June 8, 2018 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting of Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:00p.m. Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 Corrected and Approved Minutes Board Members Present: Derek Lick, Chair; Tod Ritacco; Betsy Forsham; Dane Headley; and William Hallahan Board Members Absent: Joe Eisenberg (Alt.); and Doug Sweet (Recused) Staff Present: Victoria O’Connor, Land Use Secretary Others Present: Debora h Lang, Applicant; Doro thy Jeffrey; Peter Savickas 1 Call to Order by Chair. Chairperson Lick called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m. 2 Roll Call 3 Public Hearings Victoria O’Connor announced that all payments and necessary documents have been received. Deborah Lang, 87 Lovett Road, South Sutt on. Tax Map 02 Lot Number 478-356. Zoning District Residential. Variance requested, in accordance with Article X, Section B.2 and D.1 of the Sutt on Zoning Ordinance, in order to permit the construction of a garage (28′ x 36′). Deborah Lang presented her application to the Board. She indicated that she purchased her property in 2011, which she desires to make it into her year-round residence. She noted that there is no place on her property to build a garage for storage. She stated that she has an agreement pending with the Jeffreys to purchase a portion of their land, in order to construct their garage on it. She pointed out that the problem is that, due to the required wetland buffers, there is no possible way to construct the garage. She indicated there are 2 options: variance from the road setback requirement s, or variance from the wetland setback requirements. The following questions were posed by the Board: Q. What is the standard depth of a garage? A. It would have to be larger than 24-by-24 in order to fit the boat. Q. Looks like you’re going to do a shingle roof. A. Standard roofing shingle; and no paving on the driveway, just standard. Q. No gas tanks? A. Just electricity. Q. Second floor for storage? A. Yes. Q. Insulated? A. Not initially, but it’s possible to do down the road. Would intend to be able to have a workshop to work on the wooden boat that requires a lot of maintenance. Q. Would it be possible for you to utilize a garage that is 25.5′ deep as opposed to 28 ‘ deep, in order to not encroach the wetlands? A. The company that makes these goes in increments of 8 feet. So 28 ‘ would become 24′, and boat with trailer is 22′ total. My car is 15′, and if we try to put all the cars and boats in, it would take up at least 15′ wide. Q. Could you do a four-bay that’s shallower, so that you still get your space in a slightly different footprint? A. Esthetically, I don’t think that it would be as pleasing to the neighbor s. It would present a hardship, as it would have to be completely reconfigured. This is the ideal structure. If the requirement is to make it longer, they would work to configure it, although it would be less than ideal. Q. Did you ever think about being not in step with the roadway setback? A. That’s one of the options. Q. On either side of the front edge of the parcel, adjacent to Camp Kemah Road, there’s no structures on here? A. Bunch of pine trees, and lots of rocks. Q. And where is the lake in relation to this? So moving it closer to the road is actually technically moving it further away from the lake? A. As the crow flies, 3/8 of a mile it would move it away from the lake. Q. Do you see any issues moving it 2.5’ closer to the road, with respect to any traffic? A. No, it’s pretty much a straight away with no blind spots. Q. Are there any negative factors to you moving closer to the road? A . No. Board Member Forsham had walked the site and found doing so very helpful. She suggested that board members try to walk the site for future cases and that the Board perhaps should require that an applicant mark the area to be considered if it involves setbacks, buildings, etc. She added that this is a very well-presented application, in terms of completeness. Chairperson Lick opened the public session Dorothy Jeffrey stated that they are in favor of this Application. She indicated why Doug Sweet had to recuse himself. Ms. O’Connor noted that abutters had contacted via phone, inquiring why they were notified, as the property they believed the Applicant owned was not abut ting them. Chairperson Lick closed the public session Ms. O’Connor provided the Board with the worksheet that lists the criteria to be met to grant a variance. Board Member Headley inquired whether or not they’re going to fill out their own worksheets. Chairperson Lick responded that it may not be necessary, as long as the open discussion is on the record and in the minutes. Board Member Headley concurred that they were redundant. Board Member Forsham brought up the philosophical issue regarding the Regulations, and their true purpose, if they keep being chipped away at. Although it’s an inconvenience, there are other alternatives to putting a building on it. She noted she’d rather it be closer to the road rather than closer to the wetlands. She feels the Regulations should truly be honored, unless it’s impossible to avoid a variance. Board Member Hallahan indicated that he thinks the question of whether the footage can change in what the Ordinance calls for is a rather small one. He noted that area has never really had many variations that affect anything of any consequence. He went on to state that the volume of traffic and everything else is still considerably less than what normal roads would carry. He feels the request is reasonable, and it should be approved. Board Member Headley agreed with what has already been said. He asserted that there should be no concern that allowing this variance towards the road would allow for subsequent requests for variance to be automatically allowed, as every application is considered on a case-by-case basis. Board Member Ritacco concurred that he would rather it be farther away from the wetlands, and closer to the road. He stated that it should be approved. Chairperson Lick noted his concern regarding “reasonable use”, because he thinks this could be used as a garage lot with a very modification to the garage of a couple of feet. He stated, “I very much want to approve this because the Application is pristine and the building is very esthetically pleasing. The only hiccup is: is a variance necessary to enable this use, because it can’t be used reasonably otherwise?” Board Member Headley responded that you should take the Applicants’ word that this would be more cost-effective. Chairperson Lick inquired if a property can only be reasonably used if you can purchase your garage in a kit form? He continued further and asked, is it reasonable to say you can build a garage that’s 2.5′ shallower and you’ll be able to sit in all the setbacks? Board Member Forsham agreed, because she doesn’t feel this is a hardship like all of the other cases that have come before the Board. She clarified that this concern of Chairperson Lick applies, regardless of which variance is considered. Board Member Headley reminded the Board that the desire is to park a boat. Board Member Forsham pointed out that this building isn’t solely for present use, and the future of this property has to be considered. Board Member Headley responded that you could put restrictions on the variance. Chairperson Lick proposed going down the list of Variance Criteria to be met. The Board went through the Variance Criteria and gave the following answers: Yes: 5 II No: 0 Yes: 5 II No: 0 Yes: 5 II No: 0 Yes: 5 II No: 0 Yes: 3 (Hallahan, Ritacco, Headley), so long as the garage is set 2.5′ closer to the roadway so that the wetland setback is met, but you encroach onto the roadway setback, instead of being on the required 46.5′, will be roughly 44′ from the roadway. No: 2 (Forsham, Lick) MOTION: Board Member Headley moved to approve the variance with the understanding that the footprint of the garage is moved approximately 2.5′ towards the roadway, thereby being in violation of road setback, but meeting the 75′ setback requirement from the wetlands. It was seconded by Board Member Hallahan. The motion carried. (3- 2). Chairperson Lick explained the appeal process to the Applicants. 4 New Business 5 Old Business The Board requested to resend old minutes and these minutes, and to include them in the agenda for the next meeting. 6 Adjournment M OTION: Board Member Headley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m. It was seconded by Board Member Hallahan. The motion carried. (5-0). Respectfully Submitted, Victoria O’Connor, Land Use Secretary Town of Sutton