Minutes

Newmarket Zoning Board of Adjustment

March 12, 2018

Minutes

Meeting held at the Beech Street Senior Center, Beech Street Extension

Present:             Chris Hawkins (Chairman), Robert Daigle, Wayne Rosa (Vice Chairman), Steve Minutelli (Alternate), James Drago, Diane Hardy (Zoning Administrator)

Absent:              Richard Shelton (Alternate), Bill Barr (Alternate) both excused

Called to order:             7:01 pm

Adjourned:                     7:19 pm

Chairman Hawkins appointed Alternate Steve Minutelli to sit as a voting member.

Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance

Agenda Item # 2 – Review and Approval of Minutes:            02/05/18

Postponed to next meeting.

Agenda Item #3 – Regular Business

Mike & Elaine Mangan - Public hearing for an application for a Variance from Section 32-234(b)(4) of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance, to permit parking for two vehicles for an accessory dwelling unit within a single-family dwelling that does not meet the requirements for the granting of a special exception in accordance with Section 32-234.  The property is located at 5-7 Creighton Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 15, R4 Zone.

Mike & Elaine Mangan - Public hearing for an application for a Special Exception from Section 32-234 of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance, to permit an accessory apartment.  The applicants propose to change the designation of the building from a duplex to a single-family dwelling with an accessory apartment.  The property is located at 5-7 Creighton Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 15, R4 Zone.

              Others present included Mike Sievert and his colleague, Jeff Garnet, from MJS Engineering; Richard Gallant, who is an abutter residing at 1 ½ Creighton Street; and Michael Mangan, the Applicant.

Mr. Sievert presented a site plan of the property, which is based on a boundary plan. He gave an update on the project since the last meeting. The former duplex has been razed and the new house is up. A variance was previously approved on January 23, 2017 for two special exceptions to allow the razing of the previous non-conforming structure and construction of a new structure within ten feet of the side setbacks involving a horizontal and vertical expansion of the previous structure.

They are now requesting a Special Exception for an accessory apartment and a variance to one of the eight criteria. Due to the configuration of the lot, two of the exterior parking spaces are located within the setbacks and are less than 50 feet away from the abutter’s property.  The property was previously a grandfathered duplex with four parking spaces on site. They have replaced two of the spaces with a drive-under garage and the other two parking spaces for the accessory dwelling unit are located in an area, where there previously were four spaces, which encroached upon the public right-of-way of Creighton Street, which resulted in much congestion in the roadway.

Mr. Sievert, then, proceeded to review the criteria for the Variance.

Granting of the Variance is not contrary to the public interest.  They are making positive changes and improvements to the site, by allowing two parking spaces in an area that was previously used for four parking spaces for the original duplex. The new parking is an improvement and lessens traffic congestion. Two additional parking spaces are in a drive-under garage.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed, because the proposed parking provides a safer situation and eliminates the parking of four cars which previous stuck out into the roadway.

There is substantial justice, because the parking is substantially the same as it was previously.  The proposed parking is a significant improvement and does not undermine the public interest.  It provides for better utilization of the limited amount of space available.

There is no diminution in property value, in fact, the property owner’s investment in the neighborhood, with fewer cars, and less congestion will favorably affect values in the area.  

There is an unnecessary hardship due to the limit in size and condition of the property. There is no reasonable relationship between strict adherence of the regulations and the application of the regulation to the property.  Reverting the property to a single family use, with the improvements proposed will make the building more conforming and reduce congestion, which will favorably impact the neighborhood and improve site conditions. The applicant has provided a vastly improved situation with a more level and rectangular parking area.

Diane Hardy reported that she visited the site right before the meeting and Mr. Mangan had parked his vehicle in front of accessory apartment perpendicular to the road and there was ample room for the vehicle without encroaching on the public roadway. Mr. Mangan has made a substantial investment in the neighborhood, which is a positive impact in the area.

Bob Daigle asked if there was further input from the Public Works and Fire Department. He previously recalled Rick Malasky being concerned about vehicles parking in the parking lot and encroaching upon the roadway (Creighton Street), which is the main access to the Creighton Street pump station, but it sounds like that issue has been addressed.

Action

Motion:             Bob Daigle made a motion to grant the variance, as requested by the applicant, as the owner has demonstrated a historic situation where 4 vehicles were occupying space within the setback and right of way. The proposed parking is an overall improvement, adding the under unit parking for 2 vehicles mitigates the existing situation. Ultimately, the proposal makes the lot less non-conforming. For those reasons, I move that we approve the conditions.

Second:             Steve Minutelli

              Chairman Hawkins clarified that as a part of this motion the Board is adopting the application criteria as stated by the applicant’s representative as findings of fact.

Vote:                  All in favor

Action

Motion:             James Drago made a motion to approve the Special Exception for an accessory apartment, as the remaining criteria has been met subject to the findings of fact as set forth in the Applicant’s application

Second:             Bob Daigle

Vote:                  All in favor

Agenda Item #5 – Other Business

              None.

Agenda Item #6 – Adjourned

The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m.