Newton Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 378
Newton, N.H. 03858
MINUTES: Special meeting of Tuesday, May 25, 2010
CALL TO ORDER at 7:30 PM by Chairman Tom McElroy
ROLL CALL: Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-Chairman Alan French,
Dana Allison, Jack Kozec,
Absent: Bradley Cardoso, Alternates Charles Melvin, Sr. and Ken Pelletier.
Guests: Mr. McDonough, Mr. Frankiewicz, Scott Herman and another abutter to Mr. McDonough’s property, though his property was not being affected.
PUBLIC HEARING:
125 Development NH Corp.
Coleman P. McDonough, President
P.O. Box 532
Plaistow, NH 03865
(Lot 014-01-027-1) #2 Puzzle Lane
The Applicant is requesting:
- A variance from the dimensional requirement pursuant to Section XIII, #1, to reduce the 75’ setback to 65’ in the area which abuts Puzzle Lane.
- A variance from the dimensional requirement (Section XIII, #1) to reduce the 166’ setback (formerly approved variance) to 156’ in the area which abuts Puzzle Lane & the Residential Zone.
Mr. Frankiewicz began his presentation, explaining that because this issue concerned two (2) different Town Ordinances, that they would need 2 separate variances (for the same job). They are asking for 10 feet more along the front of the building.
The Board and all present were invited to review the plan. A question and answer session followed. Mr. Herman had objections. The Board tried to make him understand that his property was 600 feet from the property line, and therefore would not be inconvenienced. The building, and 10 foot addition, would face Puzzle Lane. They explained that the biggest part of the building had already been approved, the berm was complete, but the trees had not yet been planted. Mr. McDonough explained about the planting and size of the trees.
More discussion followed on the height of the building. It would be 25 feet high. The Town of Newton has a 35 foot limitation.
REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA (VARIANCE STANDARDS):
- This was to be an area variance. The applicant had to demonstrate that:
- The variance was necessary to enable the proposed use of the property given special conditions of the property, and
- The benefit sought could not be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible topursue, other than a variance.
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
- Will it be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance’s basic zoning objective:
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
- The variance will not be contrary to the public interest, such that it would alter character of the neighborhood or threaten public health, safety or welfare:
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
- The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished:
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
- Substantial justice is done:
The Board voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Allison made a motion to grant the two (2) variances:
- A variance from the dimensional requirement, to reduce the 75’ setback to 65’ in the area which abuts Puzzle Lane.
- A variance from the dimensional requirement to reduce the 166’ setback (formerly approved variance) to 156’ in the area which abuts Puzzle Lane & the Residential Zone.
Second by Mr. Kozec.
All in favor. Motion carries.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made at 8:15 PM by Mr. Allison to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kozec. Motion carries. Next meeting is to be June 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette S. Clark, Secretary
| 
