Zoning Board Minutes
APPROVED
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 11, 2017
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair, Gary Budd, Nancy Marashio; Alex Azodi and Hank Thomas, Alternate.
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
There were no minutes to review.
Welcome
Mr. Fichter asked if everyone had a chance to visit the subject properties. Everyone said they were able to visit the three sites that will be reviewed this evening. Mr. Blohm stated that he feels that it should be a requirement that all ZBA members go to all site visits.
Introductions
Mr. Fichter explained the process and procedures of the ZBA hearings to the general public. The members of the Board introduced themselves. Mr. Fichter stated that Mr. Azodi would be a voting member at tonight’s meeting.
The Recording Secretary read the Public Notice into the record as follows:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on Monday, September 11, 2017 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route103 in Newbury, NH: 7:15 p.m., Marilyn Gobin & Stewart Brown, property located at 12 Snow Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Placement of 8’6” x 12 Tiki Bar structure within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback.. Newbury Tax Map 007-233-307. Copies of the applications 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 said that Amy Messer contacted the Town Office and informed the Land Use Board Assistant that Marilyn Gobin and Stewart Brown do not own the property and that she (Messer) owns the property. After research was conducted from the Land Use Board Assistant, it was concluded that this property is actually on common land. Mr. Azodi asked what Ms. Messer’s objection was to this hearing. Mr. Fichter said that her concern was that she was not notified of this hearing. Mr. Fichter’s concern is that the Browns and Gobins are not the only owners of this property. He suggested that the ZBA contact the town attorney to see who should be filing for a variance. Mr. Budd asked if there was an association name. Ms. Gobin said there is not a common name. Mr. Fichter said once they know everyone who should be filing the variance, the group will need to reapply and have everyone represented on the variance application. Ms. Marashio read the definition of a ‘structure’ in the Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Fichter said that they will continue this case to the October 16, 2017 meeting. In the meantime, Mr. Fichter will talk to the town counsel to receive his advice on this variance.
The Recording Secretary read the Public Notice into the record as follows:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on Monday, September 11, 2017 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route103 in Newbury, NH: 7:30 p.m., David & Beth Boucher, for property located at 32 Shore Drive, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1, 7.4.2 and 7.12.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 7’ x 9’ shed within the 15’ side setback, within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, and no more than 30% of the area of a lot within the protected shoreland shall be composed of impervious surfaces.. Newbury Tax Map 019-194-012. Copies of the applications 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.
Variance
Mr. Boucher explained that the shed would actually be further than the 75’ lake setback, at 78’. He also explained that he doesn’t think that it is taking up more than 30% of the area of the lot. His calculations are under the 30%. Mr. Boucher feels that the variance he needs to receive is solely for Paragraph of 5.9.1.
Mr. Fichter agreed that he only needs a variance for Paragraph 5.9.1 and no longer needs a variance for 7.4.2 or 7.12.1.
16.7.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The variance request is for a small storage shed, which will match the exterior of the house on the lot. The shed will not alter the character of the neighborhood or create safety issues for the general public. The shed will be off the ground on four small concrete posts and will have minimal impact on the pervious surfaces.
16.7.2 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 lots in the neighborhood are generally small and the addition of a storage shed will not meet the setback requirements. The house on the lot does not have a foundation or a basement which limits ability for dry and ‘critter free’ storage of outside use personal items.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The lot is very small at approximately 100 x 50 feet. The property is also waterfront, which with zone setbacks requirements limit the addition of a storage shed.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The small size of the lot and the waterfront buffer zone limit the addition of a storage shed.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The house does not have a basement which limits the availability for dry and pest free storage of outside use personal belongings, especially during winter months.
16.7.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The intent of the ordinance is to protect the lake and the character of the neighborhood. Several adjacent lots on Shore Drive have more than one small shed that are not within the ordinance parameters. The addition of this shed will not change the character of the neighborhood.
16.7.4 Substantial justice is done because: The loss by not granting the variance solely impacts the lot owner. The shed exterior will match the exterior of the house on the lot and fit with the character of the neighborhood. Without the shed the owner’s personal belongings will need to remain exposed outside which is not the desire of lot owner.
16.7.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The shed exterior with be aesthetically pleasing and match the house exterior. It will eliminate the need to store personal belongings outside.
Mr. Blohm said his only concern is that the structure seems very large and is almost as high as the house. Mr. Blohm asked if anyone is currently living next door and Mr. Boucher said that no one is currently living there, but the Ericksons are aware of this project.
Mrs. Boucher said that she has an email from Karen Erickson that gives her approval of the shed.
Mr. Budd said his concern is that he questions whether the Abutter List is correct. Discussion took place. It was decided that Mr. Boucher had the correct Abutter List with the information that was given to the Town Office.
Ms. Marashio asked how his property is different than his neighbors. She asked if his lot is any smaller than the rest of his neighbors and Mr. Boucher said ‘no’. He said it is a small lot and he has no basement. One of his neighbors has a basement.
Mr. Blohm said that when looking at a tax map, the Boucher property is smaller than the rest of his neighbors.
Mr. Fichter opened up the hearing to the public. Beth Boucher read an email into the record from Karen Erickson in support to the shed.
Mr. Fichter closed the hearing.
The Board deliberated. Mr. Fichter feels that Mr. Boucher has met the requirements given on the application. He thinks it will be an enhancement to the neighborhood since the ownings would be under cover rather than under a tarp. Mr. Blohm said he agrees but he wants to state that he does feel it is a very large structure in comparison to the house.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on the request of David and Beth Boucher on 32 Shore Drive, Newbury, NH from the requirements of paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit a construction of a 7 x 9’ shed within the 15’ side setback.
Ms. Marashio seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Azodi voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Fichter 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.
The Recording Secretary read the Public Notice into the record as follows:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on Monday, September 11, 2017 at the Town Office Building in Newbury, NH: 7:45 p.m., Richard and Barbara Lanzillo, for property located at Bay Point Road in Newbury NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 5.9.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a 36’ x 28’ garage within the 30’ right-of-way setback. Newbury Tax Map 007-210-394. Copies of the applications 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.
Variance
Ms. Lanzillo explained that the property has been in the family since 1964. She said the address is 4 Autumn Lane.
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: a garage with the proposed set back variance will be consistent with all properties on the road.
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 majority of the houses on the road were built prior to 1950 when the regulations were different. The abutter (lot 200-3810) was granted a 10 foot variance for a house for the identical lot size in 2005 due to the change in the setback regulations relating to a right of way. (Revised in 2004) The vehicle access to this site is unique to the property and further controls the placement of vehicle activity on the lot.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: This land has been in the family since 1964 and was ‘grandfathered’. This land does not have a boat slip nor use of the dock space. Our intent was to build a garage when we retired and became residents of Newbury. Due to the small parcel of land that our permanent home sits on (19 Autumn Lane) with three right of ways in the rear of our home allows no room for a garage, shed or the parking of boat trailers. We feel that it a necessary to build a garage at this time.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The small size of the lot and the waterfront buffer zone limit the addition of a storage shed.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The house does not have a basement which limits the availability for dry and pest free storage of outside use personal belongings, especially during winter months.
16.7.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The intent of the ordinance is to protect the lake and the character of the neighborhood. Several adjacent lots on Shore Drive have more than one small shed that are not within the ordinance parameters. The addition of this shed will not change the character of the neighborhood.
16.7.4 Substantial justice is done because: The loss by not granting the variance solely impacts the lot owner. The shed exterior will match the exterior of the house on the lot and fit with the character of the neighborhood. Without the shed the owner’s personal belongings will need to remain exposed outside which is not the desire of lot owner.
16.7.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The shed exterior with be aesthetically pleasing and match the house exterior. It will eliminate the need to store personal belongings outside.
Mr. Blohm asked why the garage will be placed there and not closer to Bay Point Road. Ms. Lanzillo said they will use the current poles and not adding anymore electrical lines. Ms. Marashio asked why the garage is 30 ft. rather than 20 ft. Ms. Lanzillo said that it needs to fit a boat.
Mr. Fichter opened up the hearing to the Public.
Bob Maroski has no objections. It will be an improvement.
Mr. Fichter closed the hearing to the Public.
Mr. Blohm said it seems like a reasonable project. Ms. Marashio said she was glad to hear about the trees.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to vote on a Variance for 4 Autumn Lane, Newbury, NH to seek a variance from Paragraph 5.9.1 in the Newbury
Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Azodi voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 5.9.1.
Mr. Fichter 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. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Long
Recording Secretary