Zoning Board Minutes

Zoning Board of Adjustment

October 16, 2019

Approved October 28, 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 7:00 p.m.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of September 23, 2019 and made a correction. Ms. Marashio made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.

Member Position Opening

Mr. Fichter announced that Ms. Marashio is moving out of Newbury in mid-November and invited Board members to recommend a replacement for her position of the ZBA.

Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Thomas as a voting member for this meeting.

Mr. Fichter appointed Mr. Blohm to chair the first case, a Continuance, since the latter chaired during the case hearing on September 9, 2019.

At 7:15 p.m., Mr. Blohm introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public. He noted that this hearing is Continued from the ZBA meeting on September 9, 2019.

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 9, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Northcape Design, LLC (agent), Abbie Celniker (owner), for property located at Route 103, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction and placement of a single family residence within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback. Newbury Tax Map 020-343-520. 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.

Jeffrey Claus, Northcape Designs LLC, agent, and Dan Monette, PE, Fuss & O’Neill, presented to the Board.

Mr. Claus noted that there were three concerns raised by the Board at the September 9, 2019 meeting concerning this application:

1. Improvements that might be implemented to the existing wetlands;
2. Improvements to the stormwater management plan; and
3. A re-evaluation of the proposed house size and/or positioning of same on the lot.

Regarding improvement to the existing wetlands:

Mr. Claus and Mr. Monette proposed two improvements that could be done without acquiring permits:

1. Install plantings and seeding, using a special NH wetland seeding mix designed to enhance the ecosystem vegetation of a wetland. Seeding means there would be no digging on/in the wetland.
2. Install a sump/pre-treatment device in the existing culvert (from invert of pipe to the bottom of the culvert) to capture sediment and grit before it goes into the wetland and the lake.

Mr. Blohm asked about the maintenance regarding Item (2). Mr. Monette said every time the septic tank is pumped, the sump/pre-treatment device would be hosed down to create a slurry of the collected slurry and grit, which would then be pumped out.

Ms. Marashio asked where this maintenance schedule and operation would be documented. Mr. Monette said the information would be put into the property file.

Mr. Blohm noted that the above two suggestions are an improvement.

Regarding improvements to the stormwater management plan:

Mr. Claus and Mr. Monette offered the following suggestions:

1. Install a drip edge around the perimeter of the house.
2. Install an infiltration device by the driveway comprised of 1 ½-inch stone and a 2-foot x 2-foot box of stone with a filter.
3. Install a filtration system specifically designed by ACF, an environmental company that specializes in stormwater management in small spaces. The retention device can process and treat stormwater through a layered system of filtration with 4-inch drainage ports on the side. Maintenance includes flushing it out every 10 years.
4. Install pervious patio material that includes a storage section underneath so there is infiltration between the pavers and the space below.
5. Install a deck drainage system designed to capture water into a pipe that is directed into a filtration area nearby.

Regarding re-sizing/re-positioning the house on the lot:

Mr. Claus and Mr. Monette offered that following suggestions:

1. Move the house position on the lot so it is no longer infringing on the setback. The square footage infringing on the setback was 602 square feet and is reduced to 311 square feet, representing the deck and patio – which remain in the setback.
2. Owner’s criteria for the house include single floor living, enough room to accommodate a large family, and maximize lake views.

Mr. Monette referred to the drafting of a so-called Shoreline Plan, which incorporates added elements to the above-mentioned items, specifically looking at using pervious materials wherever possible.

Mr. Fichter asked if the homeowner was committed to using pervious materials. Mr. Monette said yes.

Mr. Claus noted that the unaltered state in the proposed plan is 32.5%, which is more than the state requirement of 25%. He added that the state requires that not more than 30% of the lot coverage is impervious. He said the proposed plan comes in at 29% impervious.

Mr. Fichter asked about the material used for the driveway. Mr. Claus said it is asphalt and that is included in the pervious calculation of 29%. He added the use of asphalt is still under discussion with the property owner. Discussion followed. Pervious asphalt was discussed. Mr. Monette noted that it is a more complex material to produce and therefore more expensive and more troublesome to maintain.

There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Blohm opened the public portion of the meeting.

There being no Public present, Mr. Blohm closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.

Mr. Blohm indicated that the stormwater management plan presented was a big improvement.

Mr. Budd agreed, adding that it represents a comprehensive approach to the stormwater management challenges on this property.

Mr. Thomas agreed, adding that an approved NHDES Shoreland Permit must be submitted.

Ms. Marashio noted that the stormwater management plan addressed the Board’s concerns and presented multiple ways and methods of address the stormwater challenges connected with this property. She raised concern regarding the stated intent of addressing 10-year storm events when significant storm events are becoming more prevalent.

Mr. Monette responded by explaining that the proposed methods treats the first flush of rain which carries the most contaminants.

There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Blohm called for a Motion to Vote.

Ms. Marashio made a motion to vote on the request from Northcape Design, LLC (agent), Abbie Celniker (owner), for property located at Route 103, Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction and placement of a single family residence within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, Newbury Tax Map 020-343-520, with the following condition: Submission of an approved NHDES Shoreland Permit. Mr. Budd seconded the motion.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2 with the stated condition.

Mr. Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2 with the stated condition.

Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2 with the stated condition.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2 with the stated condition.

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2 with the stated condition.

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 as per RSA 677:2. Said motion must set forth, in detail, all grounds on which the appeal is based.

Mr. Blohm turned the meeting over to Mr. Fichter, Chair.

Mr. Fichter called for a break at 7:52 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 7:55 p.m.

Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.

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, October 16, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:30 p.m., Nancy M. Marsh Living Trust (owner), for property located at 11 Snow Rd., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 and 15.2.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Alteration and/or expansion of a of a non-conforming building within a 30’ right-of-way setback.  Newbury Tax Map 007-235-299. 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.

Cedric (Rick) and Nancy Marsh presented to the Board. Mr. Marsh said the proposed plan is to build a second story above the existing first-floor bathroom to accommodate a second-story half-bath. Also, plans call for enclosing the existing small porch and turning it into a mudroom. He noted that the existing footprint is not changing.

Mr. Marsh noted that the building is a seasonal-use structure, built in 1911, and position on piers/posts with no foundation. He added that plans call for turning the existing exterior steps to improve access to the house from the side entrance.

He said plans call for expanding one story over the existing bump-out and using as much of the existing material as possible. He added that all neighbors have been notified and no one has objected to the project.

Regarding stormwater management, Mr. Marsh noted that stormwater is currently managed by allowing rainwater to find its own route, typically under the cottage, during a rainstorm. The cottage is built on piers with no foundation walls. It is anticipated that the stormwater will be handled in a similar manner once the renovations are complete. The renovations call for utilizing the same footprint and support footings as currently in place.

There was discussion about the existing septic system and tank capacity. Mr. Marsh said the system is a chambered septic system that was put in in the 1980s. It is a 1,000-gallon capacity and is approved for a 4-bedroom, year-round occupancy. He added that they submitted a NHDES Shoreland Permit application but were notified by DES that it was not necessary (as referenced in the application materials).

Ms. Marashio asked if the septic tank is pumped regularly. Mr. Marsh said the last time was five years ago but added that usage is seasonal only. Ms. Marashio noted that the Lake Sunapee Protective Association recommends septic tank pumping every two- to three-years. Mr. Marsh noted that he uses Rid-X every fall to keep the content of the septic tank “active” over the winter.

There being no more questions from the Board, Ms. Marsh addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The variance will have very little impact on the surrounding properties. The Ward property, behind, will see little of the renovation due to vegetation. The Gobin/Brown house will be able to see part of the renovation. Snow Road lies between our house and theirs. We will be no closer to their house than we are now. The Crawford house can see the renovation from their back deck. However, there is a stand of trees between our houses.

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: Our cottage, built in 1911, is a 1 ½-story structure. As such, we have awkward stairs leading to the second floor. By adding a second-floor bath, it will reduce the number of nocturnal trips over the stairs.

b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: It is my understanding that the Snow family developed the cottages in Chandler Cove in 1911. At that time, about 10 cottages of similar style and construction were built. Since then, some have been torn down, some extensively renovated, and some remain very close to the original structures. At 11 Snow Road, in 1957, we added a small bump-out for a first-floor bathroom, added vinyl siding, and installed storm windows on our porch. The footprint has remained the same. The proposed renovation will remove the existing bathroom. On the same footprint, we propose to replace that bathroom with a similar structure that is strong enough to accommodate a second-floor half bath.

c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Our cottage was built in 1911, prior to any zoning regulations. As such, it is currently out of compliance with current setback dimensions (15-feet). Our proposed renovation will remain within the current footprint of the cottage.

d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: Our proposed renovation remains within the current footprint of the cottage.

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: We will be no closer to the Snow Road property line than we are now.

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: Our cottage will be made safer with the addition of a second-floor bath.

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The architecture of the roofline and exterior finishes will be consistent with our cottage and our surrounding neighbors.

Mr. Blohm noted that there will be a new roofline and questioned where the roof runoff will go. Ms. Marsh said it will run into the existing garden or onto the dirt. Mr. Marsh added that, currently, the roof runoff channels itself to the fieldstone fireplace and runs under the house. He added that he does not think the runoff from the proposed plan will change that.

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 felt this was a straightforward and reasonable request.

Mr. Budd agreed, adding that the proposed plans do not alter the existing footprint.

Mr. Blohm questioned whether the existing septic can handle the added bathroom. Mr. Marsh stated that the Code Enforcement Officer requested information on the septic tank capacity, which was provided, and there were no problems presented.

Mr. Thomas added that septic inspectors and service providers are thorough in their assessments of capacity. He added that if the roofline runoff alters its current route (channeling to the fireplace and under the house), then the Marshes should do what is needed to get the water route back in place.

Ms. Marashio noted that this was one of the few applications that stays within the spirit of the ordinance and presents no expansion of the existing footprint.

There being no further deliberations from the Board, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Vote.

Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request from Nancy M. Marsh Living Trust (owner), for property located at 11 Snow Road, Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Alteration and/or expansion of a of a non-conforming building within a 30’ right-of-way setback, Newbury Tax Map 007-235-299. Ms. Marashio seconded the motion.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1.

Mr. Thomas voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1.

Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1.

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraphs 5.9.1 and 15.2.1.

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.

There being no further business, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Adjourn.

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

The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Whittemore

Recording Secretary