Zoning Board Minutes

Zoning Board of Adjustment

July 10, 2017

Approved December 11, 2017

Members Present: Peter Fichter, Chair; David Blohm, Vice-Chair; Nancy Marashio, Gary Budd, Members; Alex Azodi, Reed Gelzer, Alternates.

Mr. Fichter called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Personnel Changes

Mr. Fichter informed the Board that Patricia MacDonald, Land Use Administrator, is leaving. He said Tiffany Favreau has been hired as her replacement. Ms. Favreau has a paralegal background along with tax assessing experience for the Town of Claremont.

House Bill 86

Ms. Marashio informed the Board that an amendment to RSA 674:13 was passed by the state Senate and House. The amendment states the following: The zoning board of adjustment shall determine whether to grant a Variance by voting on each of the criteria in subparagraph I(a)(2) separately. The board shall grant a Variance only if each of the 5 criteria receives at least 3 votes in the affirmative.

Ms. Marashio noted that the amendment goes into effect 60 days after the governor signs the amendment.

Minutes

The Board reviewed the minutes of May 8, 2017 and made no corrections.

Ms. Marashio made a motion to accept the minutes of May 8, 2017 as presented. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. All in favor.

Hearing

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, July 10, 2017 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH: At 7:15 p.m., Country Road Realty Trust, Pellettieri Associates Inc. (Agent), for property located at 236 Bowles Road, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance from the requirements of Paragraph 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction, replacement, and relocation of a non-conforming building within the 50’ waterfront buffer, within the 75’ lake and permanent stream setback, and within the 250’ natural woodland buffer.  Newbury Tax Map 016-519-106. 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 introduced the Board and reviewed the hearing process with the applicant and members of the public.

Agents for the applicant included: Greg Grigsby, Pellettieri Associates, Inc.; Peter Blakeman, Blakeman Engineering, Inc.; Ari Pollack, Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, P.C.; and Peter Lackey, Charles R. Meyer & Partners (civil engineer).

There was discussion regarding the presented architecture rendering and the fact that elevations were missing.

Mr. Grigsby presented to the Board. He reviewed the property’s existing conditions, noting that the building was constructed in three different sections. The original house was built in 1901 and an addition was put on in the 19402/50s. The third addition was then added in the 1980s.

The applicant’s intent is to preserve the original house and replace the two additions. He noted that the property is 12.4 acres and plans include keeping the existing driveway. He said the proposed new building reduces the overall existing square footage.

Mr. Grigsby noted that the project does not affect the unaltered areas of the property. He said 74.2% of the property in the woodland buffer remains in an unaltered state. He said 5.1% of the proposed project will be impervious surface.

Mr. Fichter asked if the applicant has a wetland permit for this project. Mr. Grigsby said they don’t have one yet but they will get one.

Mr. Grigsby said the proposed plan makes 585 square feet of the area more conforming.

There was discussion regarding concerns that the proposed new construction fall within the 75-foot buffer zone, which represents 171.4 square feet of the total project.

Pete Lakey (architect) described the demolition plans for the two additions. He reviewed the proposed plans for a new two-story building for living quarters and recreation.

There was discussion regarding the surfaces of the two patios: (1) The one off the front porch of the preserved house will remain as an impervious surface; (2) The one off the new addition was discussed regarding pervious or impervious.

Mr. Lakey reviewed the floor plan of the preserved house and the layout of the new addition. He noted that the proposed addition moves the building further away from the lake. He said the second floor contains two sleeping porches, two bathrooms, a bunk room and a recreation room.

Ms. Marashio asked about the total number of bedrooms for the new addition. Mr. Lakey said plans call for six bedrooms plus a bunk room, 2 ½ baths, plus five full bathrooms. He noted that the septic system is for six bedrooms. The existing boat house has three bedrooms and one bath. He added that the septic system was put in in 1984 and was checked recently.  

Mr. Blohm asked if the proposed addition will be winterized. Mr. Blakeman said yes, they will use spray form.

Mr. Blakeman discussed the stormwater management plan. He said plans are to leave the west side of the building as is because stormwater eventually works its way away from the house. On the east side of the house, he said plans call for three dry wells to infiltrate roof runoff. He added that there will be a drip edge drain that will take the water to the dry well or gutters. He added that there will probably be a combination of the aforementioned.

Mr. Grigsby added that there are lots of pine needles present on the property so ground gutters are used. Discussion followed. He added that stormwater goes into a semi-pervious basement under the old section of the building.

Mr. Fichter asked what will happen to the water running off the existing patio in front of the preserved house. Mr. Grigsby said they will probably use a level spreader for that.

Mr. Fichter asked if they have a stormwater management plan. Mr. Grigsby said they have a draft of a plan. Mr. Fichter said they must submit a complete plan for the building permit.

Mr. Blohm suggested that they upgrade the stormwater management plan on the west side.

Mr. Fichter expressed concern that the application is not complete, noting that there was no permanent erosion control plan included, which is an item on the ZBA application checklist.

Ari Pollack, attorney, suggested that the Board make that a condition of approval.

It was noted that the existing boathouse was not under consideration for a variance in the future.

Mr. Gelzer raised the question that the application does not have a complete stormwater management plan even though the project calls for installing an impervious surface on the patio.

Mr. Fichter reads into the record Section 15.2.2 of the zoning ordinance as follows: Restoration, Reconstruction and/or Replacement: Nothing herein shall prevent the substantial restoration, reconstruction and/or replacement in the same location and building footprint within two years from the date a non-conforming building or structure is destroyed in whole or part by fire or natural disaster, or is demolished, so long as the resulting building does not create a new increased violation.

Mr. Fichter indicated that the proposed plans create an increased violation because the patios are between 50-feet to 75-feet in the shoreland setback. Discussion followed.

Mr. Grigsby noted that the NH DES Shoreland application covers this.

Ms. Marashio expressed concern about the front patio because it is adjacent to a steep slope that leads to the lake. Mr. Grigsby said the proposed patio area is on a flat are and he thought it was a good spot.

Mr. Blohm said the applicant should be concerned about getting all runoff from the patios as far away from the lake as possible since the patios are impervious surfaces.

There being no more questions from the Board, Mr. Grigsby addressed Article 16.7 of the zoning ordinance:

16.7.1 The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The new structure will be more conforming than the existing structure. The proposal decreases the amount of structure within the 75-foot municipal setback by approximately 585 square feet, and no portions of the proposed structure are closer to the lake than what already exists today. In addition, the subject areas are located on private property, located away from public view.

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 oldest portions of the structure sit on a peninsula of land. Because of the peninsula, the position of the existing structure, and the resultant setbacks, fully comply with the current zoning ordinance would require demolishing the entire structure.

            b. The property is different in a meaningful way from other properties in the area because: Most structures/homes along the lake are positioned parallel to the shoreline. However, this property is meaningfully different because most houses don’t shore footage on three sides. This meaningful difference virtually eliminates the possibility of expansion and/or alteration to the structure without impacts to the 75-foot setback area.

            c. The property is burdened more severely by the zoning restrictions because: The unique shape of the land and the position of the existing structure on that unique portion of land, creates a setback condition that makes expansion and/or alteration to the structure nearly impossible without the complete removal of the structure.

            d. Because of the special conditions of the property, the proposed use of the property is reasonable because: The existing structure was constructed long before the adoption of a 75-foot municipal shoreland setback, and is almost entirely located within said setback. To fully comply with the requirements of today’s ordinance, a variance is necessary to avoid having to demolish and reconstruct the entire house behind the applicable setback – an unreasonable result. Instead, the project proposes modest changes to the footprint, while preserving the oldest and largest portions of the structure.

16.7.3 The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance since: Article 15, Section 15.2.1 allows for expansions and/or alterations to non-conforming structures, as long as the building is not made more non-conforming. The proposal increases the conformity of the structure within the 75-foot municipal setback approximately 585 square feet, and is therefore consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.

16.7.4 Substantial justice is done because: Relief from the setback allows renovation of the existing structure (as opposed to reconstruction), along with a significant reduction in net overall buffer coverage.

16.7.5 The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: There are no direct impacts to abutters as a result of the proposed improvements, visual or as to valuation.

Mr. Fichter questioned the planned tree removal for the project. He noted that the proposed trees are within the woodland buffer. Mr. Grigsby noted the proposed tree removal was part of the boathouse renovation. He said it represents the 12-foot temporary access which is allowed. He said the removal of the two trees will allow the necessary vehicular maneuverability. 

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 moved to deliberations.

Mr. Fichter noted the planned preservation of the historic house as being positive but expressed concern that the applicant did not submit a stormwater management plan or permanent erosion control plan. He added that the Code Enforcement Officer must review both.

Mr. Gelzer noted that he was concerned about the addition of a patio with an impervious surface that close to the lake.

Ms. Marashio said she was concerned about the impervious surface of the proposed patios that close to the lake but, overall, she expressed support for the proposed plan.

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

Mr. Gelzer made a motion to vote on a request from Country Road Realty Trust, for property located at 236 Bowles Road, Newbury, NH, Newbury Tax Map 016-519-106, for a Variance from the requirements of Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction, replacement, and relocation of a non-conforming building within the 50-foot waterfront buffer, within the 75-foot lake and permanent stream setback, and within the 250-foot natural woodland buffer,, with the condition that a stormwater management plan is fully developed and approved by the CEO. Ms. Marashio seconded the motion.

Mr. Gelzer voted to Grant the Variance from Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance with the stated condition.

Ms. Marashio voted to Grant the Variance from Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance with the stated condition.

Mr. Blohm voted to Grant the Variance from Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance with the stated condition.

Mr. Budd voted to Grant the Variance from Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance with the stated condition.

Mr. Fichter voted to Grant the Variance from Sections 7.4.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance 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. Blohm made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Marashio seconded the motion. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Whittemore

Recording Secretary