 |
Newton Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 378
Newton, N.H. 03858
MINUTES: Meeting of Tuesday, October 15, 2013
CALL TO ORDER at 7:30 PM by Chairman McElroy
ROLL CALL: Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-Chairman Alan French, Jack Kozec, Matt Burrill
Absent: Dana Allison, Alternate Ken Pelletier
GUESTS: Coleman McDonough, Attorney Philip Parry, Jamie Fitzpatrick, Jaimie Bezancon, Robert G. Terriciano, Nicholas Blundo, Larry Corcoran, Arthur Graichen, Roger Hamel, Nancy Kozlowski, A. Kozlowski, David Hardy, Rick Milner
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:
Meeting of September 17, 2013
A motion was made by Mr. Kozec to accept the minutes as written. Second by Mr. French. All in favor. Motion carries.
Mr. Burrill was appointed a voting member.
REVIEW OF PLANS BEFORE SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING:
Jamie Bezancon, representing Tru Form Industries,
currently located in Rowley, MA
Re: property at 85 South Main Street,
Newton, NH 03858
Mr. Bezancon addressed the Board regarding moving his family-owned business from Rowley, MA, to 85 South Main Street in Newton, NH. He explained that it is a light manufacturing business, which supports industries like defense contracting, medical device manufacturing, renewable energy equipment, and consumer electronics capital equipment. All the different parts of this manufacturing business are housed in the 1 building, with 40 employees on a flex-shift, from 5 am to 6 pm. The operations of this business do not produce any pollutants (smoke, odor, noise, vibrations) outside of the building. There is light traffic to and from the building, employees, UPS (11 am & 4:30 pm), and an occasional other small delivery truck. Mr. Bezancon needs approval from the Board of Appeals to allow relocation this
facility, which is light manufacturing, into a commercial zoned area, before he can go ahead with the site plan.
Mr. Bezancon went through the criteria necessary to show that this business would not be
- contrary to public interest, but harmonious with the surrounding area. It would look more like a commercial enterprise than an industrial building.
2
- It meets and exceeds that which is in the spirit of the ordinance. Lighting in the parking area would be for security only, not being an essential part of the business. It would therefore not disturb abutters. No real traffic, just occasional high-end engineers, would disturb the community.
Substantial justice would be done, as it would benefit the Applicant, and would not harm the general public in the least. .
The values of surrounding properties would not be diminished, as all work is done within confines of the building. The signage would not be intrusive since it would be on the building .
Unnecessary hardship: Yes, on the part of the owner.
It seems that the plan presented would be denied proposed usage by the Planning Board, as there is a lack of measurements from all sides, and especially the frontage, Everyone needs to know what the new business would look like, and if it would fit the character of the area. Mr. Bezancon explained that this was an example, rather than a proposed plan. Mr. Cardoso felt that this building did not fit in with the character of the community. A buffer would be needed along Main Street, because the building is large, and it is out of scale for the community. He asked if there would be ‘trees’ planted along Main Street, since Main Street was a tree-lined street.
He feels that the business needs a buffer in the front along Main Street. The building is right up against the road there, “you can’t have that on that street”. You have enough land there that it could be made to work. He explained that with him the use is fine, but if he were to vote for the whole proposal, it would need to have the frontage situation reworked. You need to have a professional site plan reviewed by the Planning Board, Mr. Cardoso does not want to review a preliminary plan. Mr. Bezancon explained that he had been denied a ‘usage’ review, not a site plan review, since he had not gone forward with the site plan after the usage denial.
Mr. Cardoso told the Applicant that he needed to do more communicating with the Planning Board, for a change of conceptual use. He really needs to come back with a site plan.
This is a big building for the community. Considering the size of that building, it needs industrial zoning. An industrial building is expected to be large, but not a commercial site. The Board reiterates the need for going to the Planning Board. Some members of the Board say they cannot allow that building so close to the road.
Todd Fitzgerald, owner of the property, spoke to the Board. He explained that this area was zoned commercial at this time, but that this kind of light industrial would fit in fine. “You could build a Walmart there!” Board members feel they should not be threatened by a Walmart. They
should stick to this project, not “what you can build”. Discussion is for this project, no theoretical projects. Mr. Fitzgerald was told that they should go to the Planning Board with a building, a plan site. Then you could come back to this Board for the use of that building.
3
The owner and Applicant both feel that this is a great opportunity for this town. Mr. Cardoso argues that where they are placing this building so close to the road, that does not make it a good opportunity. It has to fit the community, and this is too large.
Taxes are brought to the surface. However, the Board says that taxes do not enter into their decision.
Mr. Cardoso reminds everyone that this Board has no control over the size of this building once they approve it. Now they are requesting a 20,000 square foot building, but what if they decide on a 50,000 sq. ft. building. Until the Planning Board approves of the building, this Board cannot make a decision on zoning.
Mr. French says that what is being requested is ‘spot zoning’.
Mr. Cardoso says there is a need to discuss what the Planning Board will approve in the end, before this Board can approve this use.
Mr. Cardoso agrees that that business would be a good fit for that location, but he would deny their request based on that building, on that location.
Mr. Bezancon restates that he is here just for usage, that he has no thought of the building & would be willing to make necessary adjustments. He was directed here by the Planning Board, for usage.
Mr. French says that the Planning Board was correct in their decision, but this Board needed something more to go on, some plan with necessary measurements, landscaping, whatever, in order to see if it will fit there.
Mr. Cardoso adds that this would affect the quality of our road, the face of the community, as stated in the Criteria necessary for variances. The Planning Board would approve or disapprove the plans, not the landscaping. They would approve only that which is necessary. The standard for commercial property is minimal landscaping. Propose something that ‘fits’ the community.
Mr. Milner, Alternate member on the Planning Board, was invited to speak.
He told everyone that he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the Planning Board. He suggested that everyone read the minutes of the Planning Board to see what their feelings were on the project. He did, however, point out that there were utilities, abutters, wetlands in the rear of the property, and to be aware of those things when making a decision. Make the variances specific to the Applicant, and the Applicant’s specific proposals, so that again we don’t have an issue where we give a variance and then the remainder of the property can go & be changed too. We are not changing the zoning, just allowing a certain person to have a certain thing in a certain place.
Mr. Cardoso says we cannot approve a new use without a building there. A building is needed before the use is allowed. By allowing that use, you are approving that building. So we must make sure that building is right. We can’t allow use and deal with the consequences of building later. Mr. Bezancon needs to come back to the Board of Appeals with a site plan and then we can vote on it. Mr. Cardoso says the he is only 1/5 of the Board, and that this is his opinion.
Mr. Kozec reaffirms that the Applicant could return next month with plans at the correct scale, as stated on the application, with the setbacks, building and measurements showing on all sides & then he would be heard.
4
Mr. French added that his plan also needed to be to the scale indicated on the application. It was agreed by all board members that it would necessitate hiring a civil engineer, such as Dennis
Quintal, CCMI to have all measurements and plans done correctly.
Mr. Bezancon was hoping not to spend a lot of money if he knew he couldn’t get a change of venue for the land.
Public Hearing could be next month, the deadline for all materials needed for the application, being November 8.
PUBLIC HEARING: Coleman McDonough
125 Development NH Corp.
For property at 2 Puzzle Lane
Map #014-01-027-4
Attorney Parry informed the Board that all the information necessary was to be found in the paperwork. Mr. French asked if there was a plan also. Attorney Parry presented a duplicate copy of what had been presented at the site plan review.
Attorney Parry began his presentation, stating that the issue really was the definition of ‘structure’ in the Zoning Regulations. It seems that this word means ‘anything which is man-made’. This was noted in the Memo from the Regional Planner. The location of the property was in the Industrial Park, in the industrial zone, where the required setbacks are 200’. The state recognizes structures as buildings, not any other construction. As a result of this by-law, the plan has been denied by the Planning Board, leaving Mr. McDonough with having to obtain variances for the perceived plan.
Explanation that paved parking, curbing, utilities, grading, piping, fire lane, fencing were now being considered as structures by the Regional Planner. Previously, this was not so. They are requesting that the Board grant the necessary variances so that the plan, which had been submitted to the Planning Board, can proceed with the site plan review.
Explanation and review of the Criteria presented. Attorney Parry explained that the lot ‘s use is permitted ‘as of right’. The lot is located within an appropriately zoned industrial subdivision. There is no request to change the tenor of the subdivision, or proposal to alter the use. There is nothing that is going to affect the public or public interest. The proposed building fits in with the rest of the industrial development. The use is absolutely permitted. Without a variance Phase II cannot be constructed, simply because of the shape of the lot, the width of the lot, you can’t physically access lot 27-4.
Discussion on the little building which had been moved away from Sargent Woods due to wetlands… Mr. McDonough would see what his engineers could do.
When asked if any of the Abutters would like to speak, several hands went up.
- Larry Corcoran from Sargent Woods subdivision was concerned with lights, berms, and trees. The Board questioned and then reminded everyone that they were not concerned
5
- with usage, but dimensional the variances. Mr. French replied to Mr. Cardoso that the variances given in 2009 were still valid.
- Nancy Kuzlowski from Sargent Woods subdivision shared her concerns with the lighting and the noise factor to which the abutters would be subjected.
- Arthur Graichen also from the Sargent Woods subdivision was concerned with the elevation of the building, as well as the lighting and noise factors. Would these be deterred by the trees?
- Roger Hamel also from the Sargent Woods subdivision stated that there was no room for trees. He would like to see the parking lot not so close to the boundary in the stormwater management area.
- James Fitzpatrick from the Walnut Farms subdivision was concerned with the swails (Stormwater management – WMA)
- Rick Milner(Alternate member of the Planning Board)speaking as a resident.
- These plans could come back to the ZBA if something is missing…
- Point of reference on setbacks allowing things to be there
- Suggestion that a copy be signed by the Board re: undisturbed buffer area
Review of Criteria:
- Public interest – all agree
- Spirit of the Ordinance- all agree
- Substantial justice - all agree
- Value of surrounding property-all agree
- Unnecessary hardship - all agree
Mr. Cardoso makes a motion to grant variances for the following areas:
- Westerly lot line (variances from the 200’ structure setback):
- That the stormwater management areas and associated grading, piping, outlet structures, stone, and fencing be no closer than 50’ from the lot line.
- That a berm with evergreen trees be planted on the berm within the 200’ setback, and additional evergreen trees be planted within the 50’ natural buffer.
That paved parking and associated paved drive aisles, curbing, lighting, utilities (including septic system components), and fencing be no closer than 70’ to the lot line for Building 1, and 115’ for Building 2.
Buildings are not to be any closer than 180’ to the lot line.
- Easterly Lot line (variances from the 90’ structure setback):
- That the stormwater management areas and associated grading, piping, outlet structures, stone, and fencing be no closer than 50’ to the lot line.
- That an earthen berm, fire lane, and associated grading, stone, slopes, retaining walls, and fencing be no closer than 50’ to the lot line.
- Southerly Lot line (variances from the 200’ structure setback):
6
- That the approximately 6000 s.f. Commercial/Light Industrial building, loading area pavement and stormwater management area be allowed within the 200’ setback.
(Referencing Commercial Site plan CDG (Civil Design Group, LLC) #13015, dated September 27, 2013 (9/27/13), proposed setbacks & buffers, Fig. 1)
Second by Mr. Kozec. All in favor. Motion carries.
The Board members requested to review the preliminary draft, before the final is sent out.
NEW BUSINESS:
- Letter from Unitil inviting all to its Annual Gas Emergency Preparedness Meeting, to take place November 13 at the Portsmouth Courtyard by Marriott
- 2014 Budget
- Board discussed and voted unanimously to increase the Salary line by $200.00, bringing it to $2,837.00.
- The Board also voted to remove $200.00 from Legal, bringing that to $1,300,
Remove $100.00 from advertising, bringing that line to $800.00
- That the requested $132.00, for the use of the copier, be removed from the Office Supplies line.
- Town & City publication
- New Hampshire Planning and Land Use Regulations: place order, one for each member of the Board, & one for the Secretary.
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made at 10:25 PM by Mr.Kozec to adjourn. Second by Mr.French. All in favor! Motion carries.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Clark, Secretary
| |
