Newton Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 378
Newton, N.H. 03858
MINUTES: Meeting of Tuesday, February 25, 2014
CALL TO ORDER at 7:30 PM by Chairman Tom McElroy
ROLL CALL: Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-Chairman Alan French Jack Kozec,
Alternate Matt Burrill,
Absent: Dana Allison, Bradley Cardoso, Alternate Ken Pelletier
Mr. Burrill was made a voting member.
Also in attendance: Mr. Stoddard, Attorney William Barron, Clara Donohue, Arnold Pevna, Attorney P. Parry, David Constantino, & Assistant Building Inspector Sam Zannini. Building Inspector Ron LeMere joined the group at 8:30 pm after the Planning Board meeting.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:
Meeting of January 21,2014. A motion was made by Mr. Kozec to accept the minutes as written. Second by Mr. Burrill. All in favor. Motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARING:
For: Peter Stoddard, S & H Land Services (Manchester, NH)
For owners: Pamela Brown & Gary Anderson
Of Northridge, California (8915 Amigo Ave.)
For property at: 41 Wilders Grove Road,
Newton, NH 03858
(Map #002-03-019)
Mr. Stoddard had signed letters of approval from the abutters (T.Zipkin, S. Cassidy, B. Flint), which he passed on to the Board and also to be recorded.
The Board members reviewed the Application. Questions on the paved area, and the existing shed.
The Board then reviewed the Variance Standards (Criteria) for an Area variance. Mr. Stoddard read them aloud so they could vote. They voted unanimously in agreement on all 5 Criteria.
Mr. Kozec made a motion to grant the 5 variances requested, as shown on the plan presented –Job # 2013204 and as had been read aloud by Mr. French. Second by Mr. French. These were the variances granted:
Section XV, #3 (Location on Lot):
- A variance of 28’0”, to allow the nearest point of the proposed garage to be 37”0” from the centerline of the road.
- A variance of 23’0”, to allow the nearest point of the proposed garage to be 2’)’ from the southern side property line.
- A variance of 22’11”, to allow the nearest point of the proposed garage to be 2’1” from the northern side of the property line.
Section XXVII, # 8B (Wetland buffer zones):
- A variance of 22’0”, to allow the nearest point of the proposed garage to be 28’0” from the very poorly drained soils at the rear of the lot on the northern side.
- A variance of 18’6”, to allow the nearest point of the proposed garage to be 31’6” from the very poorly drained soils at the rear of the lot on the southern side.
At 7:45 pm, Mr. French made the motion to close the Hearing. Second by Mr. Kozec.
APPLICATION REVIEW:
Attorney William Barron~~of the law offices of LaFlamme, Barron, & Chabot of Haverhill, MA, represented the Applicant, Arnold Pevna of 48 Wilders Grove Road, Newton, NH (Map # 002-04-017). The Applicant purchased the property & demolished the building. A new house was built on the footprint of the former structure. There is a ‘rain roof’ over the front walkway into the house and the builder replaced what was an existing concrete pad (deck) on the rear (lake side of the property) with a wood deck 20” high. These are in technical violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The roof overhang (Section XV, Residential A Zone, Paragraph 3) needs a variance from the
centerline of the street and both sidelines also need variances. The back deck (lake side) also needs a variance, as it is not within the Section XXVII Wetland Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph 8B, which states that no building shall be within 50’ of wetlands. They will need 5 variances.
The house was built on the exact footprint. The overhang & back deck were built outside the footprint. Upon inspection, the Inspector noticed these things, & they were denied an Occupancy Permit.
The variance requests need to be redone, as they are incorrect (not accurate).
Mr. French & Mr. Zannini explain to the Attorney what measurements are needed, and how they are to be presented to the Board on the Applicant. The measurements need to be in feet & inches. Both the back & front decks are to be done separately.
Photos were presented. Discussion of the egret from the basement.
At 8:30 pm, the review was closed. The Applicant and Attorney Barron will have the necessary corrections made, and the Public Hearing will be scheduled for next month, March 18, 2014.
3
APPLICATION REVIEW:
Attorney Philip Parry of Merrimac, MA, was representing Legends Baseball, LLC, proposed by Mr. Coleman McDonough and Mr. David Constantino, for property on Puzzle Lane in Newton (Map # 014-01-027-3). Lot 027-3 is Parcel A on a subdivision plan of land entitled “Puzzle Estates Subdivision off South Main Street (NH Route 108) Newton, NH.
This parcel is 31.08 acres on a plan of land entitled “Preliminary Layout Plan” prepared for: Legends Baseball, LLC, 3 Ajootian Way, Middleton, MA 01949. Legends Baseball, LLC is proposing to construct a “Baseball Facility and Training Center” (5 baseball fields with appurtenances & parking). The issue is structures within the 200 foot setbacks. The Planning Board determined that the proposed structural setbacks in the conceptual plan do not conform to the dimensional requirements of the Town of Newton Zoning Ordinance Section XXV, Paragraph 1 – Light Industrial/Commercial Zone Area Regulations, Location on Lot.
Question on whether it is or is not “permitted use”… nothing was mentioned in the decision of the Planning Board. This would be considered a commercial project. It abuts a Residential Zone. Buffer release is needed as well as structure release.
It was noted that the conceptual plan was 1”=100’, not the required 1”=20’. This is however just a conceptual plan.
Proposed ‘structures” within required setbacks are baseball fields, parking area, walkways, concession/bathroom building (no lights).
Mr. French feels that some of the abutters might be against at least a part of this proposition.
The Board feels that they could hear the case, but they would need all the measurements. This means “a lot” of variances as measurements all need to be itemized and redone (only setbacks are needed). The Applicant feels that according to the Zoning Ordinances, pretty much everything on the plan is considered a ‘structure’. There is no way around this.
Mr. Constantino feels that there is a need for this type of facility. He has been working at this for 7 years, and has about 350 teams involved (college & high school - 9 to 18 year old players) from most states in New England. This site is similar to AAU baseball.
The Board discussed other possibilities, moving fields, walkways, parking, etc. Also, it was asked if this investment was worth it, with the cost of the engineering, the construction, the hours of discussion, and several months of hearings. Is this what the Applicant wants? There are no ‘blanket’ variances.
Mr. Zannini & Mr. LeMere also made suggestions about how to go about this. They pointed out that this Board could give them relief from setbacks, structures, but the Planning Board would have the burden of lights, noise, types of buffers, parking spaces, dumpsters, etc.
There would be no need to return to this Board for another review. If the Applicant returns with 1,000 variance requests, he is at ‘his own peril’.
It was also pointed out that baseball noise would be a lot different than a factory. And these fields would only be operated during daylight hours for about 6 months.
Mr. Constantino says that he will see if he can ‘tweek’ the plan again.
The problem would most probably come with 2 of the batting cages. Mr. Constantino explained the fencing and nets necessary, also considered ‘structures’.
The deadline for next month’s meeting is March 6.
The goal is to begin construction in the fall of next year.
Mr. Kozec reminds them that they need a denial. What are they appealing? They are going to deal with setbacks. The Applicant takes the risk that his plan could be denied.
Mr. Constantino said that he would take it to the engineer and see if there was another way of planning the layout of the fields… perhaps even taking one out, if necessary. He would discuss it with him. That would be a possibility.
Mr. Zannini suggests that the Applicant go for buffer variances…and later go for structure variances. He needs a 200’ buffer from a Residential Area. So, he needs to deal with the areas, and the relief from the use to the Residential buffer, first. Then, he would need to make application for the structures, anything inside that area. It would be more difficult to deal with both issues, as many abutters would be expected.
Mr. McElroy suggests dealing with the buffers first, and then have a continuation for the rest., so as not to need to deal with the whole motion again. This can all be handled, but it is a time consuming project.
Mr. Constantino will check with the engineer and let us know whether he can come back for the Public Hearing in March (before March 6) or if he would like an extension for a month or so. It will take time to redo plans or get the necessary measurements. This is an extensive project.
The review ended at 9:05 pm.
OLD BUSINESS: None
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made at 9:10 PM by Mr. McElroy to adjourn. Second by Mr.Kozec. All in favor! Motion carries.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Clark, Secretary
| 
