Minutes
NEWMARKET ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
APRIL 24, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Chris Hawkins (Chairman), Wayne Rosa (Vice Chairman), Bob Daigle, James Drago, Diane Hardy (Zoning Administrator), Richard Shelton (Alternate)
Absent: Steven Minutelli (Alternate), Bill Barr (Alternate) excused
Called to order: 7:07 p.m.
Adjourned: 7:33 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Review & approval of minutes: 02/27/17 & 03/20/17
Richard Shelton was appointed to fill in for the vacant full Board member seat.
02/27/17 & 03/20/17
Action
Motion: James Drago made a motion to approve both sets of minutes
Second: Richard Shelton
Vote: Wayne Rosa abstained from the 02/20/17 minutes, due to absence
Bob Daigle abstained from the 03/20/17 minutes, as he had an emergency Fire Department call during the meeting
All in favor
Agenda Item #3 – Regular Business
Jack Dion/MaryAnn Standish - Public hearing for an application for a Special Exception, from Section 32-234 Accessory Apartments, of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance, to permit the addition of an accessory apartment above the existing garage. The property is located at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone.
Chairman Hawkins stated he understood all of the abutters have been notified. Diane Hardy stated they have.
Jack Dion presented the application. He stated he had spoken with the Town Planner and she said that accessory apartments are accepted (by Special Exception) with Zoning Board approval. He stated currently there is a master suite over the garage and he would like to convert it to an efficiency apartment. His daughter and son-in-law have a signed purchase and sale on the property. His daughter and son–in-law currently live in Rochester. His daughter is a teacher’s aide in Newmarket. He is trying to help them get out of Rochester. The only way they can afford to do this purchase is with an accessory apartment, with the price of the property. He is trying to help them get started.
Chairman Hawkins asked what the current use of the space was. Mr. Dion stated it was a master suite, consisting of a large bedroom, with a huge Jacuzzi tub in the bathroom. The connector and garage were added to the house in 1998. The existing home has three bedrooms and one bath, built around 1984. Right now it is a four bedroom home.
Richard Shelton stated, as an efficiency apartment, it would not have a separate bedroom. Mr. Dion stated that was correct.
Bob Daigle asked, with the new laws regarding accessory apartments, does it matter if it is a one bedroom apartment. Diane Hardy stated you cannot restrict it to a one bedroom or efficiency. The Town has to provide the opportunity for a two bedroom, if that is what the applicant wants. This applicant is in compliance with the new law.
Chairman Hawkins opened the public hearing.
Terri Schoppmeyer, 15 Riverbend Road, asked about parking and lighting. Her property abuts this property. If you are facing this property, her property is to the left.
Janet Lovering is an abutter from 13 Woods Drive, which is directly across the street. She stated she has been looking at that property for 30 years and something does not add up. She handed out a copy of the site drawing that was part of the application. She had marked some measurements in red and handed copies to the Board and Mr. Dion. She stated, looking at the plan, the three segments of the structure showed 38’ for the main house, 18’ for the breezeway and 24’ for the garage. This adds up to 80’. The applicant claims there is 30 feet on Mrs. Schoppmeyer’s side and 60’ on Mr. Robert’s side. If you take the 80’ for the structure and add 90 vacant feet, it adds up to 170’. The frontage of the property is 150’ going by the tax map and the original subdivision plan from 1985. The measurements she had noted came from the tax card for the property.
Wayne Rosa stated the garage was at an angle, it should be added up from point to point. Ms. Lovering stated the angle shown on the site drawing is different from the actual structure. She understood what he was saying, but if they had a picture and looked at that house, they would see it was pretty much a straight line. It is a very slight angle. It is not as much of an angle as portrayed in the site drawing. Even taking into consideration the angle, it might add up to 78’ or 79’. She stated, if they did the math, they could agree this lot is pretty much square and there is a 150’ frontage on the road. It is like putting six gallons in a five gallon bucket.
Diane Hardy stated the structure does meet the Town setback requirements. Richard Shelton asked what the distance was from the corner of the garage to the abutter. Ms. Lovering stated it said on the plan 30’. Richard Shelton stated that is a more than adequate setback for zoning. Ms. Lovering stated she understood that, but the calculations did not add up.
Diane Hardy stated this drawing is a representation. What is important is whether the setbacks on either side meet the Town setback requirements, not whether the plan is an accurate survey representation of what is there.
Ms. Lovering stated, if there is an inaccuracy there, it is either with the measurements of 30’ or 60’, she was not sure which, and she was not sure about the tax card. Diane Hardy stated tax cards are not legal representations. You cannot rely on them.
Chairman Hawkins asked if she had an objection to the application. Ms. Lovering stated they value the family neighborhood and the family atmosphere. When she purchased there thirty years ago, she wanted to move into a residential neighborhood. She stated, if she wanted multiple family homes and to live in that type of environment and atmosphere, she would have purchased somewhere else. She echoed Mrs. Schoppmeyer’s concern about lighting and parking and the aesthetics of adding those things.
Sharon Rondeau stated she lives across the street from the property. Her primary concern is the number of parking spaces and their location. Also, during the presentation there was a representation that the space above the garage was already a bedroom. According to the building permit application back in 1997, it was for a family room, not a bedroom. She stated on the tax card and Vision Appraisal, it is listed as a three bedroom, not a four bedroom.
There were no further public comments
Chairman Hawkins closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hawkins asked Mr. Dion to step back up to the podium and tell them how many parking spaces were proposed, their locations and their size. He also asked if any lighting will be changed. He asked if there would be any changes to the exterior appearance of the structure. Mr. Dion stated they would add one pass door on the left side of the garage. The only main door in the garage now is in the back. As far as lighting, there would not be any more lighting than any other residential home. They might add a set of motion lights in the front and typical residential lighting. They are not going to put a street light up or anything. He outlined the parking on the plot plan. They are only adding one space. He was thinking of using crushed stone or pavement. It may be pavement, so they could use a snow blower on it.
Chairman Hawkins stated it was difficult to tell on the sketch if the parking was going to be in the setback. Bob Daigle read from the ordinance, “The parking space shall be permitted within the setbacks, if the location is over 50’ from an abutting dwelling unit.” Chairman Hawkins stated they have no evidence of that one way or the other. He asked if the proposed parking area would be within 50’ of the neighbor on that side. Mr. Dion stated he would have to measure it. Chairman Hawkins stated, if it did not meet that requirement, it would require a variance.
Chairman Hawkins asked if he could explain the measurements mentioned. Mr. Dion stated he could not. He got them from the property file at the Town Office.
Chairman Hawkins stated he was not changing the exterior except for adding a doorway. They are not adding new structures, the structure exists. Mr. Dion stated that was correct.
Richard Shelton asked if the parking area proposed was for one or two vehicles. Mr. Dion stated one car. Richard Shelton stated there had to be parking on the property for four vehicles. Mr. Dion stated there is plenty of parking. His daughter and son-in-law only have one vehicle each. Richard Shelton stated there had to be four parking places. They could stack them one behind the other. Bob Daigle stated this apartment space is above a garage. Mr. Dion stated the garage is vacant and there is room for two vehicles. There is room for vehicles in the driveway. Diane Hardy asked if there would be room without creating a new parking area. Mr. Dion stated that was correct. There was probably room for six vehicles in the driveway. James Drago stated they wouldn’t need the proposed parking space. Mr. Dion stated he wanted to put it over there to have a clear driveway, so no one is in anyone’s way.
Bob Daigle asked if the garage was attached to the house. Mr. Dion stated it was.
Richard Shelton had taken a photo of the house and he showed it to the Board.
Chairman Hawkins asked about the current lighting in the driveway. Mr. Dion didn’t know. He had only been there twice.
Chairman Hawkins asked if he was acting on behalf of the owner. Mr. Dion stated he had not yet purchased the property. That is why he got the letter from the owner giving him permission to appear before the Board. He is getting ready to buy the property. The closing is set for June 1.
Bob Daigle stated he would like to verify that the parking is 50’ away from the dwelling. Mr. Rosa stated he had adequate parking without it. Diane Hardy stated he doesn’t need it. This issue would go away. James Drago asked Mr. Dion if he would be willing to remove that portion with the proposed parking from the application. Mr. Dion stated yes.
Richard Shelton stated, when he looked over the whole project, there was nothing in the zoning that restricts the Board from approving this. He saw no reason not to approve it. Bob Daigle stated he saw no reason for denial. He meets zoning. Chairman Hawkins stated it was very similar to the Harter application, which had recently been before the Board.
Richard Shelton read a statement of fact.
“The applicant has stated that the accessory apartment will be an efficiency apartment (without a separate bedroom), with approximately 380 square feet of living space, where the minimum is 300 and the maximum is 1000 square feet of finished living space, whereas an accessory apartment will have one bedroom, ‘where a maximum of two are allowed’, one of the dwelling units will be owner-occupied, space is available and adequate for 4 parking spaces and by adding a door to the side of the garage, there will be no exterior changes, which significantly alter the appearance of the structure from the street, Town water & sewer services are available the site and granting of the Special Exception would be consistent with section 32-5(1)b. QUOTE: “To prevent this chapter from being unduly burdensome on a nonconforming single-family residential use, such single family houses shall be permitted to be physically expanded, and accessory structures added or expanded”.
As this efficiency apartment shall be contained entirely within the detached single-family residence, with a door between the principal residence and the accessory dwelling unit, however, it shall not be required to remain unlocked. Adding of an exterior door to the side of the garage, this change will not significantly alter the exterior of the structure, the applicant has met the 6 prongs of the criteria and is consistent with section 32-5 (1) b.”
Action
Motion: Richard Shelton made a motion to grant the Special Exception, from Section 32-234 of the Newmarket Municipal Code, by the applicant to permit the conversion of the existing area over the garage into an efficiency apartment. The property is located at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone. This is subject to no additional parking being added.
Second: Bob Daigle
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Hawkins stated, if the abutters had any problems with lighting, he would suggest talking to Mr. Dion and tell him what the problem is and he was sure he will take action. Mr. Dion stated that was correct, they are very easy to get along with.
Agenda Item #4 – Other Business
Bob Daigle asked if anyone was going to the Spring Conference on Saturday. Diane Hardy stated a couple of Planning Board members were going. Chairman Hawkins stated he would go and people could carpool with him.
Agenda Item #5 – Adjourned
Action
Motion: Bob Daigle made a motion to adjourn at 7:33 p.m.
Second: James Drago
Vote: All in favor