TOWN OF SUTTON

Pillsbury Memorial Hall

93 Main Street

Sutton Mills, NH 03221

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Meeting Minutes 

  Wednesday, July 19, 2023, at 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Chair Lick called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and noted that there was a quorum. He then took the roll.

Roll Call: Derek Lick (Chair), Sam Gordon, Marc Beauchemin, Melissa Ballinger (Alternate), Betsy Forsham

Melissa Ballinger was asked to sit in for Zachary Brock, who was absent.

Also Present:  Peter Stanley, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary, Bob and Linda Preston.

 

Public Hearings:

1. Case ZBA 2023-08: Bryan Leary, 59 Newbury Road.

Mr. Leary said he would like to build a small farm stand so his two young daughters can sell their eggs to make money to buy a gerbil. The farm stand would be 4’x8’ and it would be 40’- 45’ from the road. If he put it to 55’ (the regulation), it would be hidden in his yard. The proposal is to build the farm stand 15’ closer than the regulation requires.

Sam asked what the purpose of the 55’ setback was from the road. Peter said he wasn’t sure; it is usually to have some uniformity and to determine how far homes are built from the road.

Betsy said she drove by the site a couple of times and was amazed at all the things Mr. Leary had on the property. She was unclear as to where the farm stand would go. Mr. Leary said the stand would go about 40’ from the edge of the driveway. There is an area that was cleared out (from the previous owners) and goes to the end of his property line. The space can fit three full-size vehicles in it and is about 10’ in front of the front gate on the property.

Betsy opined that a variance is more of a big deal than a special exception is, and she felt the map Mr. Leary provided was inadequate. She would like to see a map/plan that shows the existing conditions and exactly where the farm stand would go. She thought perhaps the application should be continued to the next month so she can get a better idea of where the structure would be built. Mr. Leary offered to point out on the map exactly where the farm stand would go. This was done and the Board understood the location as it pertained to the other features of the property.

Sam said in Google Maps, it shows a fence and an open, cleared area. Beyond the cleared area are some trees. Mr. Leary agreed. Behind the trees is where all the things that Betsy had identified as being on the property. Betsy asked if the cleared space he spoke of was in front of the chicken fencing. Mr. Leary confirmed this to be the case.

Melissa said she didn’t imagine that the proposed parking (three spaces) would be a problem. She liked the idea of nurturing business for kids.

Chair Lick asked for a sense as to how far back the house was from the road in relation to the existing shed. Mr. Leary said the house is maybe 75’ from the center of the road. The existing shed is parallel to the house. Chair Lick said he saw a river or stream in the back of the property. Mr. Leary said it is about 100’ from the road. Behind the shed are two pine trees that sit behind the front corner of the shed. There is about 30’ from the farm stand to the shed.

Chair Lick said the property can’t reasonably be used in a way that conforms to the ordinance. He is struggling whether or not pushing the farm stand 15’ back, would require cutting trees or not. Mr. Leary said if he had to push the stand back 15’ they would need to level the ground using 70-80 tons of fill. Otherwise, people would have to walk through a gulley. When asked, he said that he would also have to cut about five trees if the stand was pushed back 15’.  Mr. Leary added that the farm stand would also be a bit hidden and he worried that it wouldn’t be worth their while. When asked, Mr. Leary said that this low area in front of the farm stand (that would need to be filled in) does not flood.

Chair Lick said they have granted variances before to retain trees or to protect waterways.

Chair Lick opened up the floor to the Board and to the public for comment.

Bob and Linda Preston were present and said they were in favor of the project. They have lived in Sutton since 1969. Chair Lick thanked the Prestons for their comments.

With no other abutters present to speak, Chair Lick closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the Board if they had any further comments on the case before them.

Betsy said she didn’t understand why the stand needed to be 4’ x 8’ in size and also why it couldn’t be moved back further to comply with the regulations.

Sam said that of the five criteria that needed to be met, the last one was difficult. She can see some hardship due to the existing things going on the property and the hill going down. She didn’t think that making the shed smaller was reasonable. She thought their plans looked aesthetically pleasing.

Melissa said she understood why they didn’t want to have to abide by the 55’ due to the recession of the land. She thought the farm stand was a nice addition to the community and looked fine. Her inclination was to approve the request.

Marc had no issues with the plan.

Chair Lick said that the applicant addressed his prior concerns. He understands why the applicant would prefer to be closer to the road than to the steep grade. He also doesn’t prefer that trees be cut and felt the plan fit the character of the town.

Betsy said she wanted to say that the proposed use was great. However, that isn’t what the ZBA should focus on. She thought the trees were minimal in size and could be cut.

Chair Lick said that this was exactly the type of structure that people would expect to see closer to the road. The significant setback on the property is meant for residential structures; he was surprised that this wasn’t defined in the ordinance and thought that this would be a good place for an amendment by the Planning Board.

It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Marc Beauchemin to accept the variance and approve the application as submitted, given the comments that had been made around the table.

Chair Lick took a roll-call vote: Chair Lick: Yes, Betsy: Abstain, Sam: Yes, Melissa: Yes, Marc: Yes.

The motion was approved.

Chair Lick noted that there was a 30-day appeal timeframe where their decision could be challenged and overturned, which would require any work done to be reversed.

2. Case ZBA 2023-09: John Reed, Alden Construction, representing Mike and Tia Savage, Mastin Road.

Mr. Reed said they are asking for a variance to the wetland setbacks. They are a bit less than 71 feet from the wetlands even if they put the house directly in the center of the lot. The house is 30’x40’. They are asking for a variance because the property is hour-glass shape and the best place to put the house would be the mid-point of the property. They could move the house back, but if they do that they will have to deal with a hill and ledge, which would be costly and would prevent the Savages from being able to move forward with construction. Mr. Reed provided the septic plan and driveway permit for reference. He noted that the runoff from the property runs off the road onto the neighbor’s property. They will fix that with the implementation of a swale that diverts the water and a culvert at the bottom of thedriveway. The wetlands are not impacted by where the house is being placed. They are proposing to put the house where shown on the map. The house is only about 1,600 sq. ft., and it includes the garage on the bottom floor.

Betsy found the application to be very complete and appreciated the information included. She said she tried to view the site but was not clear as to its exact location.  She did note the little streams as she drove along Mastin Rd., in the lot’s general location. Mr. Reed said that anyone was welcome to go to the property at any time.

Mr. Reed said where they want to put the house impacts both buffers. In looking at it, the best place for the house is the midpoint. He said that on the map, the little black dots show the edge of the wetlands, which were plotted by a certified wetlands scientist. The runoff that comes to the property goes to the center of the lot and to the end of the driveway.

Peter said from the drawing, it appears that a portion of the driveway is within the 75’ wetland setback. He said this would require a conditional use permit by the Planning Board. Mr. Reed didn’t believe the driveway was included in the ordinance. Peter said that the ordinance includes access ways to the property, which a driveway is. He added that it was easy to get a conditional use permit and the Town wasn’t likely to deny the request.

There being no one from the public in attendance, Chair Lick closed the public portion of the meeting.

Chair Lick solicited further comments from the Board. There were none.

 It was moved by Betsy Forsham and seconded by Sam Gordon to approve the variance as submitted.  

Chair Lick called for a roll-call vote:

Derek: Yes, Betsy: Yes, Sam: Yes, Melissa: Yes, Marc: Yes

The motion was approved unanimously.

Chair Lick noted that there was a 30-day appeal time frame where their decision could be challenged or, which would require any work done to be reversed.

3. Review of Minutes

It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Melissa Ballinger to approve the minutes of May 17, 2023 as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously.

Peter noted that there would be one case for the meeting in August.

 

It was moved by Marc Beauchemin and seconded by Betsy Forsham to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved unanimously.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:50pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary
Town of Sutton