Newton Board of Appeals
2 Town Hall Road
Newton, N.H. 03858
MINUTES OF THE MEETING of September 12, 2016
CALL TO ORDER at 7:30 PM by Chairman Tom McElroy
ROLL CALL: Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-Chairman Alan French, Brad Cardoso,
Jack Kozec, Alternate Frank Gibbs, and Alternate Ken Pelletier
Absent: Michael Connolly
Guests: Marianne Pelletier, Lauren Roberts, Dan Roberts, Laura Rossi, Steve Rossi, Charles Melvin Sr., Frederick Hoehn, Stasia Caisse, Robert Wallenton, Joanne Brimicombe, Jamie Gibbs, Daniel Muller, Tina Cardoso, Peter Devine, Ronald Lemere, C.J. Geisler, R.H. Russell, Mike Morgan, Donna Morgan.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: A motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of August 16, 2016 was being made when Mr. Gibbs decided that we needed to amend the minutes by including “from the Building Inspector” after the statement “certain replies had been omitted”. Mr. Kozec makes the motion to accept this change. Second by Mr. French. All in favor.
Mr. Gibbs was appointed as a voting member, in the absence of Mr. Connolly.
Minutes of July 19, 2016: Mr. Pelletier had asked “Why did the Building Inspector issue a permit for the foundation and not for the building? Mr. Lemere replied “You have the application in front of you, you can read it.” Also a typing error was brought up by Mr. Gibbs. “It should be ‘explained’ and not explains’.” Other than these, there is no new information for the minutes. Mr. Kozec makes the motion to accept the amended minutes. Second by Mr. French. All in favor. Mr. Gibbs abstains.
PUBLIC HEARING for Jamie Gibbs:
Mr. Frank Gibbs recuses himself from the Board, and Mr. Pelletier is made a voting member in his place.
Attorney Daniel Muller begins saying that he will focus on the Administrative Appeal first and foremost. He asks whether all members sitting at the table will be voting this evening. He inquired about a member who was present at the other meetings but did not vote. Mr. Pelletier replies that he will be a voting member at this meeting. He then asks if Mrs. Pelletier will be speaking this evening. Mr. Pelletier says he does not know. He then states that his client is entitled to an impartial Board. The attorney asks if they (the Pelletiers) have a personal interest in the case. A discussion on Mr. Pelletier and his presence on the Board follows. Then, the attorney asks Mr. Pelletier if his vote will affect the validity of the decision. Should he recuse himself or not?
Can he be impartial?
2
“With that in mind, I will start with the Administrative Appeal.”
Attorney Muller explains that the only issue here is the denial of the permit to build a single family residence on his property. The section that was cited was for non-conforming structures. That was the basis for the denial. The original house/structure on the property was non-conforming. It was too close to one of the boundaries. It didn’t satisfy the setbacks. The proposal now is to move it back so that the structure itself will comply with the setbacks. From their perspective, a single family house is a permitted use in that zone. It is separate and apart from the business use. This in no way implicates Section 9 Paragraph 1, which was the only section cited by the Building Inspector denying the permit. That section deals with the reconstruction of a
non-conforming structure. Again, the proposal here is to make the building conforming, thereby eliminating that section. The other issue, which is the business which has been pointed out as a non-conforming use. This proposal does not deal with the business. It’s simply to build a residence.
Again, this is not a non-conforming structure, single family use, permitted use. It’s going to comply with the setbacks. Therefore, the permit should be issued for a single family residence. This is a simple issue. The garage and the business are not being touched. If the Administrative Appeal is granted, then obviously there is no need to go forth with the Alternate variance request.
Mr. McElroy asked if there was a site plan. Attorney Muller replied that he thought there was. Mr. Cardoso asked if it was according to the required scale. Mr. McElroy requests a site plan on the required scale (1”=20’), also all the measurements and dimensions of the building from the overhang. The house and garage cannot be attached.
Discussion about dimensional variances. Attorney Muller suggests adding conditions to the permit. Mr. French explained about the possibility of a variance request. Attorney Muller said that it was a condition of use, not dimension.
Mr. French decided it was time to ask the Building Inspector (Mr. Lemere was present) why they were issued a permit for the foundation, and not the structure permit.
Mr. Lemere explained that if someone looks at the application for the foundation, it was for residential use. He further explained that they, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Fitzgerald, needed this permit before purchasing the property from their family. The closing was the next day.
Looking at the plans, it appeared that the commercial building and the residential were going to be connected. Mr. Lemere said that the only way he could help them was if it was restricted to residential only. They both agreed to that, so the permit was issued. Shortly after that, we received a letter from the attorney objecting to this permit. The Building Inspector is not denying the construction of their home. The issue here was connecting the residential to the business. He said that he looked at the septic plans that were on record again and they were for a single family home, a 5 bedroom septic, and 10 employees. The permit that was issued at that time was to get them through that time, as they were entitled to that residential use structure.
Mr. Cardoso asked about the distance necessary between a residential and a commercial structure/utility building/storage building. Mr. Lemere said that he would need to look that up. Mr. French tried to understand that the commercial part of the garage was going to be connected to residential garage. Garage to garage. Yes. The septic is to be used for
3
both the commercial and residential. The setbacks on the plan meet the requirements. The plan needs to show the separation distance between the two, or the separation wall. The septic will be for all use (plan for the house=3 bedroom) as it is a septic for a 5 bedroom and 5 employees. Everything is fine with the septic, the problem is with the connection of the residential with the commercial. The original permit was issued January 28, 2016 and it was amended April 7, 2016. It was amended to say “unless proper approvals are obtained by the Newton Zoning Board of Appeals”.
At 8:35 pm Attorney Muller requested a 5 minute recess. The recess was granted and Attorney Muller, Jamie Gibbs, Todd Fitzgerald, and Building Inspector Ron Lemere.
OUTCOME: Rather than discuss, Attorney Muller said it would be better to withdraw the appeal and re-apply with a new set of plans.
At 8:45 pm, Mr. Kozec made a motion to close the Hearing. Second by Mr. Cardoso. All in favor. Motion carries.
Mr. Gibbs rejoined the Board.
NEW BUSINESS: At 8:45 pm, Mr. Kozec makes a motion to go into non-public session. Second by Mr. French. All in favor.
At 9 pm, the Board comes out of non-public.
At 9:10 pm, a motion to adjourn is made by Mr. French. Second by Mr.Cardoso. All in favor. Motion carries.
NEXT MEETING will be Monday, October 10, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette S. Clark, secretary
| 
