Zoning Board Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
August 9, 2021
Approved September 13, 2021
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm,Vice-Chair; Gary Budd, Member; Katheryn Holmes, Member; Hank Thomas, Alternate
Public Present: Scott Hill; Larry Briggs; Liz Tentarelli; Mark Manzella; John Perry; Cassie Hall; James Bishop; Gregory Gage; Tony & Kim LoPresti; Dan & Beverly Wolf
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 12, 2021. Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Ms. Holmes seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Budd abstained.
Mr. Fichter said originally the Board had a continuance for a special exception for Sunlite Lane scheduled for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Fichter continued that the applicant requested another continuance to the Board’s September 13, 2021meeting at 7:20 pm.
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, August 9, 2021 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:05 p.m., Scott B. Hill (owner), for property located at Route 103A and 705 Route 103A, Newbury, NH, will seek a variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.5.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Self-storage units and a winter boat storage building as a permitted use in the Residential District. Newbury Tax Map 016-003-127 & 016-036-132. 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 appointed Mr. Thomas as a voting member for this meeting.
Board introductions.
Mr. Hill presented to the Board.
Mr. Hill said he is talking about a piece of land that has been used for commercial for a long time and was one parcel until subdivided. Mr. Hill said he would like to bring it back to one lot and put storage units on it. Mr. Hill continued that it is a very good spot for storage units, and they are needed.
Ms. Holmes said that she believes a former owner came to the Board for a change of use from a garage facility to a landscape business. Mr. Hill said there have been a few uses. Ms. Holmes asked if anybody had a variance for commercial there. Mr. Fichter said apparently there was a variance that was granted for that property to be used as a lawn care facility. Mr. Blohm asked how much of the property was designated for that purpose. Mr. Hill said about half an acre.
Mr. Wolf said that Mr. Hills application talks about an existing commercial auto garage and repair vehicle service center which can no longer be considered active, it has been out of business for well over two years. Mr. Wolf continued that Article 15.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states, when a non-conforming use of land, structures or buildings has been discontinued for one year, then the land, structures and buildings shall be used thereafter only in conformity with this Ordinance. Mr. Wolf said the former use has been discontinued for well over a year and can not be reused the same. Mr. Wolf continued Article 15.3 says the lot is non-conforming and the use as proposed is not allowed in the residential zone. Mr. Wolf said he doesn’t even know whether the hearing is proper at this point. Mr. Fichter said what he thinks is at issue is the Board is looking at a variance from 5.5.2. Mr. Fichter said what Mr. Wolf said is good background information for the Board to know and certainly the Board will take that in consideration as they discuss and go forward.
Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Hill what was the intended use of this property. Mr. Hill said he would like to put storage buildings on there. Mr. Blohm asked if the property is currently zoned residential. Mr. Hill said the little part is zoned commercial. Mr. Hill continued that has been a spot of commercial use for at least forty years. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Hill if he planned on doing boat storage. Mr. Hill said he didn’t know about the boat storage.
Ms. Holmes asked if the houses on Steve’s Road were there when the property was Rainbow Garage. Mr. Hill said yes.
Ms. Holmes asked what will be done to keep the visual down from the road. Mr. Hill said he wants to make it look nice, and if the abutter wants a fence, he will put up a fence.
Mr. Hill said he doesn’t feel he needs a fence because he will make it look pretty, but he will put a fence up if wanted.
Ms. Holmes asked how many units Mr. Hill thought would be sensible. Mr. Hill said 155 units and once the telephone poles are moved one more building could be placed.
Mr. Fichter noted that the Planning Board said before they could do a Site Plan Review Mr. Hill would need to come to the ZBA to be granted a variance. Mr. Hill said if he was granted the variance, he was going to merge the two lots and go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hill said he wantedto see how the Board takes to having storage units and changing the variance. Mr. Fichter said it was not a change to the variance, it would be a new variance.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Hilladdressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The applicant is proposing to convert the existing commercial auto garage repair/vehicle service center with junk yard into a self-storage facility with a winter boat storage facility building. The reason it is not contrary is that the abutters have lived with a commercial garage and junk yard operation for many years and this conversion to self-storage is much less impacting with respect to the noise of operation. The owner proposes enhanced vegetated buffers that will improve aesthetics and reduce impacts to abutters on all sides.
Mr. Fichter said that Mr. Hill keeps referring that it is a commercial auto garage and Mr. Fichter said that he recognized that to be true some time ago, however when the variance was granted to the previous owner it was as the use of a garden lawn care business. Mr. Hill said he hired someone to answer the variance criteria and he told them it wasn’t a garage; it was a landscape place. Mr. Fichter said he was challenging the assertion that it is currently going from a garage, auto repair place to something else. Mr. Fichter continued that when the variance was granted it was specifically for a lawn care operation, so that variance is in place and that variance in fact goes with the land.
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 already being used commercially as an auto repair garage/vehicle service center with a junk yard so conversion to a commercial self-storage facility is less impacting. Other properties within this zone are mostly residential while this property is the location of a commercial business (which makes this property unique and different from other properties in this zone. The new owner has had to spend a significant amount of time and money cleaning up the junk yard and all debris associated with the previous commercial operation and hopes to recover some of this cost by operating the less impacting business.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The subject parcels (to be merged) are the location of an auto repair garage/vehicle service center with junk yard which are a commercial operation. The intent is to convert the property into a less obtrusive yet commercial self-storage building operation with a winter boat storage building. The owner proposes enhanced vegetated buffers that will improve aesthetics and reduce impacts to abutters on all sides.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Commercial operations are not typically allowed in this zone, however the existing auto repair garage/vehicle service center with junk yard already exists on the property and the new owner purchased the property with the business on it. The new owner has had to spend a significant amount of time and money cleaning up the junk yard and all debris associated with the previous commercial operation and hopes to recover some of this cost by operating the less impacting business.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because:The proposed lot will remain commercial albeit to a less impacting use. It is in a great location for use by local residents in the nearby area who do not have garages or extra space for storage. The location is ideal as the clients that will use the proposed facility will live in residential areas such those adjacent to the subject parcels (to be merged).
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The subject parcel was originally one lot (with lot 036-132) before being subdivided into 2 separate lots and are now proposed to be re-merged and used for a low impact self-storage facility which targets those living in residential lots in the area. The addition of planted buffers to enhance the existing wooded buffers will create less impacting commercial use to blend into the neighborhood.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The use category of the property will not change (remaining commercial) and will in fact become less impacting changing to a quiet, clean and environmentally friendly self-storage facility with a winter boat storage building.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The proposed self-storage units and winter boat storage building will be less obtrusive (less noise) than the current auto repair/vehicle service center with junk yard. The addition of planted buffers to enhance the existing wooded buffers will create less impacting commercial use to blend into the neighborhood.
Ms. Holmes said she has a point of order, what Mr. Hill just read is not correct, is not fact so how can the Board go forward. Ms. Holmes continued that if the Board went forward someone could challenge the outcome for what was read into the record. Ms. Holmes said that she thinks it should be corrected for the record and Mr. Hill should come back to the Board. Mr. Fichter said he thinks Ms. Holmes makes a very good point, that there are misrepresentations in the documentation, so for the Board to make a decision based on that would be risky and inappropriate.
Mr. Hill asked the Board if it looks like it could be possible to get the variance. Mr. Fichter said there is a process that the Board goes through, facts are introduced, and the variance criteria answers are a basis for a lot of those facts and the Board wants those facts to be as correct as possible to avoid any confusion later on. Mr. Fichter continued that the Board also has a process to solicit opinions from abutters and other interested parties, but because of the misrepresentation of what this property was he suggests the Board continue this case. Mr. Fichter said Mr. Hill will have the opportunity to resubmit the variance criteria to reflect correctly what the situation is today.
Mr. Blohm said he doesn’t see what the Board gains by deferring this, it isn’t going to change a whole lot of facts with Mr. Hill coming back changing one word. Ms. Holmes said it is actually the concept, when you read the variance criteria it talks about a junk yard, garage, it does not say anything about the landscaping, that’s where the variance came in and that is read into the record, that is a legal document, and it has to be correct.
Mr. Fichter said his sense is that the Board wants the information for the case to be as accurate as possible so that there are no risks going forward. Mr. Fichter said it may not influence the Board’s thinking one way or the other, but because of the inaccuracy of the presentation, Mr. Fichterthinks that needs to get straightened out. Mr. Fichterrequested that Mr. Hill or an agent correct the variance criteria questions to reflect the fact that it is going from a landscape facility to a proposed storage unit. The Board agreed to the continuance until September 27, 2021, at 7:05 pm.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau
Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 August 9, 2021