Zoning Board Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2019
Approved October 16, 2019
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair; Nancy Marashio, Gary Budd, Members; Henry Thomas, Alternate.
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m.
Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Thomas as a voting member for this meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of September 9, 2019 and made corrections. Ms. Marashio made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Budd seconded the motion.
Approve: Mr. Blohm, Mr. Budd, Ms. Marashio
Abstain: Mr. Fichter, Mr. Thomas
ZBA Rules of Procedure
The Board reviewed the suggested edits/additions to the ZBA Rules of Procedure. There was no discussion.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to accept the changes to the ZBA Rules of Procedure as presented. Ms. Marashio seconded the motion. All in favor.
D’Alelio Appeal
Mr. Fichter informed the Board that Mr. D’Alelio has filed an Appeal with the NH Superior Court, which was denied. Mr. Fichter noted that Mr. D’Alelio may appeal to the NH Superior Court within 10 days of the denial.
At 7:15 p.m., 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, September 23, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Charles & Beverly McCauley (owners), for property located at 12 Weetamoo Dr., 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 a 16’ X 12’ shed within the 30’ right-of-way setback. Newbury Tax Map 16A-178-451. Copies of the application are available for review during regular business hours at the Newbury Town Office building. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 am-noon.
Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.
Charles and Beverly McCauley presented to the Board. Mr. McCauley stated that they have owned the property since 2007 as a second home. He said they have decided to retire here, sold their other home and now have the combined belongings of two households at this location. He noted that they have power equipment (generator, lawn mower, snow blower, petroleum containers, etc.) that is currently being stored outside and subjected to the elements. He expressed concern that this presents a potential safety issue. The proposed shed location is on a paper road that no one uses. He added that they have one abutter who is present very infrequently.
Mr. McCauley reviewed with the Board the location of the house on the submitted plans. Ms. McCauley noted that all the power equipment, including gas cans, etc. is outside and they would like to have it housed properly before the winter sets in.
Mr. Fichter asked if the abutter accesses his property via Weetamoo Drive. Mr. McCauley said the abutter doesn’t park on the Drive.
Mr. Blohm noted the presence of trees between the proposed storage shed and the road and asked if they are to be removed. Mr. McCauley said some of them are badly damaged and will need to come down.
There was discussion regarding alternative locations for the proposed storage shed.
Mr. Blohm noted that the proposed shed location is in a low-lying area on the property and questioned the potential for water buildup/damage. Mr. McCauley stated that plans call for using a base of ¾-inch rock to avoid any water issues.
There being no more questions from the Board, Mr. McCauley addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: Woodsum road is a private road and not used, the addition of the shed will not intrude on the road or the one surrounding property.
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: Due to the layout of the septic and leach field the area in question is the only area one can have a shed.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: Due to the layout of the septic and leach field the area in question is the only area one can have a shed.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: It is restricting my ability to add a shed for storage reasons because of article 5 section 5.9.1 but the area in question is not impeding the road or nearest house property.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: Allowing me to place a shed in the area in question will not impact anyone as the road is not used and the closest house is not occupied.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: It allows me to utilize existing land that will not negatively burden anyone to place a shed for the storage of various items as I do not have a garage and have no room in the house to store the items.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: I will be allowed to utilize existing property to install a shed that will provide necessary storage for lawn and snow equipment and various other items. We consider this to be a safety issue. Our lawn mower, snow blower and petroleum are currently exposed to the elements. God forbid a leak happens, affecting the environment.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: Allowing the variance will not impede the one surrounding property as the property is unoccupied and the shed will not intrude in any way.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no Public present, Mr. Fichter closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.
Mr. Fichter stated that he thought this was a reasonable request.
Mr. Blohm stated that the shed placement was in an inconspicuous location on the property and it would not adversely affect the neighborhood.
There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Vote.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request from Charles & Beverly McCauley (owners), for property located at 12 Weetamoo Dr., Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Placement of a 16-foot by 12-foot shed within the 30-foot right-of-way setback. Newbury Tax Map 16A-178-451. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion.
Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Ms. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Fichter advised that the applicant or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the ZBA within thirty (30) days of the decision as per RSA 677:2. Said motion must set forth, in detail, all grounds on which the appeal is based.
Mr. Fichter called for a break at 7:31 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 7:36 p.m.
At 7:36 p.m., 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, September 23, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:30 p.m., Hygge at Skytop, LLC (owner), Douglas Gamsby from Greenline Property Services, LLC (agent), for property located at 52 Skytop Dr., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Development on steep slopes. Newbury Tax Map 028-310-075. Copies of the application are available for review during regular business hours at the Newbury Town Office building. Business hours are as follows: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 am-noon.
Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.
Douglas Gamsby, Greenline Property services, LLC, agent, presented to the Board. He introduced the property owners, Shane Burgoon and Valerie Gauthier, who plan to operate the proposed house as a rental property under the name of Hygge at Skytop, LLC.
Mr. Gamsby described the property as a lot at the end of Skytop Lodges with a 25%+ steep slope presence. He said the application is requesting a waiver in order to build 125 linear feet of driveway that goes through steep slope areas. The lot size is 4.1 acres and the proposed house is modest in size – 36-feet by 26-feet. Mr. Gamsby said it is a two-story house with an approved septic design for three bedrooms.
Mr. Gamsby described the driveway approach to the house, the turnaround area adjacent to the proposed house, and access to the garage. He said the septic tank is under the driveway. He described the planned cul de sac and how it will be built up so the water will run off of it.
Significant discussion ensued regarding the planned stormwater management elements, specifically how the plan will capture and filtrate stormwater before it leaves the property.
Mr. Fichter stated that Chalk Pond has a lot of erosion issues and stormwater runoff challenges. He stated that the plan, as presented, appears to be adding to those two areas of concern.
Discussion followed regarding the existing culverts servicing Chalk Pond and the effectiveness of same. Mr. Gamsby noted that the Highway Administrator has recommended a larger culvert dimension to handle the cul de sac runoff.
Mr. Blohm noted that the plan calls for the removal of a lot of trees, all of which act as a filtration system for stormwater runoff. Without the trees, the runoff will increase, and the filtration of water will change.
Mr. Gamsby described how he anticipate the water will run off the property and said it will not be possible to put in underground hold tanks to capture the runoff. He suggested putting in a drywell. Discussion followed regarding additional stormwater runoff elements for consideration.
Mr. Burgoon noted that they plan to landscape the area with blueberry bushes and lilac bushes.
Mr. Fichter noted that stormwater management is aimed at slowing down the runoff, reducing the impact of the runoff, and directing the water to a selection of filtration points on the property.
Discussion followed regarding roof runoff and installing a stone line ditch and pipes to capture the runoff.
Mr. Budd said the challenge to this project as presented is that the plans increase waterflow without presenting ways to mitigate that increase.
Mr. Thomas discussed the history of the Chalk Pond development, particularly the ongoing issues pertaining to water runoff. He noted that a drywell near the house, another drywell midway down the property, and a third drywell at the driveway would slow down the water runoff to allow for absorption.
Pervious pavers versus drywells were discussed, particularly regarding the respective costs. Installing vegetation was also discussed.
There being no more questions from the Board, Mr. Gamsby addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The parcel is a lot of record approved by the town of Newbury Planning Board in May 1984.
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 lot has numerous slopes over 25%. A portion of the driveway and a portion of the septic force main are proposed to be considered across the steep slopes because there is no other reasonable way to access these areas.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The lot has slopes greater than 25% along Skytop Drive access and beyond. There is no other reasonable way to access the lot other than that shown.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: There is no other reasonable way to access the buildable portion of the property. There is an existing woods road which was constructed years ago but this road has slopes greater than 15%, the accepted standard of safety for driveway access.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: Construction is occurring only on a portion of the slopes greater than 25%. The proposed house area, septic area, and remainder of the driveway and parking are not in steep slope district.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The proposed construction has been minimized outside of the steep slopes to a reasonable extent. The driveway is being constructed at a maximum of 15% slopes, the accepted standard for emergency vehicular access in case of fire or other emergency events.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The property owner will be able to construct a house, septic system and all appurtenances on a lot of record as determined by the Town of Newbury Planning board in 1984.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: There
is nothing in this proposal to affect surrounding property values. This is a request to build a residential house with appurtenances. Erosion control and stormwater management measures are put in place to prevent flooding or erosion of the existing road.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
Richard Gosselin, 201 Chalk Pond Road, Newbury, noted that he has lived at this location for over 30 years. He added that his location is below the proposed building site. Over the years, Mr. Gosselin said he has witnessed “a lot of water” running down from above, specifically behind his garage. He asked how the applicants propose to mitigate the runoff, especially in view of all the earth disturbance caused by a building site.
Discussion followed regarding the potential stormwater runoff and how to better mitigate the resulting runoff from the property site towards Chalk Pond.
Mr. Blohm stated that the applicant must capture most of the water up by the house through a robust stormwater management plan. He added that he believed the stormwater management portion of the project must be examined more closely.
There being no further comment from the Public, Mr. Fichter closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.
Mr. Fichter reviewed with the applicant the available options, given the Board’s concerns regarding the stormwater management elements of the proposed project. The applicant consented to continue the hearing to the November 2019 ZBA meeting date.
There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion for Continuance.
Ms. Marashio made a Motion to Continue to November 18, 2019 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Budd made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary