Present: Brian Donner, Dana Glennon (Alternate), Rose-Anne Kwaks, Richard Shelton (Chairman), Michael Watson
Absent: David Bird (Alternate),Peyton Carr (Vice-Chairman), Justin Normand (Alternate), Dan Vincent (Zoning Administrator)
Chairman Shelton called the meeting to order at 7:03pm.
Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Shelton noted that for the benefit of those who had not attended these hearings, the procedure was as follows:
The Petitions would be heard in the order that they were posted in the legal notice; however the Chair/Vice-Chair may change the order with consent of the Board to expedite the public hearing as appropriate.
Each petitioner would be allowed to state why his or her petition should be granted. Following the petitioner’s statement, any abutter or interested part would be allowed to speak for or against the petition. In the interest of getting facts the Board may go around a second time.
The Board may elicit testimony at any point but could not allow any cross discussion.
The Board would ask that the public not repeat themselves or their neighbor’s testimony. If they wish to indicate concurrence, they were welcome to do so.
After hearing all the fact regarding a petition, the Chair/Vice-Chair will close the public hearing and the Board would deliberate and vote on the petition before moving on to the next petition. There may be some cases where a second meeting may be needed to make a decision. The Town Planner would present the Finding of Fact to the Board prior to the Board making their decision.
The Zoning Board was empowered to legalize the breaking of the Zoning Ordinance and this was not done lightly. State law and local ordinances set out the criteria that must be met in order for this Board to grant a petitioner’s request. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to prove their case so that this Board has justification for granting the requested petition. The minimum requirements are listed in the form received by the Planning and Zoning Office and would be helpful if petitioners proceeded on that basis.
All cell phones and pagers must be turned off.
Chairman Shelton appointed Dana Glennon to sit in for Peyton Carr.
Regular Business
Sandra Baillargeon Cassidy/Mathew J. Baillargeon - Variance reference Section 3.01(C) Length of Frontage, of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requests a Variance for Length of Frontage to permit them to be able to apply to the Planning Board for a two-lot subdivision, with less road frontage than required in the R1 Zone. The lot the applicant wishes to subdivide has 237 feet of frontage. A minimum of 200 feet of frontage is required per lot in the R1 Zone. The lot is located at 169 New Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 46, R1 Zone.
Chairman Shelton noted he had received a letter from Sandra Baillargeon Cassidy allowing her son Mathew to represent her during this application.
Mathew Baillargeon, representing 169 New Road, was here requesting a variance allowing him relief from frontage requirements to allow him to go to Planning Board for a subdivision. His mother currently owns the property and they would like to subdivide a lot for him to build a house. He plans to share a driveway with his mother. The length of the current driveway is 572 feet. He would like to go an additional 270 feet to further the existing driveway, resulting in a shared driveway.
CRITERION #1
The variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Mathew Baillargeon explained by using the driveway as a common driveway, there will be no visual changes seen from the road.
CRITERION #2
Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship.
Applicant seeking AREA variance – Boccia Analysis
An area variance is needed to enable to applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property.
Mathew Baillargeon explained the road frontage is 237 feet. He would like to use the driveway as a common driveway to pursue a subdivision for family use.
The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
Mathew Baillargeon explained the benefit of this proposal is that he would be one step closer to being able to provide a home for his family and continue to care for and maintain the existing home and property. The only achievable method reasonably feasible is to permit the 237 feet of road frontage to have a common driveway.
CRITERION #3
The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.
Mathew Baillargeon explained the ordinance consists of protection of water and land. Using the same driveway will protect wetland flow and mature tree growth. The total lot size is 6.9 acres. Subdividing this lot into one 3.0 acre lot and one 3.9 acre lot is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance with reference to its purpose as defined in section 1.02. This project would lessen congestion in the streets using one curb cut, have adequate sunlight and air, provide a large lot that would not be overcrowded on itself or the neighborhood, conserve wetlands and trees. One driveway would not distract from the small town atmosphere of Newmarket and remain a residential use which would keep with the intent of the ordinance.
CRITERION #4
Substantial justice is done.
Mathew Baillargeon explained the proposal and request for relief are in consideration of conservation, well being for his family, and will bring him closer to his dream of having a home for his family built on family land. This approval and use would not cause any harm to the general public but would result as a loss, if not approved, for the property owner.
CRITERION #5
The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished.
Mathew Baillargeon explained, by having no change to the existing driveway entrance and road front, there will be no diminished values. From the road there would be little change to the view with only a limited view of the new home during winter months.
Michael Watson asked if the proposed building site is where the boat sits now. Mathew Baillargeon explained it would be to the left of that and about 75 feet off the stone wall.
Chairman Shelton opened the public hearing at 7:14pm.
There were no comments.
Chairman Shelton closed the public hearing at 7:14pm.
Dana Glennon asked why this application was before the Zoning Board. Chairman Shelton answered the first time the application was brought before the Board the applicant wanted a second residence on one lot, which is not allowed in the ordinances. The lot is large enough for two lots, but does not meet the road frontage minimum requirements. The variance tonight is for road frontage only, so the applicant can move on to the Planning Board for request for subdivision.
Dana Glennon noted New Road is a Town road, not a state road.
Michael Watson and Rose-Anne Kwaks noted they had no concerns or questions regarding the application. Brian Donner noted the Board had discussed this option as the best option to achieve the goal during the last presentation of the application. Chairman Shelton agreed stating the lot is 6.9 acres. There is no other way to achieve a subdivision without a variance for the road frontage. This is a residential neighborhood. He discussed the acreage of surrounding properties.
Dana Glennon noted he would base his decision on what he saw tonight and the site walk he had taken. He had no concerns with the application.
CRITERION #1
The variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion and statement of fact granting the variance for the shared driveway would not be contrary to the public interest as the proposed use in its setting will preserve the existing neighborhood and provide privacy, quality of living and thoughtful development while creating a long-term tax base.
Seconded: Michael Watson
Vote: All in favor
CRITERION #2
Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship.
Applicant seeking AREA variance – Boccia Analysis
An area variance is needed to enable to applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion and statement of fact the special conditions of this lot located at 169 New Road has an area of 6.9 acres with road frontage of 237 feet in the R1 Zone where the minimum road frontage is 200 feet. By approving the use of a shared driveway the applicant would have the right to proceed to the Planning Board for a two-lot subdivision.
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion and statement of fact the lot is located at 169 new Road with road frontage of 237 feet and an area of 6.9 acres. This lot is bounded on the North side by property owned by Albert Hamel of 165 New Road with a land area of 2 acres and bordered to the south by property owned by Armand Cote of 171 New Road with an area of .77 acres. Whereas the current zoning regulations require 200 feet of road frontage and 2 acres lot size, there is no other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance for approval of a shared driveway.
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
CRITERION #3
The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a statement of fact and motion that as quoted from the Master Plan: “Residential areas that promote a connection with open space and the natural beauty of the town, preserve existing neighborhoods and create new ones that are livable, provide privacy through a variety of living styles” and “support quality, thoughtful development that preserves our natural resources and enhances the aesthetics of Newmarket while creating a long-term tax-base,” the variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
CRITERION #4
Substantial justice is done.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a statement of fact and motion any loss to the individual that is not outweighed by a gain to the general public is an injustice. By granting the variance for the shared driveway the applicant can now proceed for a hearing before the Planning Board for subdivision approval.
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
CRITERION #5
The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a statement of fact and a motion this property of 6.9 acres in its environment will not diminish the values of surrounding properties. The property is bordered by residential properties abutting New Road with parcels of land, to the north of 2 acres, to the south of .77 acres and to the west of 3.0 and 3.5 acres. The applicant’s request utilizing a shared driveway for a subdivision of 2 lots of 3.0 and 3.9 acres and meeting objectives of Section 1.02 – (B)(C)(D)(G) it will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for variance for the shared driveway from Section 3.01 (C) Length of Frontage of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance, which will allow the applicant to proceed to the Planning Board for a two-lot subdivision. The lot is located at 169 New Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 46, R1 Zone, since the applicant has met all five variance criteria
Seconded: Chairman Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Shelton noted there is a 30 day appeal period.
Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes - Special Exception reference Section 7.03, of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requests a Special Exception to permit an accessory apartment. The lot is located at 85 New Road, Newmarket, NH, Tax Map R3, Lot 38-2, R1 Zone.
Chairman Shelton discussed the purpose of accessory apartments. Accessory apartments are permitted in certain districts to ensure adequate provision of small, affordable residential units for various segments of the population; to help homeowners utilize excess space to generate revenue to help offset the costs of home ownership, and to encourage the adaptive reuse of historic homes. To balance this, the number of bedrooms in accessory apartments is severely limited to prevent excessive growth in the number of school age children. One accessory apartment shall be permitted per detached single-family residence, if granted a Special Exception by the ZBA. The accessory apartment shall be contained entirely within the detached single-family residence. The ZBA shall grant the Special Exception if all the conditions applicable are met.
Chairman Shelton noted there are seven criteria that must be met in order for the Zoning Board to grant a Special Exception. The accessory apartment must be a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 800 square feet of finished living area. Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes explained the apartment is approximately 800 square feet.
Chairman Shelton noted the accessory apartment shall be either an efficiency apartment (without a separate bedroom), or a one-bedroom apartment. Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes answered it would be a one bedroom apartment.
Chairman Shelton noted one of the dwelling units must be owner occupied. Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes noted she owned and lived in the house.
Chairman Shelton noted there shall be a minimum of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. A parking space shall be defined as a rectangular space 9’x18’. Parking spaces shall be permitted within the setbacks, if the location is over 50’ from abutting dwelling units. Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes answered there is adequate parking on the lot.
Chairman Shelton noted no exterior changes shall be made which significantly alters the appearance of the structure from the street. Elizabeth Sharon Copestakes answered there would be no exterior changes.
Chairman Shelton noted adequate water supply and sewer disposal shall be provided. If Town water and sewer services the site, tie-in fees shall be paid. He explained if the Special Exception is granted the applicant would be subject to tie-in fees, even if water and sewer already services the site because there would be a change in use.
Chairman Shelton noted granting of the Special Exception would be consistent with §1.05(A)(2). The apartment would not block any other structures.
Chairman Shelton opened the public hearing at 7:25pm.
There were no comments.
Chairman Shelton closed the public hearing at 7:25pm.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to grant the Special Exception to permit an accessory apartment at 85 New Road with the following conditions:
The Code Enforcement Officer measures the interior of the apartment to ensure it is less than 800 square feet
The applicant goes before the Planning Board for a waiver of impact fees that are applicable
Seconded: Dana Glennon
Vote: All in favor
New Business/Old Business
Chairman Shelton explained there are signs that are going up all around town illegally that need to be addressed. He would like authority from the Board to draft a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer asking him to look into this issue.
Chairman Shelton noted there are also several areas in town that are collecting yard junk. He felt the junkyard areas should be readdressed as well and wanted permission to draft a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer about this issue.
Chairman Shelton noted the Planning Board is looking at updating the Master Plan. He suggested asking the Planning Board to look at accessory apartment use. There are some things included in the current zoning that perhaps shouldn’t be including impact fees.
Dana Glennon noted accessory apartments do not draw in children and therefore do not have any impact on our school systems. Chairman Shelton noted the Planning Board can’t waive the water and sewer fees; that must be done through the Town. He was unsure whether it was through the Town Administrator or through the Town Council. Rose-Anne Kwaks noted she would ask at the next Council meeting.
Rose-Anne Kwaks noted the Board could not prohibit accessory apartments from allowing children to reside there, but the Board could require the waived impact fees be paid if there is a child living in the apartment since the apartment would then be affecting the school district.
Michael Watson asked if the school enrollment is rising. Dana Glennon noted it was. The kindergarten and first grade have over one hundred children enrolled.
Michael Watson asked if it is within the purview of the Zoning Board to regulate signs and junkyards. Chairman Shelton noted it was within the guidelines of the Zoning Board. Dana Glennon felt it would be appropriate for the Zoning Board to send a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer with a carbon copy sent to the Town Council. He felt the Chairman had been notified because residents were not seeing action being taken.
Michael Watson asked for examples of the signs that are being put up illegally. Chairman Shelton noted there are several yard signs near the streets and on light poles; some are advertising hot tubs.
Action
Motion: Dana Glennon made a motion to direct the Chairman to draft a letter on behalf of the Zoning Board about signs and junkyards. This letter is to be sent to the Code Enforcement Officer with a copy being sent to the Town Administrator and Town Council.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked for an amendment to the motion to include temporary storage units. Dana Glennon accepted the amendment.
Seconded: Michael Watson
Vote: All in favor
Dana Glennon asked for a copy of the letter to be emailed to all Board members as well.
Review & approval of minutes: 09/21/09 & 09/28/09
September 21, 2009
Action
Motion: Dana Glennon made a motion to accept the September 21, 2009 minutes.
Seconded: Brian Donner
Vote: All in favor
Dana Glennon rescinded his motion because he had not been a voting member at the meeting.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to approve the September 21, 2009 minutes.
Seconded: Michael Watson
Vote: All in favor – Dana Glennon abstained
Dana Glennon abstained from the vote because he had not been a voting member during the meeting.
September 28, 2009
Action
Motion: Dana Glennon made a motion to accept the September 28, 2009 minutes.
Seconded: Brian Donner
Vote: All in favor
Adjournment
Action
Motion: Dana Glennon made a motion to adjourn at 7:42pm.
