Zoning Board Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 24, 2021
Approved June 14, 2021
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm,Vice-Chair; Reed Gelzer, Member; Katheryn Holmes, Member; Hank Thomas, Alternate; Mary Saritelli, Alternate
Public Present: Peter Blakeman; Harry Snow; Paul Snow; Philip Hastings; Doug DiCerbo; Jim Petteralli; Tanya McIntire; Ron Elliott; Dave & Shanon Gibson; Virginia Patsos; Larry Briggs; Nancy & Bruce MacKenzie; Douglas Mould; Tony, Kim & Matthew LoPresti; Jon Chorlian; Charlene Kellsey; Mary Sawyer; Mary Lambert; Brad
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 10, 2021. Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Blohm seconded. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 11, 2021. No quorum of the Board present who attended the meeting to approve minutes, minutes will be brought forward at the next Board meeting.
Board introductions.
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.
Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Thomas 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 Monday, May 24, 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., Philip Hastings, Esq., Peter Blakeman & Snow Building Construction (agents), Lake Ave Realty, LLC (owner), for property located at 10 SunliteLane, Newbury, NH, will seek a variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 15.2.1 and 7.12.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Replacement of existing nonconforming building with a new building that increases the nonconformity and that will exceed the 30% impervious surface coverage limit.Newbury Tax Map 16A-358-003. 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. Gelzer questioned whether the application before the Board was complete. Mr. Gelzer continued that he was not seeing what he would reasonably expect to be a permanent erosion control plan. Ms. Favreau said that a plan was in the electronic documents sent to the Board. Mr. Gelzer said that he has a page but it does not appear to cover the runoffthat crosses the property on the little back lot. Mr. Fichtersaid that he thought that was an issue with the specifics of the stormwater management plan. Mr. Fichter continued that he thought a stormwater management plan was submitted, however if the Board felt that plan was inadequate, the Board can act upon it that way.
Mr. Hastings presented to the Board.
Mr. Hastings said he was an attorney with Cleveland Waters and Bass representing the project. Mr. Hastings introduced the property owners, Doug DiCerbo and Jim Petteralli, the project engineer, Peter Blakeman and Harry and Paul Snow who are doing the design and building of the project.
Mr. Hastings continued that the property is located at 10 Sunlite Lane.
Mr. Gelzer asked if the owners intended to occupy the property. Mr. DiCerbo and Mr. Petteralli said yes.
Mr. Hastings said the property is at the corner of SunliteLane and Washington St. and is also bisected by Lake Avenue. Mr. Hastings continued that the property is in the Blodgett Landing Cottage District and the Shoreland Overlay District. Mr. Hastings said the house is older and non-conforming with respect to setbacks and lot coverage. Mr. Hastings continued that the lot is fairly unusual, even for the Blodgett Landing area, it is very long and narrow, it is bisected by Lake Avenue, and it effectively has frontage on three roads, Washington St. to the east, Sunlite Lane to the north and Lake Avenue to the west. Mr. Hastings said another unique feature of this property is that it has an existing garage that contains a functioning apartment that was permitted by variance in 1987. Mr. Hastings continued because of the condition of the property, the applicant intends to replace the existing house with a new building, relocate the apartment that is in the garage to the main house and enclose the connection between the house and garage. Mr. Hastings said it is not entirely in the existing footprint, although the setback to the south will be maintained. Mr. Hastings continued that on the northern line the building will be pulled away from the street; currently the deck area is right up to the property line on Sunlite Lane, so that non-conformity will be reduced. Mr. Hastings said the building will be slightly closer to the lake, but within the permitted setback and there will be no additional effect on the westerly side. Mr. Hastings said that Mr. Blakeman and Mr. Snow will present the specifics of the proposal to the Board.
Mr. Blakeman said that the erosion control plan is not titled that, but everything is on one plan, the layout of the buildings, the stormwater and the erosion control. Mr. Blakeman continued that this is a unique lot, roughly 47’ wide by 210’ long when you combine the small lot to the east. Mr. Blakeman said the existing impervious area is the long narrow house, garage and driveway into the garage which is about 8700 square feet and the existing impervious for the two lots is 44.3% and that also includes area on Washington St. in the corner and Lake Ave. that bisects the property. Mr. Blakeman continued that the impervious area will not be increased with what is being proposed but will be slightly decreased to 43.7% combined which breaks down to 34.4% for the two lots plus 9.3% impervious area of the road that goes through the property. Mr. Blakeman said this property is unique having the three roads around it and like many of the other existing lots does not have any real stormwater management in place. Mr. Blakeman continued that as part of the rebuilding quite a bit of stormwater practices would be added, in particular for the main structure drip edge drains on the south and north sides of the house and to the east side of the garage.
Mr. Blakeman said the existing parking was just a driveway going into the garage and the northside of the garage and part of the proposal is to add more parking by developing the smaller additional lot as just over 1100 square feet pervious parking.
Mr. Blakeman said that he has spoken with the highway administrator, Cal Prussman about issues with the drainage and culverts in this area and part of the proposal is to rebuild and improve the culverts with new pipes starting at the easterly end of the property on Washington St. Mr. Blakeman continued there is an existing culvert that goes from the driveway along the property to Lake Ave. where there is a catch basin and then goes across the street to the neighboring Kellsey Family Heritage, LLC property. Mr. Blakeman said the new proposed pipe configuration from the driveway to the catch basin would be increased to a 15” pipe into the catch basin and then 15” pipe underneath Lake Ave. Mr. Blakeman continued that the existing pipe that goes onto the Kellsey Family Heritage, LLC property is rotted out and needs replacement so that pipe would be abandoned and the replacement pipe would be rerouted to the south side of the property line and kept on the applicant’s property to make it easier to control the run off and there is a good area to filter the water from the outlet of the pipe down to the shore. Mr. Fichter asked where the water goes once discharged at the stone apron. Mr. Blakeman said that the water will filter down the existing vegetation eventually to the lake as it does now. Mr. Blakeman continued that a stone berm will be added to the outlet that can be maintained by the owner. Ms. Holmes asked where the level spreader was. Mr. Blakeman said the level spreader was 4 to 5 feet below the outlet of the pipe.Mr. Thomas asked where the pipe on the east side of the property towards Washington St. actually starts and what water is it picking up. Mr. Blakeman said there is a ditch which runs from the inlet of that pipe follows the curve of the road and it picks up three small pipes: a 9” concrete pipe crossing the end of Washington St., an 8” culvert that comes from two properties from the south and then there is a 12” culvert going across Washington St. to an outlet. Mr. Thomas noted that the pipe proposed to be improved is actually handling other people’s water and other people’s problems. Mr. Blakeman said that is correct and there has long been an issue with the way it all drains right there. Mr. Blakeman continued that he has met with the highway administrator who is in agreement about the changes being proposed. Mr. Thomas said that the proposed improvements will help out an existing Town problem. Mr. Blakeman said definitely yes. Mr. Thomas said he felt that was very good on the owner’s part to be taking on a project like that to resolve a problem that has been on going in the area. Mr. Blakeman said the other component of that is the catch basin off the northwest corner of Sunlite and Lake Ave. will be replaced with a modern catch basin and inlet grate. Mr. Blohm asked how big the catch basin was and does it take water and put it somewhere or just hold the water and send it down a pipe. Mr. Blakeman said he believes it is a 2’ to 3’ diameter, fashioned together years ago, not a real sump to it. Mr. Blohm asked what the proposed plan was for improvement. Mr. Blakeman said it will be replaced with a 4’ diameter catch basin with a 2’ sump below the level of the pipes, so there is an opportunity to capture sand and silt before it goes into the lake. Ms. Holmes asked if it was an infiltration system catch basin. Mr. Blakeman said it acts like it a little bit. Discussion followed.
Mr. Blakeman said for erosion control there will be two layers of silt fence, it wraps around the main house from the driveway to the west along Sunlite Lane and then around and along Lake Ave. to the property line. Mr. Blakeman continued there is a secondary area of silt fence along the shoreline itself although there will not be any work other than the culvert in that area. Mr. Blakeman said the smaller lot to the east of the property is a very flat lot and ringed by the ditch so there is no need for a silt fence.
Mr. Fichter asked what trees will be affected. Mr. Blakeman said there will need to be a complete tree application put together, but there are three large pine trees that are between the main house and Lake Ave. which are circled on the plan. Mr. Blakeman continued that they will have an arborist check out the trees. Discussion followed.
Mr. Fichter noted that there would be an ADU inside the proposed new home. Mr. Fichter continued that it looks to him that the ADU is going to be two stories with a living room, powder room, storage, and kitchen on the main floor and two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor. Mr. Fichter asked if that area will be the ADU and the slightly larger area on the main floor the residence of the owners of the property. Mr. Hastings said in terms of procedure he is not sure those questions are relevant to the variances being sought; they may be more relevant to the second application of the special exception, but they are happy to address them. Mr. Fichter said that he is asking to try and get a clear picture of what was being talked about.
Mr. H. Snow said he and his brother came into this project last September as the designers and builders; they met with the owners, did a site assessment on the condition of the existing house; it was figured at that point that the house was probably 100 years old, really not something you would want to remodel or bring up to current code, it has never been winterized and has no foundation. Mr. H. Snow continued then you get into the design requirements of the house; in this case there is a partnership; two families involved in the ownership so they will be living under one roof. Mr. H. Snow said after reviewing the ADU requirements, it appeared fairly easy to design within the components of this house a two-bedroom ADU. Mr. H. Snow continued that the ADU is approx. 1,000 square feet of living space allowable by state statute and the requirements of that family aren’t as great as the other family so 1,000 square feet seemed ample. Mr. H. Snow said this was not an easy project to design within the requirements, limited amount of space, also taking into account being able to blend the design into Blodgett Landing. Mr. H. Snow continued the project team worked to come up with a design that would work for the applicants’ requirements and have minimum impact to the lot. Mr. H. Snow said the footprint of the existing house is fairly decent size which gave some flexibility and with this design they elected to go a little bit more vertical than if there was more space from a footprint standpoint. Mr. H. Snow continued it is approx. 1,400 square feet of living space on the first two levels. Mr. H. Snow said the kitchen will be taken out of the existing apartment located in the building that was built in the late 80s.
Mr. Fichter said that if his count was correct the new structure will have eight bedrooms. Mr. H. Snow said yes and from the design standpoint you are looking at the requirements of the homeowner and in this case, they have less priority on large living spaces and more requirements of actual bedroom space; one family has five children. Mr. Fichter said there will be eight bedrooms in the newly constructed house and two bedrooms that remain from what was the previous ADU.
Mr. Gelzer asked what the difference from this plan and a duplex was. Mr. H. Snow said a typical duplex would have two independent entrances and other obvious features that signify two different areas. Mr. H. Snow continued that with an ADU, the trick is to make it look like a single-family house and the ADU is subordinate to the house and that is what we were trying to achieve with this plan. Mr. Gelzer asked if there were three parking spaces defined in the plan. Mr. Blakeman said the parking spaces are not striped out in the plan but that’s the intent of the pervious driveway parking area. Mr. Gelzer asked if the ground level of the existing garage will remain a parking spot. Mr. Blakeman said he believes so. Mr. Blakeman continued that there will be a new opening onto the road at the corner of Washington St. and Sunlite Lane where cars can enter and park along the southern property line. Mr. Blakeman said it’s not like a store parking lot where you have 40- or 50-feet width for parking and aisles. Mr. Gelzer asked if 1180 square feet as depicted on the proposed conditions plan is sufficient for two cars with the third going in the garage. Mr. Blakeman said certainly, a typical parking spot is 200 square feet or less.
Mr. Gelzer asked if the intent was to have drip edges around the perimeter of the whole property including the existing garage. Mr. Blakeman said on the eastern side of the garage is a drip edge and then on the two sides of the main house there are drip edges where there is not an entrance. Mr. Gelzer said it looks like the roof line of the existing garage extends over the property line. Mr. Blakeman said that is an existing situation and the plan does not show anything going across the property line for new construction. Mr. Gelzer asked if there is runoff from the roof now that spills onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Blakeman said he would assume so.
Ms. Holmes asked if the main structure would have a traditional foundation. Mr. H. Snow answered yes it will. Ms. Holmes asked if they thought they would run into a lot of water. Mr. H. Snow said he feels they have it situated in a place that they can handle what ground water they will run into, there would be a drainage system around the house at that point and they are a fair amount above the level of the lake. Mr. H. Snow continued that if they run into a situation that couldn’t be handled easily, they have the flexibility to drop the height of the foundation down a bit. Ms. Holmes asked what kind of foundation is there currently. Mr. H. Stone said he believes it is a stone pier type set up, very minimal.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Hastings addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The Ordinance expressly recognizes the value of improving the homes within the Blodgett Landing Cottage District. The variance will enable the Applicant to do precisely that. The Proposed Building will replace the existing House with a new, modern, aesthetically pleasing building in the same general footprint as the existing House, with a few minimal exceptions. The aesthetic improvements of the Proposed Building will benefit the neighborhood and the Town. At the same time, the architectural style of the Proposed Building will be consistent with the surrounding area and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Moreover, in connection with the impervious surface requirements and the setbacks on the northern side of the Property, the Proposed Building will reduce the existing nonconformity with the Ordinance. The Proposed Building will create a minor expansion of the nonconformity in some areas without any adverse impact and will otherwise reduce the nonconformity of the Property. Therefore, the Proposal supports the public interest, and is not contrary to it.
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 is unique. The Building Lot is long and narrow. In the Blodgett Landing Cottage District, setback requirements are based on the amount of frontage a lot enjoys. Here, the frontage is on Sunlite Lane, along the Property’s longest edge. Accordingly, the Property is treated as though it has significant frontage subject to the full fifteen-foot setback requirements. By comparison, the neighboring properties have substantially similar shapes and dimensions as the Property, but technically have much less frontage and therefore are subject to much more relaxed setback requirements. The fifteen-foot setback requirements make it difficult to build on the Building Lot in compliance with the setback requirements imposed on this Property. Exhibit 3 depicts the buildable area if the fifteen-foot setbacks were strictly applied. As depicted thereon, there is very little buildable area, and constructing a residence would be difficult, if not impossible. Separately, the lot is subject to significant amounts of impervious surface coverage because of the public highways that cut through both the Building Lot and, to a lesser extent, the Empty Lot. As a result, it would be difficult to keep the total impervious surface coverage to less than 30% of the Property. The existing condition, for example, has over 45% of the Building Lot covered by impervious surfaces.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: For the same reasons that the special conditions on the Property distinguish it from other properties in the area, the Property is also different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area. In particular, withoutlimitation, the measurement of the frontage of the Property; the applicable setback requirements, and impervious surface area resulting from the public highway, make the Property materially different from other properties in the area.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: As set forth above in condition with the unique conditions of the Property, those unique conditions result in more severe burden on the Property. For example, because the Property’s frontage is along it’s longest dimension, as opposed to other properties in the area where the frontage is along the shortest dimension, much more severe and burdensome setback requirements are imposed. Similarly, because the Property is a corner lot with public highways along three of four sides, the impervious surface of those highways on the Property make the limitations on impervious surface area more severely burdensome.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:The Proposed Building is reasonable in light of the unique conditions of the Property and the intended associated changes to the landscaping and other improvements thereon. The use of the Property itself shall remain unchanged. The Property will continue to be used as a single-family property with an accessory structure (i.e. the Garage which is a lawful nonconformity. Uses that are permitted by the Ordinance or by existing variances are presumptively reasonable. Variances are only required due to the dimensional or area changes associated with the Proposed Building. In connection with the replacement of the Home and the setbacks, the Proposed Building is reasonable. The Proposed Building reduces the nonconformity on the northern boundary. The Proposed Building is generally no closer to the southern boundary than the existing House. The variance is only necessary because the shape of the Proposed Building is different and because of the Enclosure. As a result, it is technically an expansion of the nonconformity requiring a variance. Nevertheless, the extent to which the Proposed Building expands the nonconformity is extremely minor and will have no impact on the neighbors. Enclosing the space between the two buildings on the Property, for example, will not encroach on the neighbors or contribute to the overcrowding of the area. In connection with the impervious lot coverage, the proposal is undeniably reasonable. As mentioned above, the Proposed Building and associated changes reduce the existing nonconformity. Bringing a property closer to compliance with the Ordinance cannot be considered an unreasonable use. Accordingly, the Proposed Building and associated alterations to the Property are reasonable. Moreover, there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and restriction on the size or number of signs in light of the particular and unique characteristics of the Property and surrounding area. The general purposes of the Ordinance include to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, to encourage the most appropriate use of land; and to allow individual landowners as great a degree of freedom in the use and enjoyment of their land as is consistent with the accomplishment of these purposes. The Blodgett Landing Cottage District is specifically intended to “allow and encourage property owners to improve their properties within the confines of their existing lots”. Buffer and setback requirements are generally enacted to prevent overcrowding of the land.Setback requirements are also typically enacted to ensure adequate emergency access and response. The Proposed Building will not impact overcrowding or impair emergency access. The proposed expansion into the setback area is slight and mostly between the existing buildings. This will not further encroach on the neighbors or impair emergency access at all. Moreover, in connection with the northern side of the Property, the nonconformity with the setback will actually decrease as a result of the removal of the decks on the Property. This will pull the structure father away from Sunlite Lane, improving public safety and reducing the potential risk of overcrowding or emergency access. Similarly, it cannot reasonably be said that reducing the nonconformity of the impervious surface coverage on the Property is contrary to the purposes of the Ordinance. Every conceivable purpose for which the impervious surface restrictions were enacted are served, not contravened, by bringing the Property closer into conformity therewith. The purposes of the Blodgett Landing Cottage District, specifically allowing and encouraging property owners such as the Applicntto improve their properties, are directly in line with the Proposed Building and the variances sought. There will be no impact on the health, safety, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, nor any of the other harms the Ordinance seeks to prevent. Instead, the variances requested will allow the Applicant to put the Property to its most appropriate use and grant the Applicant a reasonable degree of freedom to use and enjoy the Property. Denying the Application would serve no rational purpose in these circumstances.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The Proposed Building will be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance as discussed above. In particular, granting the variances will allow and encourage the Applicant to improve the Property in a manner that will have no adverse effect of the health, safety, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, nor result in any of the other harms the Ordinance seeks to prevent. Instead, approving this application will allow the Applicant to put the Property to its most appropriate use and grant the Applicant a reasonable degree of freedom to use and enjoy the Property. Furthermore, in connection with the lot coverage and the northern setback area, the granting the variance will directly and undeniably support the spirit and intent of the Ordinance by reducing the nonconformity therewith.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The harm to the Applicant of strict enforcement of the Ordinance will far outweigh any benefit to the public in this case. There would be no benefit to the public by preventing the replacement of the existing House with a new, more modern and aesthetically pleasing residence. Nor is there any public benefit in preventing the Applicant from reducing the Property’s nonconformity with the Ordinance. At the same time, denying this application would harm the Applicant by preventing it from updating the Property and achieving its highest and best use. Balancing this loss against the little to no public benefit in strict enforcement of the Ordinance in this case clearly shows that granting the application will result in substantial justice.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The Proposed Building will have little, if any, impact on the overall character of the area. The areas in which the Proposed Building is expanded are minimal and will have no impact on the neighboring properties. The Proposed Building will be no closer to the boundary than the existing House. Moreover, renewing and updating the aesthetic appearance of the Property will be beneficial to the neighborhood as a whole. Replacing the old, dated House with the modern, more visually appealing Proposed Building will, if anything, enhance rather than diminish the value of surrounding properties.
Mr. Gelzer asked what the impermeable percent of the property at the end of this project is, if granted. Mr. Blakeman said the numbers he is looking at include the areas of the road itself, existing is 44.3% and the proposed drops down a little bit to 43.7%. Mr. Blakeman continued that the breakdown of the 43.7% was 34.4% plus 9.3% impervious area of the road.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. McIntire said she has lived in the house directly on the south side of this particular project for fifty years. Ms. McIntire continued that the frontage of 10 Sunlite Lane was originally on Lake Avenue. Ms. McIntire said these gentlemen are a business and from her understanding of Shoreland stuff you have to be in residence to have an accessory apartment. Ms. McIntire said that another criteriais that in Newbury any accessory apartment has to meet the workforce housing requirement for low rent apartments.Ms. McIntire said the application states that the frontage is on Sunlite Lane and that is on the north side, but the rear setback is 15’ and the rear setback would then be on the south side. Ms. McIntire continued that although they are moving away from Sunlite Lane, they are not doing anything to correct the rear setback of this property. Ms. McIntire said that what is being proposed is not in keeping with the style of Blodgett Landing which is the whole reason the overlay district was put into zoning, to preserve the historic nature of the cottages in Blodgett Landing. Ms. McIntire continued that these lots have not been merged and to give impervious surface percentages based on something that hasn’t even happened yet.
Ms. Kellsey said they own the adjoining section of lakeshore frontage to this property and own the cottage at 7 Sunlite Lane. Ms. Kellsey said she is upset about an historic beautiful cottage being torn down, however nice you make a new cottage, although she does understand the problems to make it livable year-round as her cottage is still mostly not insulated and can’t be used in the winter. Ms. Kellsey continued that she would be very happy and in favor about the drainage improvements because currently the run off water from the culvert under Lake Avenue dumps directly on to her lakeshore frontage and it is eroding, they have to keep putting rocks in there. Ms. Kellsey said the back lot at the corner of Washington and Sunlite is completely wooded and vegetated, and she would be unhappy if parking is put in there and a lot of the vegetation would be taken down because that lot is directly across Sunlite Lane from the front of her cottage. Ms. Kellsey asked if this is approved when would the demolition and construction be done because they plan to spend a good part of the summer there and renters are already booked.
Ms. LoPresti said she is a full-time resident on Lake Ave., and it is a lovely place to live, and they all enjoy the advantages of Blodgett’s, but it is also a cozy place to live so it is important that we remain as conforming to setbacks as we can.
Mr. Briggs asked if a Shoreland Permit application has been submitted yet. Mr. Briggs asked about looking at the project in its entirety; what restrictions will be placed by the State via the Shoreland Permit, a clearer picture as to how many trees will be required to be taken down. Mr. Briggs questioned if three parking spots was sufficient for something with ten bedrooms.
Ms. McIntire said she was wondering where the snow will be plowed from the parking area, because it seems like every square inch of land of the lot is covered.
Mr. Mould asked what the total square footage of the house will be when completed. Mr. H. Snow said about 2800 square feet.
There being no more comment from the public, Mr. Fichterclosed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Hastings said that there is no change to the rear setback. Mr. Hastings continued that they intend to comply completely with the ADU requirements. Mr. Hastings said an application will be submitted for a Shoreland Permit as well as the other permits that will be necessary to do this construction, however we need to start somewhere, with the variance.
Mr. Gelzer said he remains confident in his representation that the stormwater management information is incomplete. Mr. Gelzer continued that he would like to note the application is incomplete because, it is his understanding that elevations are external view renderings of a building which do not exist in the file and since both the rooflines and drainage off the roofs plus conformance with the design guidelines for the Blodgett Landing Cottage District cannot be assessed because of the absence of the elevations not submitted. Mr. Gelzer said he would like to note there is some difficulty in interpreting the state of certain aspects of this variance because it is being broken up into different pieces. Mr. Gelzer continued that a number of people who have stepped forward and made observations that seem to argue that this project is not consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Blohm noted that he tends to agree with Mr. Briggs comment about not having enough information to make a decision. Mr. Blohm continued that there is no Shoreland Permit and no tree permit submitted and depending how those come out could potentially result in the building being relocated.
Ms. Holmes said this house is a landmark that has existed in Blodgetts for 100 years. Ms. Holmes said that Mr. Gelzerand Mr. Blohm have some valid remarks and she thinks the Board would be doing an injustice without a full-blown stormwater management plan.
Mr. Thomas said it is not in the Board’s purview to review the stormwater management, it goes to the SelectBoard or their agent, the code enforcement agent does not have to issue the building permit if they do not approve the stormwater management, it is not up to the Board to approve or disapprove. Mr. Thomas continued it is not up to the Board to approve or disapprove Shoreland, the applicant has to start somewhere, and they chose to get the variances first, special exception second and then they will go after the rest of their permits. Mr. Thomas said the building permit will not be issued unless they get those permits and he does not see how the Board can use that as reasoning to not consider this project. Mr. Thomas said this project is saving a big problem of run off in that end of Blodgetts Landing and the applicant is willing to make that better and he thinks that is an asset. Mr. Thomas said that the tree cutting is not in the Board’s purview and nowhere in the documents in front of him does it say that the Board can not grant a variance because they don’t have the tree cutting, it is a whole separate issue.
Mr. Fichter said his thought was this was not a complete presentation to the Board. Mr. Fichter continued there are a couple of things that really need to be presented to the Board, one being that a lot of emphasis is based upon percentages of impervious and pervious that assumes there is going to be a lot merger taking place. Mr. Fichtercontinued that the merger hasn’t taken place yet, so to present the findings based upon something based on a merged lot that isn’t is inappropriate. Mr. Fichter said he agrees that the Board can’t make a good decision on granting this variance if the Board does not know what is going to take place on somethings. Mr. Fichter said he thinks it is the Board’s obligation to go over stormwater management plans and have confidence that it is a decent stormwater management plan before the Board agrees to this.
Mr. Fichter said the Board can vote to approve or deny this variance or the Board can suggest the applicant take into account some of what they have heard this evening and get a continuance of this hearing for a future date with the expectation and hope that a lot of the short comings that have been identified tonight can be brought to closure. Mr. Fichter asked Mr. Hastings as representative what his preference was in going forward at this point. Mr. Hastings said this is one of those awkward moments of zoom that does not allow you to talk to your client to give advice or get input, but I will give it to them publicly and they can jump in if they feel I have mistepped. Mr. Hastings said he believed a continuance would be in order and in the best interest of this case and to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of these issues and come back before the Board with some clearer answers. Mr. DiCerbo and Mr. Petteralli said they were in agreement with the continuance.
Mr. Fichter made a motion to continue this hearing until July 26, 2021, at 7:05 pm. to give the applicant time to make any changes to the plan and the stormwater management plan. Mr. Thomas seconded. 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 Monday, May 24, 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., Philip Hastings, Esq., Peter Blakeman & Snow Building Construction (agents), Lake Ave Realty, LLC (owner), for property located at 10 SunliteLane, Newbury, NH, will seek a special exception as provided for in Article 6.12 and 7.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: An accessory apartment in the Blodgett Landing Cottage District and the Shoreland Overlay District. Newbury Tax Map 16A-358-003. 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. Fichter made a motion to continue this hearing until July 26, 2021, at 7:20 pm. Mr. Thomas seconded. All in favor.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 May 24, 2021