Zoning Board Minutes

Zoning Board of Adjustment

May 25, 2022

Approved July 13, 2022

Members Present: David Blohm, Chair; Henry Thomas, Vice-Chair; Steve Hurd, Member; Larry Briggs, Member; Alex Azodi, Alternate; Katheryn Holmes, AlternateMembers Not Present: Gary Budd, Member 

Public Present: Barry Schuster, Peter Reynolds via cell phone, David Tencza, Michael Webster, Cameron Webster, Reed & Andrea Gelzer, Paul Hague, Catherine Beckstein, Alan Scribner, Dick & Helen Wright, Steven Roy, Mark & Tracy Wood, Scott Wheeler, John Abbott-Code Enforcement Officer, Michael Courtney-Town Counsel

Mr. Blohm called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

Board introductions.

Mr. Blohm appointed Ms. Holmes as a voting member.

Minutes

No minutes for the Board’s review.

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 Wednesday, May 25, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:05 p.m.,Barry Schuster, agent for Peter G. Reynolds Trust, will seek an Appeal From Administrative Decision as follows: The March 9, 2022 decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to completely remove an unpermitted 3 story structure as stated in the Notice of Violation. Newbury Tax Map 007-106-442. 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. Blohm said that the Board would hear from Mr. Schuster, John Abbott, the Code Enforcement Officer who issued the Notice of Violation, and any public comment.

Barry Schuster from Schuster, Buttrey & Wing presented to the Board.

Mr. Schuster said the reading referenced the Notice of Violation, but the applicant doesn’t know what the violation is. Mr. Schuster continued that he could go through a long litany and a full presentation of exhibits and explanations,but the applicant would like to know the basis of what the violation is that requires the structure to be removed. Mr. Schuster said that would be the first question, but he will proceed any way the Board likes. Mr. Blohm said he understands that there are a number of things involved in the violation and Mr. Abbott will speak to that. Mr. Blohmasked Mr. Schuster if he was able to give a presentation before hearing the answer to that question. Mr. Schuster said sure but it is a little bit like getting arrested and the police officer says you are under arrest and you say why and you’re not told why. Mr. Schuster continued that having said that he would be glad to go through the chronology. Mr. Azodi said that he is reading here that is says the applicant has a 3 story structure that is unpermitted. Mr. Azodi asked Mr. Schuster if that wasn’t enough that the applicant didn’t have a permit for a 3 storybuilding 

Mr. Schuster handed the Board a stapled packet of exhibits. Mr. Schuster drew the Board’s attention to exhibit 7, which is the building permit that was issued on September 30, 2020. Mr. Blohm said let’s start with that because that’s a pretty cut and dry kind of thing, we are looking at a building permit that permits a 20x28 shed and workshop total 560 square feet, that’s what that permits. Mr. Schuster said with the plans that were attached in the application showing a basement and 2 floors, it’s not 3 story. Mr. Blohm asked if the plans were submitted when this permit was granted. Mr. Schuster said yes. Mr. Blohm said the Board doesn’t have the plans in the file and wondering why. Mr. Schuster said the plans were submitted multiple times. Mr. Briggs asked if the plans were a proposal of the building that the applicant was seeking permission to do or was it an as built, has it deviated significantly. Mr. Schuster no, not at all. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm said the permit is for a total of 560 square feet. Mr. Schuster said that’s what it is, that is the footprint of it. Mr. Blohm said that is the footprint but not the total and that is what he would like Mr. Schuster to talk about. Mr. Schuster said the plans are here and that’s what was granted with the permit, the plans go with the permit, the application included the questionnaire, the complete application, electrical and so on. Mr. Schuster continued that these plans, first floor, basement, second floor, elevations, other elevation. Mr. Blohm said the Board doesn’t know the plans were actually submitted with the building permit application, all the Board knows is that the permit permits the applicant a 28 x 20 structure with a total of 560 square feet. Mr. Schuster said it doesn’t say volume, it doesn’t say cubic feet, it says square feet, that’s the footprint. Mr. Azodi said the language in building construction, total means all levels. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm said one of the reasons that Mr. Abbott issued this Notice of Violation is because what was constructed doesn’t meet the requirements of the building permit at all, it exceeds it substantially. Mr. Schuster said the applicant still does not know why because you did have all the plans and Mr. Reynolds would have three people testify that full plans were delivered to the Town in June, again in September, in July and in October. Mr. Blohm said the plans are not really part of the record though, that’s the problem. Mr. Schuster said they are now in this package here. Discussion followed.

Ms. Holmes asked about the timing of it all, the applicant got the permit in 2020. Mr. Thomas said the date of the plans are 2021 and the permit was issued in 2020 so how can the applicant have something drawn in 2021 submitted in 2020.

Mr. Azodi asked when the foundation was built. Mr. Schuster said he would say it was in the fall of 2020 because Mr. Abbott signed off on it. Mr. Abbott said he was not here in 2020. Mr. Schuster said October 13, 2021 was when Mr. Abbott signed off on the foundation. Mr. Azodi asked if October 2021 was when the foundation began. Mr. Schuster said it was going in. Mr. Schuster showed the Board a picture of the foundation dated October 15, 2021.Mr. Azodi said the applicant claimed that those plans were submitted when the permit was applied for. Mr. Schuster said correct. Mr. Azodi said the applicant is suggesting that what is built is exactly the same as the plan. Mr. Schuster said the plan is dated 9/15/2020. Mr. Azodi asked Mr. Schuster if that is what is built. Mr. Schuster said to his knowledge, yes. Mr. Azodi said the applicant is claiming that the plans are the same thing. Mr. Schuster said it should be. Mr. Azodi asked why one plan has one bathroom and this one has three. Mr. Schuster said the bathrooms were added because the applicant has a need for bathrooms on each floor. Mr. Azodi questioned the need in a workshop and a shed. Mr. Schuster said yes, a workshop, the applicant is a skilled crafts person, he restores boats and other materials, and he likes to have a nice place to work. Mr. Schuster said this is not a rental, no ones going to live there, this is the applicant’s workspace. Mr. Blohm asked if this space has a kitchen in it also. Mr. Schuster said the applicant is planning to put a stove in it because he does heat materials for his work.

Mr. Blohm said the Board is not able to figure out who said what to who, but to really figure out if the Code Enforcement Officer made the right decision. Mr. Blohmcontinued that the Code Enforcement Officer made a decision based on what the building permit was which was a total of 560 square feet and that building is more that 560 square feet so that is why the Notice of Violation was issued.

Ms. Holmes asked if the applicant has a septic approval. Mr. Schuster said yes, it is under the prior owner’s name that was granted in 2000 and it’s been constructed and Exhibit 1 shows the approval for construction. Mr. Abbott asked if the applicant has the approval for operation. Mr. Schuster said he didn’t get it off the website. Mr. Abbott said there is no approval for operation. Mr. Schuster said that we don’t know that it wasn’t on the website. Mr. Abbott said that he has spoken with DES and there is no approval for operation. Mr. Blohm said here’s the issue, the Board starts looking through the records and can’t find evidence of any of these things that the applicant says exists, so all the Board has to go on is what the building permit says, and the building permit says that a structure of 560 square feet total. Mr. Hurd asked why the applicant would ever call this a shed/workshop, he pictures a shed like you store a lawnmower in, and why would you need a septic hooked up to a shed/workshop. Mr. Schuster said some people drive a car that gets them from here to there and some people drive a Maserati, the applicant is able tohave a nice place to work.

Mr. Schuster said he thinks that Mr. Abbott came in after the fact when a lot of this happened and if he doesn’t have the records, it’s not his fault but it is the fault of someone that was here previously. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm said that if the applicant had come to the Code Enforcement Officer in the beginning with a request for a permit for that particular structure there would have been a whole list of other things that the applicant would have been required to get. Mr. Schuster said to give him a list of the alleged violations because he doesn’t know what to apply for, he came in having no idea what the basis of the violation was. Mr. Blohm said the primary violation is 560 square feet total but there are others that can be listed.

Mr. Abbott said the Shoreland Permit has expired. 

Mr. Abbott continued that the applicant added bathrooms without compliance of Article 3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance or approval by the State that the lot can sustain the additional loading. Mr. Blohm read Article 3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance into the record: All sanitary systems shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with standards set and enforced by the NH Water Supply and Pollution Control Division of the NH Department ofEnvironmental Services. The erection or alteration of any dwelling or other building which will result in an increase in the number of bedrooms or bathrooms shall require zoning compliance. Before zoning compliance may be issued, the applicant shall supply a certificate of inspection from a qualified sanitary professional certifying that the existing septic system is adequate for the proposed use and that the system meets the current rules of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division of the NH Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Schuster said had the applicant been requested to supply that it would have been submitted. Mr. Schuster continued that the applicant’s septic installer and maintainer has said it’s perfectly fine and DES has said it’s fine and the applicant will provide that to the Board.  Mr. Blohm noted that it hasn't been done. Mr. Schuster said the applicant hasn’t been asked for it. 

Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Abbott and Ms. Favreau what the next one was. Ms. Favreau said Article 5.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Blohm read Article 5.14 of the Zoning Ordinance into the record: All pre-existing lots are permitted one dwelling unit. That unit and its accessory services (septic, well, driveway access and all accessory structures) must fit within the Building Envelope except for exemptions from setback requirements, Section 5.9. Mr. Schuster said this is a replacement of an existing building, there was a building there previously. Ms. Holmes said no there was not, there was a little shed addition. Mr. Schuster said it was a separate building, it was not attached. Mr. Schuster continued that there was the garage/workshop in the front, this building and then the house. Mr. Schuster showed the Board a picture of the building that was there previously. Mr. Hurd, Mr. Blohm and Ms. Holmes all said that is a shed. Mr. Schuster said yes that is a shed and that is why the applicant wanted to replace it. Mr. Abbott said the Town has no records of a 20 x 28 shed on that property, Mr. Abbott continued that the Town records show that the applicant applied for a building permit for a shed that size, but it expired without ever having been built. Mr. Schuster said that is the current building they are talking about, but the tax card from September 2, 2021 shows a garage with loft built in 2005 at 24 x 20. Mr. Schuster said this is the old building that was there. Mr. Blohm said it doesn’t matter if there was an old building, Article 5.14 talks about one dwelling unit on a lot. Mr. Schuster said there’s only one dwelling unit. Mr. Blohm said that’s debatable here. Mr. Schuster said no it’s not because the applicant will certify, swear, whatever the Board wants it is not meant for living, there is no bedroom space in it, it has bathrooms and may have a stove, but it is not for living. Mr. Blohm said there is a definition of an ADU in Article 2.2. Mr. Schuster said that it would have been very helpful to have this in a laundry list before tonight. Mr. Blohm said the Board doesn’t really need the laundry list, the primary thing that we are here for is the building permit says one thing, the building is something else. Mr. Blohm said this structure fits all the definition of an accessory apartment. Mr. Schuster said there is no sleeping in there. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm said the Board has given the applicant a list of things and he is sure there is probably more. Mr. Blohmcontinued that had there been a request for a permit to buildthe building that is there all of these things would have come into play and as a result they are kind of after the fact and it doesn’t work. Mr. Schuster said it is not after the fact because you did have the materials, it was permitted, and the permit was signed. Mr. Schuster continued that Mr. Abbott came in after the fact and what information he found or couldn’t find is really an issue for the Town.

Ms. Holmes said it appears to her that this is a duplex, you have the main house that was there and now the applicant has built another dwelling with bathrooms and kitchen and so forth. Ms. Holmes continued duplexes are not in the regulations therefore it is prohibited. Mr. Schuster said correct, a dwelling is prohibited except it is not connected to any other building, it’s a separate stand alone building, so it’s not a duplex.

Mr. Briggs said that he is a woodworker too, so he understands shops and he can understand why the applicant may want a shop sink or something in the shop. Mr. Briggs continued that these have 3 toilets, 2 showers, 1 tub, a full stove, a double sink in the kitchen area. Mr. Briggs said if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Mr. Schuster asked what the applicant could do to make sure it’s not a duck. Mr. Blohm said the Board can’t advise the applicant on that. Mr. Blohm said he has a workshop in his house, and he put in a special door so he could get materials in and out and he did not see one over there for that. Mr. Schuster said there are houses in Newbury and all over the State where there are all kinds of accessory buildings that are not dwellings that are well accounted for, you can see them all along the lake and the applicant is at a point where he wants to restore boats, there is nothing wrong with the stove if he wants to cook a meal for himself, but he is not going to have anyone living there. Mr. Hurd said what about if the applicant sells it. Mr. Schuster said if you record something in the Registry of Deeds it’ll say not livable, not for living space.

Mr. Schuster said the tax card show that there were the three buildings, or the two buildings, originally the house and the shed that’s now been removed and later on the applicant did get a variance to build the garage where he does store his boats. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Blohm read the following into the record:

May 24,2022

Newbury New Hampshire-Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Office Building

To whom it may concern,

We own the property at 3 Bay Point Landing Road and are next door neighbors to the home of Peter Reynolds on Bay Point Road, the subject of the zoning appeal to be heard on May 25, 2022. We regret that we are not able to attend this meeting in person as we have a conflicting family commitment.

We would like to go on record that we have no issues with the addition to the property that is now under construction. We have been neighbors of Mr. Reynolds for eighteen years and Mr. Reynolds showed us the plans for the building prior to starting construction. The building has been designed by local house designer Harry Seidel and the architecture is in keeping with the existing historic 1892 house on the property, and serves to save the original historic house, yet update the property for Mr. Reynolds current needs. Sincerely, Frank & Joyce Lemay

Mr. Blohm read the following into the record:

Town of Newbury

Zoning Board of Adjustment

I recently received a letter from you notifying me of public hearing regarding the zoning board’s decision to require the complete “removal” of a structure on my neighbor’s property.

I found this quite disturbing. 

My understanding is that my neighbor, Mr. Reynolds has owned the property for over 20 years. 

As I see the structure nearing its completion, it is quite attractive and more importantly appears to be in conformance with his existing property originally built in the 1800’s and resembles many traditional lake properties.

That is in STARK contrast to the hideous glass and concrete abominations currently under endless disruptive construction on Baypoint Road.

At least two of these involved the destruction of entire forests of mature trees from the street right down to water’s edge.

My understanding is that tree removal is a highly regulated process which couldn’t possibly have been followed in these cases.

Mr. Reynold’s structure has no impact on the lake, as far as I can tell, nor did it require the kind of massive tree removals other properties on the road entailed.

Where were you folks when those plans were submitted?

Timothy Crowley

125 Baypoint Road

Newbury, NH

Kate Beckstein asked if the Town had a definition of a shed. Mr. Blohm said he didn’t believe there was a definition of shed. Ms. Beckstein said she doesn’t think a shed includes bathrooms, or bedrooms, or kitchens or anything else, it is a place to keep implements or to do work. Ms. Beckstein continued that this is not a shed.

Scott Wheeler asked what the total square footage of living space is. Mr. Blohm said the footprint of that building is 560 square feet, there is a basement and two levels of the house, so that would be 560 times two. Mr. Abbott said that all three levels are livable, there is 1680 square feet. Mr. Blohm asked if there were bathroom facilities in the basement. Mr. Abbott said yes.

Alan Scribner asked if the applicant would be using this as a workshop where he would be building and restoring boats. Mr. Schuster said not so much building but repairing. Mr. Scribner asked how the applicant was going to get a boat out of that building. Mr. Schuster said he doesn’t believe the applicant will put a boat in that building, he takes parts to boats and restores them.

Reed Gelzer thanked the Board for the greater scrutiny that is being brought to this.

There being no further comment from the public, Mr. Blohm closed the public portion of the meeting.

Deliberations

Ms. Holmes said she thinks that it is pretty much a mess. Mr. Briggs said that he doesn’t think it is a mess, that it is pretty cut and dry. Mr. Briggs continued that in his opinion the Code Enforcement Officer articulated the requirements and the areas that are of concern. Mr. Briggs said that he can’t get it out of his head that when he looks at this structure and these plans, three full baths to include tubs, showers, stoves, it is not a workshop and 560 total square feet is not what the Board sees here, even if only two of those floors are counted that is 1120 square feet.

Mr. Azodi said the Board is here tonight to decide whether Mr. Abbott made the right decision and in my view he did, what he saw was a three-story residential building, all finished with everything a nice residential building has and nothing that indicates it’s a shed or workshop, not even a door that resembles a shed or workshop. Mr. Azodi continued that Mr. Abbott looked at the permit, and the permit simply says to construct a 20’x28’ shed and workshop, and he saw a building being built that is completely different than what was permitted.

Mr. Thomas said he can relate to Mr. Azodi’s statement. Mr. Thomas continued that he thinks there was information lacking for Mr. Abbott to let this project go on. Mr. Thomas said there is information on the septic loading that was never shown. Mr. Thomas said he is not as concerned about the fact there’s bathrooms and stuff in this thing because in a lot of lake houses he has inspected there are more rooms than you can fathom and they’re getting permitted. Mr. Thomas said his issue is that the applicant didn’t get the septic approval, the impervious area is questionable and also the fact that it is questionable that the plans were in hand at the Town of Newbury at the time of approval.

Mr. Briggs made a motion to vote on the request fromBarry Schuster (agent) for Peter G. Reynolds Trust for anAppeal From an Administrative Decision as follows: The March 9, 2022 decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to completely remove an unpermitted 3 story structure as stated in the Notice of Violation. Newbury Tax Map 007-106-442.

Ms. Holmes seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote:

Henry Thomas voted to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision

Katheryn Holmes voted to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision 

Larry Briggs voted to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision

David Blohm voted to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision

Steven Hurd voted to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision 

Five votes to Deny the Appeal From an Administrative Decision for the following reasons:

• Based on square footage that exceeds what was permitted on the building permit dated 9/30/2020-4 yes votes and 1 no vote-Mr. Thomas

• Based on non-compliance of Article 3.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance-5 yes votes

• Based on non-compliance of Article 5.14 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance-4 yes votes and 1 no vote-Mr. Thomas

• Based on concerns of non-compliance with Articles 2.2 and 7.2.2 and 5.7 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance-4 yes votes and 1 no vote-Mr. Thomas

• Based on concerns of non-compliance with Article 7.12.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance-5 yes votes

Mr. Blohm 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 Wednesday, May 25, 2022, at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:20 p.m.,David C. Tencza, agent for Michael J. Webster & Ai Qunwei, will seek an Appeal From an Administrative Decision as follows: The March 9, 2022 decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to completely remove an unpermitted “tree house” structure as stated in the Notice of Violation. Newbury Tax Map 041-084-309. 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.

David Tencza and Michael Webster presented to the Board.

Mr. Tencza said the applicant is here to seek relief from a violation that was served on him back in March of this year for a tree house structure that he has on his property in the Town of Newbury. Mr. Tencza said a little bit of history, this structure was put up in 2016, at that time the applicant went to the Town and sought a permit, was told at that point he did not need a permit for this type of structure because it didn’t have any electricity running to it. Mr. Tencza continued that there was a camp toilet that was installed, currently that’s been removed, also it doesn’t useTown water or any sort of water or sanitation. Mr. Tenczasaid it wasn’t until 2021 when the applicant received a letter from the Town’s attorney saying the applicant was violating the Ordinances as a result of renting out this structure as well as a couple other violations. Mr. Webster said before Mr. Kautz left, he sent a letter saying it was a violation, the applicant replied with a request for a building permit that was never responded to and then the letter came from the attorney in 2021. Mr. Tencza said it has not been for lack of trying that this tree house has not been permitted. Mr. Tencza continued that the applicant has run into a bit of the same problem as the last case the Board heard as it relates to what exact violations, how the Town is categorizing this structure. 

Mr. Tencza said the issue of the renting of the structure has been remedied, it is no longer being rented. Mr. Tenczacontinued that in the letter the applicant received from the Town’s attorney, earlier this year, there was no instruction for the applicant to remove the treehouse. Mr. Tencza said that when the applicant received the second zoning letter from the Town instructing the removal of the treehouse that is a much different situation. Mr. Tencza continued that the applicant still uses that for personal use to enjoy his land and would like to have it remain on the property. Mr. Tencza said the applicant sought to have it permitted even more recently, in July 2021 and again was told that it couldn’t be permitted. Mr. Tencza continued that the applicant is assuming because code enforcement is looking at this as an accessory dwelling unit, however there is no kitchen in this unit, no sanitation facilities in this unit so it shouldn’t be considered an accessory dwelling unit, additionally there are other similar structures in Town which have been categorized as sheds on the tax records included for the Board’s review.

Mr. Tencza said the applicant is looking for a favorable ruling from the Board tonight and more guidance on how the Town is categorizing this and what the next step needs to be in obtaining a permit or asking for the proper permissions for it to remain. Mr. Blohm said the Board is here to really affirm whether John was correct in doing what he did. Mr. Tencza said if the Board could let the applicant know which sections of the Ordinances that he is in violation of. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Abbott about the violations. Mr. Abbott said he would be glad to give the Board a list of some things, but the biggest thing is it’s a habitable structure and the State building code is the minimum standard statewide, the Town can have a more stringent standard, but we can’t have a lesser standard. Mr. Abbott continued that where the structure is habitable, where people can occupy it and spend time there it has to meet certain minimum standards, so he would be more than willing to work with the applicant to try to find any common ground that might exist, but he is a plodder not a sprinter so he can’t tell the applicant right off the top of hishead, but he’s certainly willing to work with the applicant.

Mr. Azodi said this might have been answered, but he is not clear, Mr. Abbott is calling the structure habitable, Mr. Azodi thought it does not have a bathroom, it does not have a kitchen, it does not have electricity or water. Mr. Azodi asked Mr. Abbott how he decides that it is habitable. Mr. Abbott said if people can occupy it, if people can spend time in there, he would have to do a bit of research to see if there is a good definition in the IRC. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Abbott if the issue for him was that it was being rented. Mr. Abbott said that was a big issue because of life safety considerations. Mr. Azodi said it’s rented. Mr. Abbott said it was, the applicant was using it as a short-term rental. Mr. Azodi said in a place with no water or sanitation. Mr. Webster said he couldn’t believe it either. Mr. Azodi said then Mr. Abbott has a legitimate point. Mr. Azodi continued that if the applicant is renting it to people then it has to meet what Mr. Abbott says.

Mr. Blohm asked how big the structure is. Mr. Webster said 16x16, the tree house that is in the tax records as a shed is 16x14 and then the unpermitted tree house is slightly smaller. Discussion followed.

Ms. Holmes asked the applicant if he was saying he was not going to rent it anymore. Mr. Webster said ever. Ms. Holmes said maybe the applicant is familiar with a Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Tencza said the applicant had offered that previous to this hearing and was told the Town wasn’t interested.

Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Abbott if there was a list of issues that the Board should address specifically about that structure like in the previous hearing. Mr. Abbott saidthings have changed since he sent the Notice of Violation, at the time he believed there was a privy there. Mr. Webster said there was a composting toilet. Mr. Abbott said he was told something different; he’s never been to the property.Ms. Holmes asked if a composting toilet was illegal. Mr. Abbott said no, he was told there was a privy there, which is not illegal, but they have to be permitted and the State had no records of it.

Mr. Blohm said in the last hearing there were issues of ADU and other stuff, he asked Mr. Abbott that all those are not here is that right. Mr. Abbott asked Ms. Favreau if this structure qualified as an ADU. Mr. Blohm said no. Mr. Briggs said it doesn’t meet the requirements. Mr. Thomas said there is no other use to it. 

Mr. Blohn asked Mr. Abbott what are the other things on the list that would cause this letter to be written to the applicant. Mr. Abbott said that was then, and this is now, they were renting, people were staying in this house, life safety is a big consideration with him. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Abbott if that was to have gone away, would you have written this letter. Mr. Abbott said if the applicant stopped renting it, he would have written a polite letter to try to work something out, but as long as people can spend time inside of it the life safety stuff, he believes, kicks in. Mr. Abbott asked the applicant how high off the ground is the structure. Mr. Webster said four feet on one side and about ten on the other. Mr. Abbott said as he recalls from looking at the pictures and he is guesstimating, but he doesn’t think there are adequate railings, so those are his concerns.

Ms. Holmes said she thinks some things have transpired since the violation, the applicant has decided not to rent the treehouse, so it seems excessive to tear down if there issome kind of treehouse compliance. Mr. Briggs said his understanding is that if it is not specifically allowed in the Ordinance than it is not allowed, he thinks that’s called a permissive Ordinance. Mr. Briggs continued that as much as he understands where Ms. Holmes is coming from, the Ordinance does not allow it per se. Mr. Blohm said so that is the rock and the hard place here. Discussion followed.Mr. Blohm asked the applicant if it was possible to continue this hearing so that you and Mr. Abbott can figure out a solution. Mr. Abbott said the ultimate decision would be with the Board of Selectmen, but he would try to find a solution that doesn’t involve tearing it down. Mr. Abbott continued that he would tell the applicant up front, that in its present state, in his opinion, it can not continue to exist, there would have to be modifications that address the life safety issues. Mr. Abbott said he will seek guidance from the SelectBoard, but he thinks it is a really good idea. Ms. Holmes said she didn’t think it was a good idea because she thinks the Board should make a decision and have Mr. Abbott work it out with the applicant.

Mr. Tencza said in response to the issue of whether treehouses are permitted, he would say they are permitted under 2.134 which defines structure. Mr. Blohm said that once again if it is not expressly allowed it is not allowed. Mr. Blohm asked Mr. Courtney in order for the applicant to get this permitted would he have to come for a special exception. Mr. Courtney said just because it’s defined as a structure, you will need a building permit, he thinks the applicant would need a variance too for the use that they’re doing, they’re renting it out. Mr. Blohm said what if the applicant is not. Mr. Courtney said that the issue right now is whether Mr. Abbott’s Notice of Violation is correct, and they were renting it out, there’s the internet advertisement as part of the record, so the question is whether Mr. Abbott was correct in citing the applicant for violating the Zoning Ordinance for renting out for less than thirty days, the applicant would need a variance to do that. Mr. Courtney continued that Mr. Abbott also has several building codeissues. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm asked if a continuance makes sense. Mr. Thomas said a continuance would allow the applicant to meet with Mr. Abbott and the SelectBoard, to come up with a way to make this building stable and meet all the Town’s zoning. Mr. Thomas continued that if Mr. Abbott still denies it then the Notice of Violation stays in place, or the applicant can come back. Mr. Blohm said if they come up with a solution, then the applicant will have to apply for a bunch of variances anyway. Discussion followed. The Board asked if the applicant would be agreeable to a continuation. Mr. Tencza said he believes he is and the only thing he would ask is that any penalties associated with the violation would be stayed until the next hearing. Mr. Blohmasked if the Board could do that. Mr. Courtney said that is a SelectBoard issue. Discussion followed.

Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Hague asked about issuing a cease and desist on the renting and that would have been the end of it.

Mr. Roy asked if violations could be given for an ordinance issue or a separate violation for a building issue. Mr. Blohmsaid you could get both. Discussion followed.

There being no further comment from the public, Mr. Blohm closed the public portion of the meeting.

Ms. Holmes made a motion to continue this hearing until July 27, 2022 at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Briggs seconded the motion.All in favor.

Mr. Thomas made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Briggsseconded the motion. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tiffany A. Favreau

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment                     Page 1 of 6                        May 25, 2022