Zoning Board Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 28, 2019
Approved November 18, 2019
Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair; Nancy Marashio, Gary Budd, Reed Gelzer, Members; Alex Azodi, Alternate.
Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of October 16, 2019 and made corrections. Mr. Fichter made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Blohm seconded the motion. All in favor.
Term Limits
The Board reviewed the term limits for Board members and alternates and the information regarding same that is posted on the town website. Mr. Fichter noted that he would check with the Town Clerk regarding the term limits to ensure the information listed is correct.
Meeting Start Time
Mr. Blohm suggested changing the posted time for the first case hearing from 7:15 p.m.
To 7:00 p.m. for all future ZBA meetings. The Board concurred. Mr. Fichter noted that he will confer with the Land Use Coordinator to implement the change.
RSA Hearing Deadline Change
Mr. Fichter informed the Board that the timeframe requirement of 30 days from application submission to hearing date has been expanded (per RSA) to 45 days.
Mr. Fichter introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.
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, October 28, 2019 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Jeff Claus w/Northcape Design, LLC (agent), Boucher Family Living Trust (owner), for property located at 32 Shore Dr., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 15.2.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Vertical expansion of a non-conforming building within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback and 15’ side setback. Newbury Tax Map 019-194-012. 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.
Jeff Claus, Northcape Design LLC, agent, and Dan Monette, Fuss & O’Neill, presented to the Board. Mr. Claus reviewed modifications to the submitted plan regarding the roof overhang. He noted that the roof overhang has been pulled back to reduce the impact on the setbacks.
Mr. Claus described the property’s existing conditions, noting that the house is less than 1,000 square feet and that the proposed addition will not alter the footprint. He said the applicant is retiring soon and wants more room. The proposed plan is for a second story addition on a portion of the existing footprint.
There was discussion about the proposed roof overhang and whether it increases the footprint. Mr. Claus stated that the overhang does not increase the footprint.
Mr. Monette described the improvements to the site regarding stormwater management. He noted that the plans will not increase the impervious surface on the property and plans call for a 3-foot wide stone drip edge system around the building perimeter that will accommodate all of the gravel driveway and all of the roof overhang.
Mr. Monette said plans call for removing the existing roof and going up. Piers will be dug and placed under the house and sonnotubes will be placed under portions of the house.
Mr. Blohm asked if the house floor will be insulated. Mr. Monette said there is some insulation there now and he will assess to see if more is needed.
Mr. Monette described the 3-foot wide stone drip edge system as being capable of storage and treatment of stormwater associated with the “first flush” 1-year storm event, or 2.25 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period. He added that a 4-inch pipe will be installed as an overflow pipe which will empty out through a stone discharge area into existing trees for further filtration.
Mr. Monette noted that research has verified that the “first flush” stormwater runoff is the most critical to contain and treat because it contains the maximum pollutants.
Mr. Budd asked if the property contains any runoff from adjacent properties. Mr. Claus stated that there has not been any runoff that is apparent through a visual examination. He added that he could not see any noticeable ground scouring from adjacent runoff.
Ms. Marashio noted that the area had recently experienced a 2.25-inch rain event.
Mr. Monette noted that Fuss & O’Neill follows the NH DES Stormwater Management Green Book, Volume 2, and uses this as a guide for residential projects, along with adhering to the local municipality regulations and requirements.
There was discussion regarding the proposed building height and whether it will adversely affect the views of the neighbors. Mr. Claus noted that there will be some impact to the existing views with the addition, but the plans will not obliterate the existing views of the neighboring properties.
Mr. Gelzer expressed concern about directing stormwater anywhere near the lake and asked if anything more could be done to the proposed 4-inch pipe to improve filtration.
Mr. Monette said if the 4-inch pipe is eliminated entirely, the stormwater runoff would increase under the house. If a drywell was considered upland, there is a question of how deep they could go, given the presence of potential ledge. He re-iterated that, given the smallness of the lot and the house, the primary concern is to treat and filtrate the water containing the most known pollutants – namely the “first flush”.
Mr. Monette said the 3-foot wide stone drip edge will be 28-inches deep. Four inches of river stone is placed on a layer of filter fabric with the remaining 24-inches of stones below. Ongoing maintenance includes replacing the filter fabric. The maintenance instructions and schedule would be placed in the property file to inform all future owners of the property.
Mr. Gelzer noted that the Newbury Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) electronically files the maintenance plans for stormwater management systems.
Mr. Gelzer noted that he understood from Ms. Boucher that there may be a pit that was dug on the property when the well was put in. Mr. Gelzer suggested that further investigation to see if the pit is there – and of use – might be viable as a stormwater retention area. Mr. Blohm agreed.
Mr. Gelzer suggested that the proposed 4-inch pipe be a perforated pipe. Mr. Monette said that would be possible to do. Discussion followed.
There was further discussion and suggestions from the Board to consider native species plantings along the shoreline instead of the existing lawn. Mr. Monette conferred with the Bouchers regarding including native species plantings at the end of the proposed 4-inch pipe and the Bouchers agreed.
There was discussion regarding how to include the above suggestions regarding looking into additional ways to increase the filtration and treatment capacity of the proposed stormwater management plan.
There was further discussion regarding the existing regulations in the zoning ordinance covering stormwater management and suggestions that the language in same be strengthened though the amendment process. The Board agreed to look into this next year.
Mr. Azodi noted that the proposed plan does not change the horizontal non-conformity of the property. He questioned whether the proposed vertical addition is actually making the property more non-conforming. Mr. Monette replied that this is a gray area.
There being no more questions from the Board, Mr. Claus addressed Article 16.8 of the zoning ordinance:
16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The majority of the homes (13 of 18) on Shore Drive are two-story homes or homes with walkout basements which give the appearance of a two-story home when viewed from the downhill side. Of the ten homes situated on the lake, seven of those homes are, or appear to be, two-story homes when viewed from the lake. Granting the variance for the addition of a +/- 544 sf second floor to the existing single-story cottage would not change, in any aspect, the character of the surrounding area nor the character of the lake. In addition, the proposed second story addition will not increase the impervious area of the lot in any way.
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: There are twenty-three lots located on Shore Drive. Of the twenty-three lots, this lot is the narrowest, at less than 50-feet wide, and the smallest lot at 0.12 acres. Note: we are excluding lot 17, which is a non-buildable lot at .02 acres.
b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: Not only do the Boucher’s own the smallest lot on Shore Drive, they also own one of the smallest homes on Shore Drive at +/- 967 sf. In addition, more than half of the home is located within the 75-foot lake setback and is unequally positioned with the northern most point of the house being only 5.64 inches off adjacent property boundary.
c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The lot is extremely small being less than a 1/8th of an acre in size. As such, zoning restrictions and dimension controls proportionally have a greater impact on smaller lots. Consequently, the result is a significant reduction in the size of the building envelope. This is further compounded with the close proximity to the lake, resulting in the majority of the lot and home to exist within the 75-foot lake setback. This makes virtually any expansion to the existing home non-conforming, thus requiring a variance.
d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The existing home is very small and the +/- 544 sf addition proposed is a modest desire. The Bouchers understand the sensitive nature of living on the lake and the care and stewardship involved with developing on or near the lake. The expansion proposed does not increase the impervious surface of the property. In addition, the stormwater measures proposed with the expansion will have a positive impact on water quality of the site.
16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: “…It is the intent of the ordinance to allow individual landowners as great a degree of freedom in the use and enjoyment of their land as is consistent with the accomplishment of these purposes.” (Article 1/Section 1.2 – Statement of Purpose – Town of Newbury NH Zoning Ordinance)
16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The Bouchers are entering retirement and have been looking forward to spending more time at the lake. They have always dreamed of expanding their limiting +/- 967 sf cottage. The expansion proposed is modest at only +/- 544 sf but will allow the Bouchers to better enjoy their property for themselves and their family.
16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The variance will not impair any property rights for the adjacent property owners or nearby property owners. In addition, of the ten homes on Shore Drive with waterfront, this lot has the lowest appraised value. The proposed addition would add value to the home and therefore should strengthen the values of those comparative properties.
Ms. Marashio noted that the NHDES Shoreland Permit had different square footage listed than what is on the submitted materials given to the Board at the meeting. Mr. Claus noted that the original design included larger eaves which increased the square footage – but that design had been modified to scale back the eaves, thus reducing the square footage.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fichter opened the public portion of the meeting.
There being no comment from the Public, Mr. Fichter closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberations.
Mr. Gelzer recommended that there be a Board consensus regarding having the applicant look into additional ways to improve the submitted stormwater management elements in the application.
Mr. Fichter noted that the plans reflect an improvement to the amount of existing stormwater on the property, the house addition is a modest one, making this a reasonable request.
Mr. Budd and Mr. Blohm agreed.
Ms. Marashio noted that the proposed plan will not increase the impervious area on the property, which is notable since it is a lake front location.
Mr. Azodi stated that the plan offers improvements to the erosion control and stormwater management conditions on the property. However, he noted that the addition to the house does not need a variance since it is not increasing the non-conformity of the property and the building. Mr. Fichter noted that he will check with the CEO regarding this.
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 Boucher Family Living Trust, for property located at 32 Shore Dr., Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 15.2.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Vertical expansion of a non-conforming building within the 75-foot lake and permanent stream setback and 15-foot side setback. Newbury Tax Map 019-194-012, with the following condition: That the homeowner and their representative investigate the potential for additional catchment of water to minimize the overflow to the lake and report the findings and to provide a plan, if possible, to the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Fichter seconded the motion.
Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 15.2.1 with the stated condition.
Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 15.2.1 with the stated condition.
Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 15.2.1 with the stated condition.
Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 15.2.1 but raised concerns regarding the stated condition.
Mr. Gelzer voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 15.2.1 with the stated condition.
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. Monette asked the Board for clarity regarding the stated condition, specifically about the following: that after the assessment study is completed and submitted to the CEO, if that constitutes meeting the requirements of the condition. Mr. Blohm said it does.
There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Fichter called for a Motion to Adjourn.
Mr. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gelzer seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary