy is a temporary or permanent structure. Mr. Krajcik said that would be a farmer’s porch and would be permanent.
Mr. Blohm asked if the proposed changes will increase the occupancy. Mr. Krajcik said no there will be no bedrooms added. Mr. Blohm noted that the traffic flow would essentially be the same as it has been. Mr. Krajcik said correct.
Ms. Holmes asked what the canopy roof would be made of. Mr. Krajcik said it would be a metal roof. Ms. Holmes asked how the runoff from the roof would be handled and noted that crushed stone could be utilized. Discussion followed. Mr. Blohm asked which direction the road goes; does it head downhill toward the circle. Mr. Krajcik said that is correct. Mr. Blohm noted that the water will head toward the brook so that it would be advisable to control the water coming off the driveway. Mr. Krajcik said the brook was actually quite north and is the border of the property. Mr. Krajcik continued that the existing roof was doing the same thing now, the farmer’s porch would be an extension to it. Ms. Holmes said when she had looked at the roof, the water coming off of it by the entrance goes into the crushed stone. Discussion followed.
Mr. Gelzer noted that 103B was a State road and asked if the Town had jurisdiction over waiving setback requirements on a State road. Mr. Fichter said the Town does not and the State has overriding jurisdiction. Mr. Gelzer asked if the applicants would need to check with the State as well. Mr. Fichter said the State requirements are a lot less stringent than the Town requirements.
Mr. Gelzer noted that there is a designated wetland nearby and it looks to Mr. Gelzer that there is standing water within 75’ or so of the parking lot edge toward the wetland. Mr. Gelzer continued that a quick measurement on Google Earth made that seem likely. Mr. Gelzer noted that there is no stipulation that stormwater management features are required for wetlands in the Town regulations. Mr. Gelzersaid he would like to reinforce Ms. Holmes observation that it looked like the slope of the larger parking area is pretty much toward that wetland area so all the rainwater coming off the roof is going to rinse all the drippings from parked vehicles, equipment, grease, oil, antifreeze, etc. toward the wetland. Discussion followed. Mr. Blohm said he suspects the applicants will do what it takes to not affect the wetland and the Board can identify that as something they are willing to do if the variance is granted. Discussion followed.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no comment from the public, Mr. Fichterclosed the public portion of the meeting.
The Board went into deliberations.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request fromRichard A. & Jody L. Krajcik (owners), for property located at 24 Route 103B, Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: A 2’ x 14’ addition, an 8’ x 30’ addition to a non-conforming building and construction of a farmers porch within the 30’ right of way setback, Newbury Tax Map 007-556-159.
Mr. Fichter seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Dave Blohm-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6.
Peter Fichter-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6.
Reed Gelzer-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6.
Katheryn Holmes-voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 4.6.
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 Monday, May 10, 2021 by utilizing Zoom. Directions to enter the Zoom meeting will be available on the Zoning Board of Adjustment page of the Town’s website: At 7:20 p.m., Shea Parker Murdock (owner), for property located at 8 Snow Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Placement of an 8’ x 18’ shed within the 15’ side setback and the 30’ right of way setback. Newbury Tax Map 007-244-310. 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 to noon.
Mrs. Murdock presented to the Board.
Mrs. Murdock said that their cottage is in Chandler’s Cove where the cottages are closely neighbored together. Mrs. Murdock continued that many of their neighbors have sheds and it is not possible to have the 15’ setback. Mrs. Murdock said there are two reasons they would like to have a shed; the first reason is that this is the first year they have lived at the cottage full time and they have three young kids who have their water toys all over the lawn. Mrs. Murdock continued that the shed would help keep the yard tidier and the second reason is that the shed was actually agreenhouse because Mrs. Murdock is an avid gardener. Mrs. Murdock said the only place on the property despite the tiny footprint of the house due the where the septic tank is adjacent to Marilyn’s shed. Mrs. Murdock continued that the thought was to line the sheds up so it would create a little street front.
Mr. Blohm asked if the adjacent shed belonged to the neighbor. Mrs. Murdock said correct. Mr. Blohm noted that that was not clear from the drawing and asked if the shed was on the property line. Mrs. Murdock said the shed was actually two feet over the property line. Discussion followed.
Mr. Fichter noted that the applicant stated that they didn’tfeel they needed to have a stormwater management plan because of the impervious surface being less than 20%. Mr. Fichter said that his calculation with the addition of the shed will increase the impervious surface to around 17%. Mr. Fichter continued that according to DES regulations gravel, pea stone and blue stone driveways are considered impervious surfaces and asked what the driveway dimension is. Mrs. Murdock said the driveway was 18’ in depth by 23’ in width. Mr. Fichter said that he would guess that would put the impervious surface over 20%. Mrs. Murdock said the plan for the shed/greenhouse is to put it up on railroad ties and they had already dug down and put a perforated pipe on gravel. Mr. Fichter said that it was still considered impervious surface and there is 144 square feet of roof which adds to the impervious surface and the assertion that a stormwater management plan is not needed falls a little shy. Mrs. Murdock said they can certainly do a stormwater management plan. Mrs. Murdock continued that in her experience crushed blue stone is considered pervious. Discussion followed. Mr. Blohm said an option was to make the driveway pervious. Mrs. Murdock said the impervious area is 15% currently. Mr. Fichter said his calculation with the addition of the shed was 17.2%. Mrs. Murdock said that sounds about right and it is more than likely that they will have an 8’ x 10’ shed. Mrs. Murdock continued the only reason they were going for the 18’ shed was to match the neighbors. Mrs. Murdock calculated the impervious area of the lot which was 19.11%. Mr. Gelzerasked if that included the unfortunate intrusion of the neighbor’s shed roof. Mrs. Murdock said that it did not.Discussion followed. Mr. Ficher said that he didn’t feel the applicant should be held responsible for the neighbor’s shed. Discussion followed.
Ms. Holmes said she was thinking about the peaked roof of the photograph of the shed and wondered about the snow load that will come down into the neighbor’s shed and the affect on both sheds because they are close together. Ms. Holmes noted that it might be possible to make a shed roof,so the snow load comes down to the driveway. Discussion followed. Mr. Gelzer asked if the 16’ x 14’ deck was included in the calculation of impervious area. Mrs. Murdock said yes it was included in her calculation.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mrs. Murdock addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance.
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The installation of a shed at 8 Snow Road will not be contrary to the public interest because it will be contextual to other sheds found on abutting properties both in architectural design as well as dimensionally.
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 property at 8 Snow Road is situated in such a way that allows for no other possible location in which to place a shed that is not directly adjacent to the property line. Our immediate neighbors to both sides have their sheds directly along either side of our property line for the same reason.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: All of the cottages in Chandler’s Cove are closely set together, and as a result all residents have either required a variance in order to have a shed on their property. Alternatively, the sheds have been grandfathered after having been set in place in non-conforming location several years ago.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Our property is different from that of others in the area because we do not currently have a place to store equipment for outdoor activities. A shed on our particular property will benefit the overall appearance of the neighborhood by providing an attractive place to store our children’s outdoor recreational equipment such as floats, kayaks, skis, sleds, etc. that have to date been left out in our yard.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:As stated above, all properties in the Chandler Cove area are more likely to find it difficult to follow the zoning regulations due to the lot sizes and layout of the roads when applying for building permits in order to make improvements to their respective properties.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: There is precedent for the same use and similar location of storage sheds with all property abutters.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: It is reasonable to assume our property would be granted the same use variance as that of the property’s abutters and immediate neighbors.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The appearance of the neighborhood and streetscape will be improved by a tidy, uncluttered yard.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
Stewart Brown said they are the closest abutters, and it is their shed that is partially on the applicant’s property. Mr. Brown continued he thought his father built the shed back in the 1940s. Mr. Brown said he has spoken with the applicant about the shed extensively and they have no problem with the shed and will be discussing how to do the roof for the water run off which is a concern of his. Mr. Fichter asked if the pitch of the roof was directed in a different direction Mr. Brown’s concern would be satisfied. Mr. Brown said the applicant said he would do what is needed whether a shed roof or a gutter so the roof will be worked out. Discussion followed. Mr. Fichter said that when he visited the property, he noted some railroad ties that outlined a prospective area a shed might go and a reasonable amount of crushed stone. Mr. Fichter asked if the crushed stone area is greater than the footprint of the shed. Mrs. Murdock said yes. Mr. Fichter said the crushed stone being greater than the area of the roof is good thing. Mrs. Murdock said it will come out another foot from the drip line. Discussion followed.
Mr. Fichter closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Holmes noted that Mr. Gelzer had put in the zoom chat box the calculation of impervious area and he had figured it at 20.6%. Mr. Gelzer said that he thought the previous impervious area calculation did not include the deck. Mrs. Murdock said she did include the deck, but she had calculated an 8’ x 10’ shed area instead of 8’ x 18’ shed area. Mr. Gelzer said in his calculation there is no allowance for the impervious potion of the driveway, and he thinks it is pretty clear it is going to be over 20% even if they reduce the size of the shed. Mrs. Murdock said they could present a stormwater management plan easily enough. Discussion followed. Mr. Fichter said that if the impervious area will be greater than 20% the Board would ask you to provide a stormwater management plan for their review. Discussion followed.
Mr. Fichter suggested that this hearing should be continued until June 14, 2021 at 7:05 pm. for the Board to review astormwater management plan. The Board agreed.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 11, 2021. Mr. Gelzer and Ms. Holmes abstained. No quorum of the Board to approve minutes, minutes will be brought forward at the next Board meeting with a quorum.
The Board will be holding an in person meeting for June.
Ms. Holmes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fichterseconded 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 May 10, 2021