Town of Sutton


Pillsbury Memorial Hall

93 Main Street  Sutton Mills, NH 03221

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes of the Regular Meeting

January 16, 2019



Board Members Present:  Derek Lick, Chair; Marc Beachemin; Betsy Forsham; Samantha Gordon; and Joe Eisenberg (Alt.)


Board Members Absent:  Kathryn Schneider (Alt.); and William Hallahan (Alt.)


Others Present:  Robert Stewart, RCS Designs; Carol Belliveau and Allan Byam, Applicants.

  1. Call to Order by Chair.

Chairperson Lick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  He took a moment to show his appreciation to Board Member Beachemin for joining the Board.  He also thanked Victoria O’Connor for attending the meeting to record the Minutes.  Chairperson Lick then went on to lay out the itinerary for the evening.  He, then, explained the steps of the public hearing to the Applicants.


  1. Roll Call
  2. Public Hearing:

2019-01         Allan E. Byam and Carol Belliveau

Sutton Tax Map/Lot 02-663-478, 260 Route 114

Residential Zone

Concerning a request for variances from the Sutton Zoning Ordinance under:

  • Article X, Sections B.2 and D.1: The property is located at 260 NH Route 114, South Sutton (Tax Map 02-663-478) in the Residential Zoning District.  The applicants and owners, Allan Byam and Carol Belliveau, request a variance to a wetland setback to allow razing an existing house, constructing a new house within 35’ of a wetland.
  • Article X, Sections B.2 and D.3: The proposed new construction is within 53’ of Blaisdell Lake.


Mr. Robert Stewart, RCS Designs, made a presentation to the Board.  He gave background regarding the property.  He noted that a lot of the plans are designed to address the accessibility issues of Property Owner, Carol Belliveau.  He, then, gave a history of his evaluation of the property, as well as the plans.  A couple of things he pointed out were:


  • There are 2 houses on the property.
  • The proposed septic system will be tied to both houses.
  • This proposed home on the lot, from front-to-back, it’s 80′. Because of that, part of the challenge was to be able to make this home accessible on that 1st floor, and also the size of this is such that all the living space is on one floor.  It’s a one-story home.  He noted that he had to have a retaining wall on the back of the home, due to the slope.  The house is currently 53′ from the water’s edge.  At 75′, the house would get pushed back into the slope, which would then have to be dug out further.  This would require a 12′ wall.
  • The proposed house couldn’t fit within the 2 wetland setbacks, and this is the only really buildable area on the property. The required setbacks would only allow a sliver of land to build on.
  • They treated all the stormwater along the drip edges by placing dripline trenches, which improved the impervious areas along the property.
  • There will be a new driveway constructed on the property.


Mr. Stewart went through the Application that was submitted to the Board.

The Board posed the following questions:


  1. Isn’t the wetland on the side more of a drainage issue? Does it stay wet all year long?
  2. It does dry up.
  3. The property being raised is how many square feet, roughly?
  4. 32×32.
  5. The new home is going to be bigger?
  6. 50×50.
  7. Is there Shoreland requirements for DES?
  8. We do have the Shoreland approval.
  9. With respect to the lake, the setback would be 75′? And it would be 53′ from the back?
  10. Yes.
  11. Since there’s a mobility issue, is there any ramps or anything proposed?
  12. Going into the house, there’s steps shown here. We’re going to put a ramp there instead.  It’s going to be less than what they’re asking for the variance, so it shouldn’t be something that’s a problem as far as meeting the minimum.


Board Member Forsham indicated her concerns regarding the necessity for Inspectors to ensure that the house gets built as described on the plans.  Mr. Stewart responded that the neighbors are cognizant, and do make phone calls if they have any concerns.  Board Member Gordon said that the permit to do the work on the shoreline requires the Applicants to do the approved work.


Chairperson Lick opened the meeting for public comment.  There was no comment.  Chairperson Lick closed the public comment section.


The Board went through the criteria on both of the variance worksheets, and made the following comments:


Criteria 1:  Board Member Forsham noted that it’s not contrary to the public interest.  Board Member Gordon noted that they took a lot of thought to making the property environmentally friendly.  Chairperson Lick noted that the property is very unique and the placement of the home where they’re placing it is a reasonable location, given the restrictions of this particular lot.  He also noted that he greatly appreciated that they’re moving the impervious surface away from the lake and the wetlands.  In addition, he stated that the stormwater protection and septic are a huge benefit to the land.


Criteria 4:  Board Member Forsham noted that the surrounding properties will not lose value and that the proposed house is keeping with the neighborhood aesthetic.  Chairperson Lick also noted that there were no negative comments by the abutters.


Board Member Beachemin pointed out it’s better to build something new and to do its best to make everything conform.  Board Member Eisenberg mentioned that they’ve shown a lot of respect for the land in their plans.  Chairperson Lick noted that each of the five criteria have been met for the reasons stated on the form by the Applicant, and that he would vote in favor of each of the criteria.


MOTION:  Chairperson Lick moved to find that all five criteria were met for the reasons stated on the form provided by the Applicant, and to approve the Applications.  It was seconded by Board Member Forsham.  The motion carried unanimously.



  1. New Business


  1. Old Business


  1. Administrative


  • Review of Draft Minutes


ü  October 17, 2018 Minutes


MOTION:  Chairperson Lick moved to approve the Minutes from October 17, 2018, as amended.  It was seconded by Board Member Gordon.  The motion carried.  (3-0-2).


Board Member Eisenberg excused himself from the meeting, at this point.


ü  December 29, 2018 Minutes


Chairperson Lick discussed the Minutes.  Board Member Forsham had made some amendments for the Board to review.  They decided it would be best to discuss that on February 6, 2019.


  • Doug Sweet resignation/Board vacancy’


Chairperson Lick noted that Doug Sweet has sent in his letter of resignation.  He discussed with the Board the status of the current membership and the need to recruit more members in order to fill more member/alternate spots.


  • Work Session to discuss ZBA meeting processes and procedures.


Chairperson Lick described to Board Member Beachemin regarding the status of the processes and procedures, and how they have worked with the Land Use Coordinator to reconstruct them.  The Board had further discussion on the rules and procedures they’ve worked on.


Chairperson Lick indicated it seems they’re close to the end in the review process.  He suggested that the latest version be sent to Elly to then circulate to the Board Members to review, prior to the meeting on February 20th, 2019.  The Board agreed that should be a final review/discussion at the end of the meeting.


The Board discussed the noticing procedure and indicated that the public hearing for this topic should be noticed for that date, along with any other Applications that would be brought before the Board on that date.


  • Reconsider ZBA application wording re: submission deadline.


  • Correspondence/Final Comments.


Two letters were received from abutters.


  • Letter from Selectmen re: noticing requirements.


  • Next Meeting: February 6, 2019 re: Cell Tower Wright’s Hill Road


Chairperson Lick stated that they have received two CVs for two qualified Radio Frequency Experts.  He indicated he wanted to make the decision on which one to retain.  That way the 2 Experts could discuss and provide the Board with a written report prior to the February 6th meeting.


The Board discussed the two Experts.  The following comments were made:


  • IDK Communications, Ivan, worked with Sutton previously, and they had a good experience with him. He is local, as well.
  • Cooper had a discussion with Chairperson Lick regarding the expectations of the Board. He requested to be able to attend the meeting telephonically, as he is based out of Massachusetts.  He was very responsive.

Chairperson Lick suggests that the Board gives the authority to reach out to IDK to see if he could work with the Cell Tower Expert, and have a report to us prior to February 6th, as well as that he’d be able to attend the February 6th meeting, whether in person, or via telephone.  If possible, then he would be retained.  If not, he would reach out to Cooper and pose the same questions.  If he wouldn’t be able to accomplish them, either, they would go with Ivan, due to proximity and previous experience with the Town.


The Board discussed what they felt would need to be accomplished by the Experts.


MOTION:  Board Member Forsham moved to permit Chairperson Lick to do the above-noted procedures in order to retain the appropriate Expert.  It was seconded by Board Member Gordon.  The motion carried unanimously.  (4-0).


  1. Adjournment

MOTION:  Chairperson Lick moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m.  It was seconded by Board Member Gordon.  The motion carried unanimously.  (4-0).



Respectfully Submitted,




Victoria O’Connor, Recording Secretary

O’Connor Legal, Medical & Media Services, LLC