June 26, 2017 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting of Tuesday, June 21, 2017 (7:00 p.m.) Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 ********************* DRAFT – UNAPPROVED MINUTES ********************* Board Members Present: Derek Lick, Chair; Tod Ritacco; Betsy Forsham; Dane Headley; Doug Sweet; and Joe Eisenberg (Alt.) Board Members Absent: William Hallahan (Alt.) Staff Present: Ed Canane, Land Use Coordinator Others Present: Carol Conforti-Adams, Applicant (Case # Z-17-01); Bruce Ellsworth, President, Blaisdell Lake Protective Association (BLPA); Sol Solomon, Applicant (Case # Z-17-02); Denis Murphy, Applicant (Case # Z-17-03); Ruth Edwards; Ed Canane, Applicant (Case # Z-17-04); and Cindy Canane, Applicant (Case # Z-17-04). Not Official Until Approved by Board at its Next Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order by Chair. Chairperson Lick called the meeting to order at 6:57 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Public Hearings as Noticed. Case # Z-17-01; Parcel ID: 02-704-486; Concerning a request by Carol Conforti-Adams and Blaisdell Lake Protective Association for a Variance to Article IV Section D.2 for the placing of a cement foundation to support a hoyer lift, in a residential district, on Blaisdell Lake. Carol Conforti-Adams presented her application to the Board. She indicated that she utilizes a wheelchair and has an adaptive kayak, and that this lift would enable her to board and exit the kayak. The details of the project are as follows: 4′ Cermet form, 12″ x 5″ base on grass area of Blaisdell Beach Metal pole with a lift that runs on a 12-volt battery, which will be removed during the winter months and stored 30′ from lake; 15′ from brook Chairperson Lick inquired if the issue was setbacks from the shore of the lake. LUC responded that the required setbacks are 75′. Chairperson Lick added that he is in receipt of a letter from the Department of Environmental Services (DES) indicating they are fine with this being constructed. LUC noted that there has been no correspondence received from abutters regarding the application. Bruce Ellsworth described his collaboration with Ms. Conforti-Adams on this project. He indicated that the property is owned by the BLPA. The following questions were posed by the Board: Is this going to be interfering with anybody backing up their boat or trailer into the lake? No, it’s about 10′ from the landing to where it’s proposed to be installed. How do you think that the excavation is going to be made to set the base down on the ground? We’re going to have to dig up a hole with a small backhoe, place the cermet form in, and then replace the dirt, so it will be completely submerged underneath the ground. Chairperson Lick closed the public session. LUC provided the Board with the worksheet that lists the criteria to be met to grant a variance. Board Member Forsham indicated that both she and Board Member Sweet viewed the proposed site and stated that it’s nice that there is a way for the Applicant to be able to access the lake, and went on to state that the support of the BLPA was reassuring. Board Member Sweet inquired as to the document entitled “Wrights Beach Portable Lift – Conditions” that states “No use by others without BLPA consent”. Ms. Conforti-Adams responded that this is going to be only for her private use. He then inquired regarding the “No motorized excavation equipment on beach”, and whether or not the proposed site was considered the beach. Mr. Ellsworth indicated that he had written these provisions prior to receiving authorization from the State to utilize motorized excavation equipment on the beach, and therefore they will permit the use for this one purpose only. Board Member Forsham inquired as to whether the stream was seasonal. Mr. Ellsworth responded that it never totally dries up, but it recedes. She further pointed out that within the Wetland Classifications, Structure Type, Setbacks, there is no classification for a lift, to which the Board replied that the Any Other Non-Agricultural Use may be the catch-all category. Chairperson Lick noted that he thinks it meets the five criteria and that it does meet the spirit of the ordinance, given where we are and given the unique nature of the request, and the property, itself. He indicated that he would agree and adopt the Variance Criteria presented by the Applicant, but would supplement with the Board’s responses. The Board went through the Variance Criteria and gave the following answers: Agreed, and, in fact, in the public interest to allow for accommodations for access to the lake. No written or verbal opposition. The point of the setbacks is to ensure that the waterways, including the lakes, are protected. Here, there’s nothing to suggest that this structure of this size and this type is going to negatively impact the lake. DES concurred. It allows somebody to use the lake who wouldn’t otherwise be able to. No objection; location near telephone pole and guy-wires, and no obstruction to boating access. Here, the setback is to protect the lake. Here, in order to allow for access of the lake, you want to be as close to the lake as possible. Here, it’s actually agreed. Purpose here is to allow access to the lake. Purpose of Ordinance is to preclude structures in close proximity to the lake. (ii) Agreed, for reasons stated above. MOTION: Board Member Sweet moved to approve the variance for both the lake shore setback of 75′ and the brook setback, as requested by the Applicant, for the reasons articulated in the Variance Criteria the Applicant has provided, along with the above Supplement. It was seconded by Board Member Headley. The motion carried. (5-0). Ms. Conforti-Adams inquired whether it’s still necessary to go before the Board of Selectmen, since they had already approved it, pending approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), as she is under a time constraint with her engineer leaving for vacation on Friday, June 23rd, 2017, for three weeks. Chairperson Lick suggested, as a citizen and not in his official capacity, that she should make the decision whether or not to go ahead prior to receiving the signed Building Permit from the Board of Selectman, seeing as they have previously given oral approval, and then to contact Elly Phillips Friday morning to let her know the situation, in order to get it on the Monday, June 26th, 2017 Agenda. Chairperson Lick inquired of the LUC as to whether all fees were paid and notices were given. LUC responded in the affirmative. Case # Z-17-02; Parcel ID: 06-421-234; Concerning a request by Sol Solomon for a Variance to Article IV Section A.4 to operate a business named “Truly Natural Marketing” in a residential district, at 87 Main Street, Sutton Mills. Sol Solomon presented his application to the Board. The details of the project are as follows: Business is solely phone-based. Three employees, who regularly work from their homes, would utilize this part-time office. Office will have a desk and samples of the products being sold. One or two cars parking at the premises at most for the business There will be no disruption to the town functioning, as they’re not open to the public and there will be no signage. There will be occasional deliveries by UPS and USPS. Chairperson Lick inquired whether a variance is required for this use, including the fact that had Mr. Solomon been residing at the home, no variance would be needed. Further discussion was had regarding the issue of home offices, and the relevance of the Ordinance to this type of business. Chairperson Lick suggested that the Board analyze the language of the Ordinance in the future to add consideration to e-commerce businesses. MOTION: Chairperson Lick moved to decide that, based on the Board’s review of the Application and the Ordinance, neither a Variance nor a Special Exception is necessary given the proposed utilization of the property. It was seconded by Board Member Forsham. The motion carried. (4-1). Board Member Sweet is in opposition. LUC noted that fees for noticing are going to be retained because notices have already been mailed via Certified Mail. MOTION: Board Member Sweet moved to return the $100 hearing fee. It was seconded by Board Member Headley. The motion carried. (5-0). Case # Z-17-03; Parcel ID: 02-484-194; Concerning a request by Michael and Rosemary McElroy for a Variance to Article X Section B.2 to construct a wooden shed in a residential district, on Camp Kemah Road, Blaisdell Lake. Denis Murphy, on behalf of Michael and Rosemary McElroy presented the application to the Board. He stated that the reason for the shed is that they don’t have any storage for kayaks, paddles, etc. and last summer someone had taken one of their kayaks without permission, crossed the lake, and left it on the other side. The following questions were posed by the Board: 130′, 1-story? Yes. Have you reviewed the Ordinance to see what the setback would have to be off of Camp Kemah Road? There isn’t a published right-of-way with Camp Kemah Road that we can find. It’s reasonable that it’s only a 2-rod-wide right-of-way, which is the smallest setback, which would mean 46.5′ from the centerline of the right-of-way, or 30′ from the right-of-way line. Is that 30′ setback shown on the diagram from the centerline? Yes, this is 30′ from the centerline. Is it going to go in the opening area? Yes. Do you have to cut anymore trees? No, there was a couple dead trees that came out. Was a Shoreline Permit ever obtained for this property? Yes. Did the Shoreline Permit include a shed? No, the original Shoreline Permit was for the landscape construction, stonework. So you’ll be submitting for another Shoreline Permit? It’s outside the 50′ setback, so we don’t need it from the State. Are there like structures out there that are of this size? There’s the shed on the southern side, the next-door neighbor’s. It’s a similar size. It’s 10′ x 12′. And then the property on the north side is a house, which is much more substantial. Board Member Sweet noted that they will need a variance for the setback off of Camp Kemah Road. Board Member Forsham noted that the proposed location is the only spot that this structure could be constructed, and it’s not out-of-character with the neighborhood. Board Member Sweet suggested staking out the area, in order to illustrate for those who would like to walk the site, where the structure will be located. He also instructed Mr. Murphy to double-check whether or not a Shoreline Permit, whether it be an amended one or a new one, is necessary from the State. LUC noted that there has been no correspondence received from abutters regarding the application. Ruth Edwards mentioned that, from her discussions with DES, they relayed to her that, because it’s beyond the 50′ State setback and it’s considered a temporary structure, because it is not firmly set in place, and because it is on a pervious preparation base with a roof water management system, they do not need a Shoreline Permit. She also pointed out that this shed is specifically designed to manage runoff, as outlined in the document from May 15, 2017, which described the proposal. Chairperson Lick closed the public session. Board Member Forsham stated she thinks it’s a reasonable request for the reasons discussed, and that it is not out-of-character for the neighborhood. She noted that she appreciated very much the erosion controls and the thought that went into that, with the view of protecting the lake. Board Member Sweet concurred with Board Member Forsham and felt that the Applicant should be commended for their consideration of erosion control. Chairperson Lick mentioned that this is what he considered a classical situation, where it is impossible for the Applicant to meet the setbacks, given the unique nature of the property. Chairperson Lick suggested that each Board Member fills out a Variance Criteria sheet, as well as place their initials on it. The Board went through the Variance Criteria and gave the following answers: There’s going to be runoff protection. There’s no way to build on this lot without a variance. On the property value issue, there was no objection by any of the neighbors, and it’s similar to the neighbors’ structures. This lot is too small to use, given the setbacks without a variance. (ii) Agreed, for reasons stated above. MOTION: Chairperson Lick moved to approve the Application, as requested, for the reasons cited in the Application and for the additional reasons that we put forward in our Variance Criteria worksheet. It was seconded by Board Member Headley. The motion carried. (5-0). Chairperson Lick indicated that the next step would be for the Board of Selectmen to approve the Building Permit. Case # Z-17-04; Parcel ID: 07-080-513; Concerning a request by Ed & Cindy Canane for a Special Exception Article IV Section B.3 to repurpose an office contained within a barn to a detached accessory dwelling unit in a rural-agricultural district, on Baker Road, North Sutton. Ed Canane presented his application to the Board. The details of the project are as follows: Structure has a Certificate of Occupancy. Possible utilization by a family member, workforce housing, or as a short-term vacation rental. Chairperson Lick instructed the recently-appointed Members of the ZBA as to the new Zoning Ordinance concerning detached and attached accessory dwelling units. He read through the criteria of the Ordinance and found that this use met the outlined criteria. He read aloud the Special Exception Criteria. Board Member Forsham indicated that both she and Board Member Sweet visited the proposed site, and felt that it was a great illustration of a detached accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Canane noted that there has been no correspondence received from abutters regarding the application. The following questions were posed by the Board: Is there sufficient sewage disposal? Yes, it’s been upgraded for a 3-bedroom house plus a 1-bedroom apartment. Does your property have a driveway entrance off Baker Road on someone else’s property? Is there an easement there? There’s an easement on the Hodgdon property. Chairperson Lick suggested taking the Special Exception Criteria worksheet completed by Mr. Canane and adopting its findings. MOTION: Chairperson Lick moved to approve the Special Exception by the Applicant for the reasons stated in the Special Exception Criteria, submitted by the Applicant. It was seconded by Board Member Sweet. The motion carried. (5-0). 4. New Business 5. Old Business 6. Adjournment MOTION: Chairperson Lick moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 p.m. It was seconded by Board Member Sweet. The motion carried. (5-0). Respectfully Submitted, Victoria O’Connor, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton Zoning Board of Adjustment