Zoning Board Minutes

Meeting date: 
Monday, February 10, 2020

February 10, 2020

Approved March 9, 2020

 

Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair; Gary Budd, Member; Alex Azodi, Alternate.

 

Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

 

New Code Enforcement Officer

Mr. Fichter informed the Board that the new Code Enforcement Officer is Ladd Kutz, replacing Jack Shephard.

 

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of November 18, 2019 and made no corrections. Mr. Blohm made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.

 

Mr. Fichter informed the applicant and agent(s) that there are four members on the Board this evening to hear the application and that three of the four members must vote Yay to grant the requested variance. Since the Board is usually comprised of five members, Mr. Fichter offered the applicant the option to continue the hearing when five Board members are present. The applicant chose to proceed.

 

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

 

At 7:05 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, February 10, 2020 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:05 p.m., Harry Snow III (agent), Philip B. & Barbara L. Barr (owners), for property located at 184 Bowles Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction and replacement of a non-conforming building within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, and within 15’ of the side setback.  Newbury Tax Map 017-621-540. 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.

 

Philip Hastings, Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A., Harry Snow III, Snow Building Construction, and Peter Blakeman, Blakeman Engineering, presented to the Board.

 

Mr. Hastings described the current conditions of the property as follows:

The property is +/- .19 acre in size, has waterfront on Lake Sunapee, is surrounded on three sides by two larger properties and is small, narrow in width and slopes down towards the lake. He noted that property includes a small cottage, built in 1949, which is located 6.7 feet from the northerly property line. The cottage has an existing deck located about 25.1 feet from the waterfront. Mr. Hastings added that the current property is lawfully non-conforming, as defined by the Newbury Zoning Ordinance. (side setback of 15-feet from the building footprint to the side property line and a 75-foot setback from the reference line of the lake)

 

Mr. Hastings stated that the cottage has an outdate septic system which does not meet the current standards for septic system design. He added that the Barrs intend to tear down the cottage and replace it in-king with a slightly larger structure. The new foundation will be in located generally in the same location as the existing foundation, but the lakeside foundation wall will be about 5-feet further back from the lake. He added that the northerly foundation wall will be about 6.8 feet from the northerly property line and extend about 10-feet farther easterly from the existing foundation.

 

Mr. Hastings said the size of the deck will also be increased but will be located with the same footprint as the existing deck and building. Plans include the installation of a modern septic system that will be located further away from the lake. 

 

Mr. Hastings noted that the NHDES issued a Shoreland Permit for the proposed reconstruction of the cottage, dated October 15, 2019, and a permit for a new septic system dated November 15, 2019. He added that a stormwater management system is included in the proposed plans, including a maintenance plan.

 

Mr. Fichter noted that the proposed plans include a “jut out” on the easterly side of the house which makes the proposed plans more non-conforming, not less. 

 

Harry Snow, builder, described the proposed construction plans as follows:

The existing cottage is very old and sub-standard. The workings of the existing septic are questionable and there is no guarantee that the septic effluent is being treated properly. He added that the plans include a house design that is about 2,000 square feet and is a lake-style cottage with a natural shingle exterior.  He added that the existing footprint will be used, with a small addition on the easterly side of the property.

 

Peter Blakeman, engineer, described the proposed property as it pertained to the DES Shoreland Permit. He stated that the existing impervious area was 34.9% and he focused on reducing that as much as possible. He said the proposed plans call for installing a portion of the driveway in a pervious material, lowering the total impervious amount to 34.1%. He added that the existing undisturbed areas will remain undisturbed.

 

Mr. Blakeman describe the proposed septic system – Clean Solution – and discussed the disposal area for the effluent water from the septic system, which is planned for under a portion of the driveway. He added that the load bearing amount on the driveway was rated H-20, more than enough to accommodate any and all vehicles without damaging the system beneath the driveway.

 

Mr. Blohm asked why the entire driveway was not constructed in pervious material. Mr. Snow said the planned septic system was located under the impervious portion of the driveway.

 

Mr. Fichter asked if there was a problem with having the pervious portion of the driveway on top of the septic chamber. Mr. Blakeman said no, all research (per UNH Cooperative Extension) indicate that the materials used for impervious surfaces are very resilient. Discussion followed regarding the cleaning and maintenance of pervious driveways.

 

Mr. Blakeman described the proposed stormwater management plan as follows:

The pervious driveway surface is sized so it can handle additional driveway runoff from that property that is directed towards the area. The pervious driveway also included a 12-inch filter course to treat runoff prior to final drainage into native soil.

 

On the lakeside portion of the roof, gutters will collect stormwater runoff and drain into an infiltration bed located under the deck. The water is dispersed through the stone bed via 4-inch perforated PVC. He added that the runoff on the easterly side of the house will drain directly into a level surface where it is collected in oversized stone drip edges. He added that the plans are designed to handle a 1-inch rainstorm which is 90% of all storms in NH. He noted that the proposed plan will handle 80% of the stormwater runoff produced by a 1-inch rainstorm.

 

Mr. Blakeman stated that general stormwater runoff management for the remaining areas of the property includes fine grading of the disturbed areas and stabilization with grass and landscaping so runoff will end up dispersing and filtering through the landscaped areas and areas of native vegetation.

 

Mr. Fichter asked about plans for handling increased stormwater runoff in the area between the infiltration and the existing blueberry bushes, which is sloped. Mr. Blakeman noted that the topography on the property is quite varied and well-vegetated and that will take care of the anticipated stormwater.

 

Mr. Fichter asked about tree removal for construction. Mr. Snow stated that it will be quite minimal and any trees that must be removed will be small. 

 

Mr. Fichter stated that there were several trees currently close to the existing building and questioned how foundation digging would be achieved without harming the tap roots of those trees.

 

Mr. Snow explained that, on this small a lot, work will commence from the “inside out” since there isn’t a lot of room for equipment. Work will commence and continue from within the existing footprint – not from outside of the footprint so the existing trees should be OK. He said they will first dig a new foundation and then work their way back out towards the road.

 

Mr. Hastings shared with the Board a series of photos of neighboring properties and notes that the proposed plan does not damage to the neighboring properties. He added that the neighboring properties appear to have larger structures on them than the one proposed by the Barrs. Mr. Hastings referred to 178 Bowles Road, 180 Bowles Road, 186 Bowles Road, 14 Echo Cove Road, and 16 Echo Cove Road.

 

Mr. Fichter thanked Mr. Hastings for the photos but notedthat the ZBA considers each application on its own merits and that variances granted in the past are not used as criteria for considering variances in any other application.

 

Mr. Hastings noted that the proposed plans do not harm the public, the application is within the spirit of the ordinance, and there is no opposition from the abutters.

 

Philip Barr, owner, stated that the reason for this application is that he and his wife need more room for their expanding family.

 

Mr. Fichter noted that the three requested variances will be heard simultaneously and that the Board will consider all three as one when the applicant reads into the record the criteria of 16.8.

 

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

 

16.8.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: It is in the public interest to allow the highest and best use of real estate and to improve the natural environment. The alterations to the cottage will have no negative impact on any other property and will no increase the cottage’s non-conforming conditions. The alterations to the cottage will improve the natural environment and increase the value of the surrounding properties by improving the cottage, installing a modern septic system, and improving the stormwater management and erosion control systems.

 

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: Reconstruction of the existing cottage, which use is permitted by right in the Residential District, is reasonable because it will not significantly alter the use of the property or increase the extent of the existing non-conforming conditions. In fact, the primary structure will be located slightly further from the neighboring property to the north and several feet farther from the lake than the existing building. 

 

​b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: The small and narrow size of the property restricts the ability of the applicant to construct economically feasible improvements to the cottage.

 

​c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: Any improvements the applicant could make in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would not reasonable and economically support the plans to  modernize the septic system on the property and improve the stormwater management and erosion control.

 

​d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Several of nearby properties are occupied by larger structures that the proposed cottage plan. The nearby properties are located on the shoreline but are larger and more regularly shaped parcels. The Zoning Ordinance explicitly states that its intent is to afford landowners a great deal of freedom to use and enjoy their land. 

 

16.8.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: The proposed alterations to the cottage will be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. It will preserve the natural beauty of Lake Sunapee and the health of Newbury’s residents by permitting the applicant to update an outdated septic system so near to the shoreline. The additions to the property will increase the property’s value and blend in well with the neighborhood. Finally, the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is permit landowners a great deal of freedom to use their property.

 

16.8.4 Substantial justice is done because: The harm to the applicant of strict enforcement of the Zoning ordinance will far outweigh any benefit to the public in this case. Instead, denying the variance will result in a detriment to the public by limiting the beneficial expansion of its tax base. Likewise, it would be an injustice to deny the variance for failing to satisfy the side and lake setback requirements when the alterations to the cottage will not increase the cottage’s non-conformance, and in many instances will reduce the cottage’s non-conformities and improve its outdated septic system, stormwater management and erosion controls – improvements which would not be possible or economically feasible except in the context of a total reconstruction of the cottage. To restrict the owner’s ability to reconstruct the cottage within the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance would be an injustice because the size and shape of the lot would prohibit any economically feasible or useful building. The harm to the applicant by not granting the variance will greatly outweigh any benefit to the public by strict adherence to the waterfront buffer and side setback requirements, and therefore, the variance will result in substantial justice.

 

16.8.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: Authorization of this variance will not diminish the value of the surrounding properties because the cottage will be improved without encroaching further on the side and lake setbacks. The footprint of the cottage will only be slightly increased. The alterations to the cottage will be attractive and blend in with the neighborhood.  

 

Mr. Blohm asked about the total square footage of the proposed building including the deck and steps. Mr. Snow said it was 1,408 square feet, with 1,000 square feet of living space, and a total land square footage of 8,292.

 

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. Blohm stated that the plan offers a big improvement on the existing septic system and stormwater management. He added that he liked the proposed guttering on the lake side of the building but would prefer that the entire structure be guttered. However, he said the proposed plan presents a net improvement to the current conditions on the property.

 

Mr. Fichter agreed, noting that the age of the existing septic is worrisome.

 

Mr. Azodi and Mr. Budd agreed with Mr. Fichter and Mr. Blohm.

 

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 Harry Snow III (agent), Philip B. & Barbara L. Barr (owners), for property located at 184 Bowles Road, Newbury, NH, for a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction and replacement of a non-conforming building within the 75-foot lake and permanent stream setback, and within 15-footof the side setback.  Newbury Tax Map 017-621-540. Mr. Azodi seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2.

Mr. Azodi voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2.

Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Paragraph 7.4.2, 5.9.1 and 15.2.2.

 

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. Barr thanked the Board and added that he appreciated the thorough process involved in reviewing his application.

 

Volunteers

The Board discussed the challenge of attracting volunteers to serve on the ZBA. Mr. Blohm noted that perhaps the best strategy is to have a personal one-on-one discussion with friends and acquaintances rather than advertising to the general public. The Board tabled the discussion for further consideration at upcoming meetings.

 

There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Fichter made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Azodi seconded the motion.All in favor.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Meg Whittemore

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment                     Page 1 of 6                                     February 10, 2020