Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 13, 2023
Approved January 10, 2024
Members Present: David Blohm, Chair; Henry Thomas, Vice-Chair; Larry Briggs, Member; Katheryn Holmes, Member; Patricia Sherman, Alternate
Members Not Present: Steve Hurd, Member; Alex Azodi, Alternate
Public: James Smith, Jay Preston
Mr. Blohm called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Mr. Blohm appointed Ms. Sherman as a voting member of the Board for this meeting.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 8, 2023. Ms. Holmes made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Sherman seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board discussed and agreed to moving the March 13, 2024 ZBA meeting to March 20, 2024 because of the conflict with Town meeting.
Board Introductions.
Continuance-Cleveland, Waters & Bass, P.A. (agent), Patsy Ruth Fisher Fam Trust(owner), for property located at 325 Bay Point Road, Newbury, NH, will seek Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: permit certain additions and modifications to the property in order to make the waterfront more accessible. Newbury Tax Map 006-211- 473.
Mr. Blohm read the following into the record:
Hi Tiffany,
As I mentioned over the phone, we are requesting to continue our variance application hearing to the January 10, 2024 ZBA meeting. Per your request over the phone, I am putting our continuance request into this email. As we discussed, prior to the end of business on December 26, I will send you an addendum to the Statement of Facts and Law, as well as another variance application form, pertaining to the overlooked side setback issue.
Thank you and have a great rest of the day.
Sincerely,
Tom Chesnard
Mr. Thomas made a motion to continue the hearing for 325 Bay Point Road, Newbury Tax Map 006-211-473 to January 10, 2024 at 7:05pm.
Ms. Sherman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 December 13, 2023
Continuance- Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (agent), Bulang Investments LLC (owner), for property located at 1285 Route 103, Newbury, NH, will seek Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 24’ x 24’ 2-bay garage within the right of way and side setbacks and in the steep slopes area. Newbury Tax Map 007-019-002.
James Smith from Allen & Major Associates, Inc. presented to the Board.
Mr. Smith presented a letter and a drainage report from his engineer to help answer the Board’s questions from the previous meeting. Mr. Smith said the proposal is a 2-bay garage and one of the Board’s concerns was the setback to the property line. Mr. Smith continued that other Board questions were about the top of wall elevations for the retaining wall, finished floor elevations on the garage and the plan has been updated to show the total impervious area which is going to be 26.4%.
Mr. Smith read the letter from Mike Malynowski, professional engineer into the record:
Dear Mr. Blohm and members of the board:
On behalf of our client Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (A&M) is pleased to submit this plan summary letter to address questions raised during the Zoning Board meeting on November 8,2023.
• The proposed garage building was shifted to the north by approximately 4.5 feet. This allowed for an increase to the rear setback from 2.2 ft to 3.5 ft. Unfortunately, the garage cannot be shifted to the north any further as the driveway approach would be too steep to enter the garage building from the existing driveway.
• Top of wall elevations were provided for proposed retaining wall to extend from the proposed garage to the existing driveway.
• Finish floor elevation of proposed garage added to the plan.
• The impervious cover calculations were updated to address the decreased driveway
apron which were decreased from 27.3% to 26.4%.
• The proposed front setback was increased from 84.7 ft to 85.8 ft.
Additionally, calculations are provided to illustrate that the stone sizing within the swale will be sufficient to stay seated during larger storm events.
We trust that this explanation fulfills the request for additional information and illustrates that the project meets or exceeds normal engineering practices. We thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation regarding this project and look forward to meeting to discuss the plans.
Very Truly Yours,
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. Michael A. Malynowski, PE Senior Project Manager
Mr. Smith said the garage was shifted from 2.2’ to 3.5’. Ms. Sherman said that’s still 2.5’ from the overhang which is stated clearly. Mr. Smith said that is correct. Mr. Blohm asked if the 3.5’ is the setback. Mr. Smith said from the building corner, so the roof drip edge would be two and a half feet from the property line. Mr. Smith continued that one of the Board’s big concerns was excavating; the engineer feels that the three and a half feet won’t
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 December 13, 2023
be a problem, the building will be laid out and will have to be exact. Mr. Smith continued that for a machine to be in there for a frost wall won’t be encroaching on the neighbor’s property. Ms. Sherman said she would agree, and also the well is not in the garage, which is a good thing. Mr. Smith said it is out back behind the garage. Discussion followed.
Mr. Blohm asked if the building was guttered on the south side. Mr. Smith said yes.
Ms. Sherman said she doesn’t have any issues about what was done, the applicant has done as much as they could do, and she thinks it is reasonable. Mr. Blohm said that he thinks this has been a good response and is making it better. Discussion followed.
There being no further questions from the Board Mr. Smith addressed Article 16.8 of the Zoning Ordinance for Article 5.9.1:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed garage will not restrict the neighbor’s access to use the driveway and will not block any site views of Lake Sunapee.
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 an existing driveway easement for the benefit of the neighbor. This prevents placing the garage on top of the existing drive, which is out of the steep slope area.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The lot is configured in such a way that it is the remainder land between the old Claremont and Concord rail corridor and Rte. 103. The lot configuration limits the area for the placement of the garage.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Because of the steep side slope from Route 103 to the Shore of Lake Sunapee and the configuration of the existing lot.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The existing use of the property is residential, which conforms to the current zoning. A 2-bay garage is a standard accessory building to the existing dwelling. 2 bay garages are conforming to other residences in the area.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The garage placement is the only spot where access and egress will not be restricted and is out of the steep slope as much as possible. A proposed retaining wall that will be constructed to eliminate erosion of the steep slope. Roof drains will drain stormwater runoff into a proposed infiltration trench.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Granting the variance will allow the homeowner to benefit from his use and enjoyment of his land.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The addition of a new garage will not diminish the value of surrounding property’s; the use is consistent with surrounding uses in the zone.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 December 13, 2023
Mr. Smith addressed Article 16.8 of the Zoning Ordinance for Article 9.4:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed garage to be constructed with roof drains to catch the runoff. A proposed retaining wall to be constructed to stabilize the slope in this area. A proposed stone lined diversion swale for stormwater runoff. The diversion swale, garage, and infiltration trench will be installed with erosion control in place. The proposed location of the garage will not restrict the neighbor’s use of the driveway.
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 an existing driveway easement for the benefit of the neighbor. This prevents placing the garage on top of the existing drive, which is out of the steep slope area.
b) The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The lot has a driveway easement that restricts the placement of the garage. The lot is configured in such a way that it is the remainder land between the old Claremont and Concord rail corridor and Rte. 103. The lot configuration limits the area for the placement of the garage.
c) The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The existing lot is located in an area that has a steep side slope from Route 103 to the shore of Lake Sunapee. The configuration of the lot and easement limits placement of the garage.
d) Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The existing use of the property is residential, which conforms to the current zoning. A 2-bay garage is a standard accessory building to the existing dwelling. 2 bay garages are conforming to other residences in the area.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance because: Precautions are being developed with a proposed retaining wall that will be constructed to limit erosion of the steep slope. Roof drains will drain stormwater runoff into a proposed infiltration trench.
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Granting the variance will allow the homeowner to benefit from his use and enjoyment of his land.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The addition of a new garage will not diminish the value of surrounding properties; the use will be consistent with surrounding uses within the zone.
Ms. Holmes asked how steep is that slope. Mr. Blohm asked what the percent grade was on that. Mr. Smith said 35%. Discussion followed.
Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Blohm read the following into the record:
Hi Tiffany
Thank you so much for your help today!
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 December 13, 2023
I am okay with my neighbors building a garage within 2.2 feet of our property line given that they will also be providing erosion control. Their garage will actually be a benefit to me, as it will block any headlights coming down their shared driveway from shining in our bedroom!
Thanks again for your time and assistance. Valori Petrin
95 Lakewood Manor Road
Newbury, NH
There being no further comment from the public, Mr. Blohm closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Briggs made a motion to vote on the request from Allen & Major Associates, Inc. (agent), Bulang Investments LLC (owner), for property located at 1285 Route 103, Newbury, NH for Variances from the requirements of Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 24’ x 24’ 2-bay garage within the right of way and side setbacks and in a steep slope area. Newbury Tax Map 007-019-002.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Henry Thomas voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4-that is the only way to get a garage on that property; the plans, the retaining wall and the rock retention areas are going to help with the impact to the lake.
Katheryn Holmes voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4-applicant did homework and fulfilled the Board’s request.
Larry Briggs voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4-happy with the responses the applicant had from the earlier meeting and feel comfortable with the responses to the 5 criteria for both variances.
David Blohm voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4-met criteria for variance and the site is designed in mind of all the issues the Board has raised.
Patricia Sherman voted to Grant the Variances from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 9.4-appreciates the applicant’s willingness to make things a little bit easier for the Board.
Five votes to Grant the Variances
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 Board discussed amendments to the Rules of Procedure in regard to documentation to be submitted with applications. Ms. Favreau will make changes to the Rules of Procedure to bring back to the Board at a later meeting.
Mr. Briggs made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 December 13, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany A. Favreau Recording Secretary