Newton Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 375
Newton, N.H. 03858
Meeting
July 18, 2006
I. Call to Order: Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at
7:30 PM.
II. Roll Call
In attendance were Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-Chairman Alan French (7:35 pm), Dana Allison, Jack Kozec, Alternate: Charles Melvin. Alternate Ken Pelletier arrived late (7:50 PM). Absent: Bradley Cardoso.
Minutes were transcribed and typed by Secretary Jeannette Clark.
III. Acceptance of Minutes
A motion was made by Mr Allison to accept the minutes as written. Seconded by Mr Melvin. Motion carries.
IV. Public Hearings:
In the absence of Mr Cardoso, Mr Melvin was made a voting member.
A. David and Carolyn Kelly, 5 Elm Street, Newton, N.H. (Map #006-14-006). The Applicant is requesting a variance from the Residential A Zoning Ordinance, Section V, Paragraph 3, requesting a variance on right side setback (18 feet) and also a variance from the centerline of the street, in order to replace an existing porch with a farmer’s porch.
Carolyn Kelly explains the need for variances, as the porch needs to be repaired and/or replaced. The new planned porch would give them necessary room for emergencies and for everyday situations.
A note from abutters Cheryl & Raymond Thayer was read by Mr McElroy. There were no abutters present.
Review of the Criteria:
1. Surrounding property values: Satisfied, unanimous
2. Contrary to public interest: Satisfied, unanimous
3. Boccia Area Variance (limited lot size): Satisfied, unanimous
4. Substantial justice: Satisfied, unanimous
5. Contrary to the spirit: Satisfied, unanimous
Mr Allison makes a motion to grant 2 variances: 1. a side lot line variance and 2. a distance from the center line of the road variance, as long as the farmer’s porch will be no nearer to the side lot line than the existing house, and that the porch will be no nearer the center line of the road than the existing porch, except for the standard step. Second by Mr Kozec. Vote: unanimous. Motion Carries.
2
The 30 day waiting period was explained.
At 7:50 PM, Mr Allison makes a motion to close the hearing. Second by Mr Melvin. Vote: unanimous. Motion carries.
B. Continuation of Public Hearing for Richard LeClaire for property owned at 9 Pond Street Newton, Map #010-02-015. The Applicant is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance Section XIX, dealing with the expansion of a non-conforming lot.
There were no abutters present.
Mr LeClaire presented his revised plans. It was immediately noted that these were still the septic design plans, not the required Certified Plot Plan.
In these plans, Mr LeClaire had removed the kitchen, but had not removed the words ‘1 bedroom apt’. Mr LeClaire added “that should things change down the road, the house is built in accordance with the appropriate septic system for one.” He also presented revised house plans, same footprint, just taking the kitchen out. He said it was not an apartment. He said that he had just received notification that the new septic design had been approved by the State. The Board did not want to accept these plans, as they were not the certified plans required. They want the; area print, not the septic design. Mr LeClaire argued that these were certified plot plans, that ‘they showed more than you need. He (the engineer) did not want to take it all
off and create a whole new diagram. These plans were certified by him (the engineer).’
Mr French says that the engineers do not run this Board. We need to make a stand somewhere and say that’s it! We can’t do it any more!
Soon, everything will be denied that is not perfect. According to Mr LeClaire, the words “1 bedroom apt” are a typographical error. He explained that they were still approved for a 500 sq. ft. apartment, but we’re not here to dispute that.
Mr Melvin explains that if a variance were granted, it would be according to this plan. We can’t do that! Technically, the wording cannot be there!
Mr LeClaire said the he could bring in a new plan tomorrow, but does not want to wait another 30 days before proceeding. He said he hadn’t noticed that it still showed those words.
Mr French requests to go on record that no one will be accepted without the proper plan. He will vote against any variance without the proper required plot plan. No engineer is running this Board!
Mr LeClaire asked for a ‘conditional’ approval, on the condition that he would bring in a proper plan tomorrow. He was told that the Board does not issue ‘conditional approvals’. He argued that the application says a certified plan, but it does not say ‘Don’t bring in too much information!’
3
Mr French says “Coming to the Board, and making the Board angry, is not a good idea!”
Mr LeClaire continues “The Application doesn’t say ‘Don’t bring your septic design’, bring me an engineer’s plan.”
Mr Allison inquired about the size of the proposed dwelling. Was it 2804 sq. ft.? Mr LeClaire said “No, the square footage is actually 34 and change. The footprint did not change! We just changed the interior of the house!” It was agreed that the footprint was ‘approximately’ 2804 sq. ft. and does include the garage. This was to show that he was not substantially changing what was on the property originally. The question on the Application was ‘expanding a non-conforming lot’, it could only be 25%… This could not be verified, as the buildings had all been razed…
Mr Pelletier questioned as to whether the figures were living space or the whole space, all the buildings. It was 25% greater than what?
You can’t see the dimensions of the existing building, as this is a septic plan. The dotted lines show the ‘existing building’, but there are no dimensions.
Mr Allison: “What we are looking for now is a variance to build a house on an approved sub-standard lot…”
Discussion on the Building Inspector’s denial. Again, he should deny with statutes…the town regulations/RSA information needs to be supplied…these denials need to be clear… How can we vote on something that is not clear?
Mr Melvin wants to take the theory a little further. He has a piece of property that seems to fit the criteria, meets all the setback requirements, and lot lines OK. Technically, he can put this structure on there, without the in-law apartment. He meets the septic and well regs…so technically he doesn’t even need a variance. For a single family home, as long as it meets all the criteria, he should be able to build it.
Discussion as to whether the Board should appeal an Administrative Decision. Review of the Zoning Ordinance p. 25 (uses? Lots? Structures?).
He’s increasing the size of a building on a non-conforming lot. Without the apartment, he’s got a conforming structure. You can make it bigger, as long as you stay within the dimensions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr Pelletier argues that you need the same footprint.
Mr Melvin agrees that we should appeal the Administrative Decision of the Building Inspector…
Mr Kozec agrees that we should appeal the decision and that all denials need to have a reference number on it. Mrs Clark should check for this and refer them back to the source.
Mr French says this happens nearly every month…
4
Mr Melvin suggests that we send the Building Inspector a memo.
Mr French says that we did that 3 or 4 months ago.
Mr Melvin then suggests that we get together and discuss it with him.
Mr French inquires as to when and if this building is built, will the house be pre-plumbed for that kitchen apartment? Mr LeClaire answers that “No, there’s a wet bar in there. We’re putting nothing up there but a bedroom. There’s a set of cabinets with a corner sink, that I already owned.”
Mr Allison makes a motion to grant an appeal of an administrative decision of the Building Inspector of not granting a building permit. The lot is a grand-fathered non-conforming lot and the planned structure meets all the zoning setbacks. The building permit will be issued with the pre-condition that Mr LeClaire will present a proper plan to our Chairman without the mention of an apartment.
Second by Mr Melvin. Vote: 4 for, 1 against (Mr French). Motion carries.
Mr McElroy inquires as to whether or not the Building Inspector has to issue a permit not that the Board has voted on this decision. He can say no, right?
Mr Allison explains than when we issue an Appeal of an Administrative Decision, we now have the power of the body making that decision.
If he doesn’t issue the permit, Mr LeClaire has to come back to us.
Mr LeClaire explains that the Building Inspector was unsure of the size of the original buildings, and that he needed direction from the Board. The Board feels that if the Building Inspector doesn’t issue a permit, he needs another reason to come to us. This will probably help the Building Inspector, since he was looking for direction.
Mr French, and other members of the Board, clearly explain the 30-day appeal regulation.
Mr Kozec makes a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:40 pm. Second by Mr Melvin. Motion carries.
B. Public Hearing for Charles Blaisdell and Michelle Blaisdell-Geldart, 44 Bear Hill Road, Newton, N.H. (Map #017-04-005). The Applicant is requesting appeal from Residential A Zoning Ordinance, Section A, Paragraph 2, dealing with frontage (less than 150 feet). The Applicant is requesting a variance of 10 feet.
Mr Blaisdell passed out the plans. It is noticed that the plan is not on the proper scale, it’s 1”=30’ not the required 1”=20’. Mr French is upset at the engineer’s note. He feels that we can’t have different rules for each engineer. The engineers do not run this Board.
He then notices that the Applicant doesn’t have enough frontage for lot #2. There is some confusion. The Applicant is really looking for a subdivision of his lot. We can’t approve a non-conforming lot.
5
The Board informed them that they needed to go to the Planning Board. The Planning Board would then deny this, and then they could come to this Board.
This lot is still one piece of property, it has not been subdivided.
Another solution would be to purchase 10 feet of frontage from one of the side abutters and go through a lot line adjustment. Then, go for the subdivision.
Much discussion…
Mr Allison makes a motion that we cannot hear this case because a proper denial was not issued by the Planning Board. Second by Mr Melvin. Motion carries.
Mr Allison makes a motion to close the Public Hearing. Second by Mr Kozec. Motion carries.
V. Old business
None…
Bill from the law firm concerning Mr Ferrandi’s case.
Everyone agrees that we need a meeting with the Planning Board and the Building Inspector.
Mr Allison makes a motion to re-send the letter that was sent last year to the Building Inspector, with a new date. Second by Mr Kozec. Mr French suggests that we add a note that if this is not done, all things will be denied. Motion carries. Take the same letter and change the date.
The Selectmen are the Enforcing Agents for all these regulations.
VI. New business
No correspondence…
Mr French makes a motion not to accept applications unless all materials submitted are what is required on the application (100%).
All materials must be submitted with the application. There is not more bringing materials the evening of the hearing.
Mr Melvin wants to know who’s burden it is, the Secretary’s or the Board’s? Mr French feels that the Secretary has the authority to make that judgment.
The application clearly states that all must be provided with the application.
We need to resolve this problem.
We will not hear this until we get a proper application!
Discussion of having Work Sessions. Work sessions do not have any public input. Advertising would not be done till after the approval of the Board.
6
Mr French makes a motion that we do not accept any more applications that are not 100% complete, unless determined
through a Work Session of the Board. Second by Mr McElroy.
Mr Kozec suggests that if they come and it’s not filled out properly, it’s continued. We eliminate the work session, and the pressure on the Secretary. The Secretary just presents what she receives. That’s what has to happen at the meeting…and not say “well, we’ll do it tonight for them…”
Mr Melvin is leaning toward trying out a work session. If they are not on time, they go to the next work session.
Mr French retracts his motions.
Mr Allison makes a motion to schedule a Work Session for Monday, July 31, 2006, to discuss work sessions, new applications, and being more strict with our rules and regulations. Second by Mr Kozec. Motion carries.
VII. Adjournment
Mr Kozec makes a motion to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Second by Mr French. Motion carries. Next meeting to be August 15, 2006 at
7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Clark, Secretary
| 
