April 20, 2023 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 20, 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 roll. Roll Call: Derek Lick (Chair), Sam Gordon, Marc Beauchemin, Zachary Brock, Betsy Forsham Public Hearings: Case ZBA 2023-05: Mark and Diane Preston, Lot Map/Lot 02-632-219, 115 Old Blaisdell Road. Three Zoning variances in order to allow additions to the existing house and to construct a new detached garage with an Accessory Dwelling Unit above. Additions to the existing legal non-conforming house that exceed the 20% increase allowed by Article VII.B.2.d of the Sutton Zoning and Building Ordinance (the Ordinance). A new detached garage that encroaches 20’ into the 75’ buffer from Blaisdell Lake required by Article X.B.2 of the Ordinance. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (detached) that exceeds 40% of the area of the Principal Dwelling Unit, as required by the definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit (Detached) in Article XV of the Ordinance. Chair Lick offered the floor to Bob Stewart from RCS Designs, who was there to represent the owners, Mark and Diane Preston. Bob said that the owners would like to expand upon the 1,350 square foot building. The house was built prior to 2006. The setback on that property was 50’ when it was built. A plan was developed and sent into DES to get an approval first. It is easier for them to get approval with the State first and then come to the Town for approval. Bob showed a map of the lot which showed it was between two waterbodies that have shoreland protection rules. He showed where the driveway was, in addition to the house and decking. A cut-out in the property he thought was a pit they used to create the driveway. A map of the proposed project was then shown. It showed the addition and the 50’ setback. The area that is covered in impervious materials that goes down to the shoreline will be replaced with pervious materials. They are required to treat the entire building for storm water runoff. In addition, they have proposed building a garage with an ADU above it. Bob showed where a Clean Solution Septic System would be placed. This system uses a smaller area as opposed to a traditional system; it is only 10’ x 20’ which is very small for a five-bedroom home. Bob noted that the owner does not want to take down any trees on his property that aren’t completely necessary, so this smaller system, albeit more expensive, was their preference. It was noted that the new garage did not meet the 75’ setback but was about 55’ away as shown on the plan. Sam asked where the driveway was going to be in relation to the garage. Bob showed a new driveway section. There was some discussion regarding the fact that the construction of this driveway would require a lot of soil to be removed. Sam said the application says there would be two bedrooms in the ADU and it says one bedroom on the plan. Bob said the State requires that they build a septic system for a minimum of two bedrooms. The septic is for two bedrooms even though there is only one planned for the ADU. Chair Lick wondered why the driveway wouldn’t go closer to the leach field. Bob said that it is because the grade is considerably steeper. Sam recalled that there was an existing driveway up into the leach field area. Chair Lick said it is a lesser grade than what is being proposed, and closer to the house. Bob said it would be about 10’ in grade that they’d have to go up to get to that area. Sam said there will be about 30’ of hill to carve into where they are proposing the garage. Bob said if they move the garage over they will still be carving it out. Chair Lick said he wonders if they can say reasonably that they can’t put the garage in the area they have assigned for the leach field? Is there something that precludes this due to the nature of the lot? Can they do they do something that is less non-conforming? Can they switch the garage and leach field? Bob said if they do that, they’ll need to build a new driveway to the garage. The driveway will have to be impervious which will have doubled the impervious area on the lot. Bob showed the details on the plan which showed where the garage would go and the driveway to connect to it. After this explanation, the Board understood it was the least non-conforming way to approach the project. Bob said almost 47% of the lot is undisturbed and that is what the client wishes. They are considering what is the least impactful for the lot. Sam said Bob previously mentioned that there would be “treatments” made to the entire house. She asked for more detail. Bob said it included filtration, ditches, dripline, trenches, and a gutter dry well. Also, they will remove the existing impervious patio and walkway to help with water quality of the lake. They also will take part of the impervious driveway and make it pervious. The new patio will be pavers that will sit on a bed of stone, making it pervious. Betsy said the plan shows a deck in the back, another addition, and the garage. Bob said they are allowed to add onto the areas that are outside of the 50’ setback area. The only part they have to get permission on is the areas that are within the 50’ setback. Variance Request: To make additions of 557 square feet, resulting in a 40% increase. The Town’s regulation states that no more than 20% of a gross increase is allowed. Bob said that percentage is considering the three areas of the building being proposed for additions. The ordinance talks about living area. In other sections it talks about gross square footage. Gross includes a deck. The 557’ is the total square footage of the three additions being proposed on different areas of the house. Sam calculated that the living space is 15’x15’, (225’) and thought the patio should count as living space. Chair Lick said they are asking for an increase of 557’. Only 225’ of the calculation is considered living space, and that is close enough to the 20% for him. Sam said she didn’t have a problem with what the applicant wants to do with the house. They are taking actions to improve the runoff mitigation and the implementation of more pervious areas. It seemed like a reasonable variance to her. Betsy agreed; the actual living space is different than a deck. Zack felt they were actually improving the property, as they are making more of the area pervious. Bob added that the parking area was also becoming pervious. Chair Lick said he had reviewed the applicant’s narrative. He was in agreement with everything, but wanted to bring light to #5 regarding the test of the purpose of the ordinance to the application of this particular property. Are there conditions that make this a reasonable request. Chair Lick said what they are doing with the storm-water treatment as well as taking away impervious surfaces, they are making it better for the wetlands and the lake even though they are expanding. The unique nature of this lot is such that it sits within the setback; they cannot put an addition on it without making it non-conforming. It is a difficult lot. He would not count the decks towards the living space. Sam said it is 22.75% increase, so they are really only asking for a variance of 2.75%. Peter asked what was being put under the decks. Bob said they could put 6” of crushed stone under the decks. Peter noted that this could be a condition of approval. There were no further questions for the applicant. Peter said there were no comments from abutters and no abutter has come to a meeting. Chair Lick closed the public comment portion of the meeting. It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Zachary Brock to approve the variance with the condition that there be 6’ of crushed stone put underneath the decks. The motion was Approved unanimously. Variance Request: An Accessory Dwelling Unit (detached) that exceeds the allowed 40% of the area of the Principal Dwelling Unit as stated in the definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit (Detached) in Article XV of the Ordinance. Bob said that the living space of the proposed ADU is 1050 sf. The map had a bump out included off the garage but this has been removed. It was noted that a detached ADU can be no more than 40% of the principle dwelling. Peter said this garage has a 24’ x 36’ footprint, plus a loft. The main house has 1,909’ of living space. The proposed ADU is 15% larger than the ordinance allows. Bob said that the state’s rule says an ADU cannot be less than 750’ but the Town does not have to adhere to that. Peter agreed. Bob said his understanding when he wrote the plan, was that the entire ADU wasn’t legal. They couldn’t change it, and he didn’t make the argument for the 40%. It is in the special exception but it isn’t in the variance request. Chair Lick asked if there were any changes he would make to the building to make it adhere to the 40%. Bob said there were not. He said the building is small and if they compare it to the other building near this property, they are all much bigger than this one. Even at 1,300 sf it is a really small building. Betsy didn’t see this as a compelling reas, especially as it is a vacation home. She didn’t want to see the lake become like Sunapee with a lot of “McMansions.” Peter said the Town of Sutton may be amending the size requirement for ADUs in the near future but that for this application, they had to adhere to the requirements in the current ordinance. They don’t want to have two principle structures on one lot, and the owner must be living in one of them. The restriction of the size of the ADU doesn’t make sense any more. Peter felt that this was still adhering to the spirit of the ordinance. Sam wondered what the problem was with having two comparable dwellings on one property. Peter said it can be done with a special exception. He said it becomes an issue of population density and whether there are services of sufficient capacity to handle the increase in population that is being allowed. Fire, police, trash, public buildings, etc. Chair Lick said he would be more inclined to grant a variance on the living space on the second floor (864 sf) but not allow the living space in the loft, but if the ordinance changes, they can come back and ask to use the loft as living space. Peter said if built, the assessor will determine if the loft is being used as a bedroom. Betsy commented that this was not easy to enforce. Marc said in the last meeting, someone had a 6-acre parcel and their son wanted to build on the same land as them. They kept their ADU at 39%, so how is it substantial justice if they allow this to happen? Bob said this would be a one-bedroom ADU. The building by the lake is a 3-bedroom. They are ultimately adding an extra bedroom to the entire property. Sam said it was also two bathrooms, another kitchen, living space, etc. Peter said the principle item to consider is the number of bedrooms. Zack thought the square footage was over 1,050’ when considering the space downstairs, which included a foyer and woodshop. Peter commented that this 2 car garage was on the larger size at 24’x 36’. Chair Lick said they could limit the approval to 1,050’ but he is still struggling with that number. He didn’t have a problem with them building a garage but would limit the living space of 764’ which is 40% of the principle house. He understands why the ordinance is set up the way it is to make the second dwelling unit an accessory. If they went through the criteria, is the ability to have an ADU at 764’ a hardship? He didn’t think it was. Betsy agreed. He didn’t think it would impact neighboring properties, but he worries about the spirit of the ordinance. Betsy said there are rules and they have made other people adhere to it. She didn’t think it was a hardship if they had to make it smaller. It was moved by Derek Lick and seconded by Betsy Forsham to deny the variance due to the following: the requested variance meets criteria #1 (not contrary to public interest), #3 (substantial justice is done), #4 (values of the surrounding properties are not diminished), and #5, II (proposed use as an ADU is reasonable), however he does not think it meets criteria #2 (the spirit of the ordinance is being observed) given the significant size increase above what is allowed, or criteria #5, I (denial results in an unnecessary hardship), and because it doesn’t meet all the criteria requirements, should be denied. Marc did not agree with #3 that substantial justice is being done. They are asking the general public to do this and they are acting on it. They just had an applicant that kept it at 39% and it would not be justice to not follow the same rules in this case. Sam agreed with Marc’s comments; they do see a lot of these and they have to look at them equally. She didn’t think not approving it was a hardship. Zack agreed with all that was said. The loft seemed like a bonus space and not a one bedroom. The motion was approved unanimously to Deny the variance request. Variance Request: A new detached garage that encroaches 20’ into the 75’ buffer from Blaisdell Lake as required by Article X.B.2 of the Ordinance. This variance is to construct a 2 car garage that is 55’ away from the high-water mark at Blaisdell Lake, which the ordinance states needs to have a 75’ setback. Bob showed a map with the garage. They aren’t adding any additional driveway and the pervious impact to the area is the building and nothing else. There is just one corner of the garage that is closer to the lake than it should be, and that is meant to fit it into the area, causing less impact. If they had to move the garage back, the environmental impact would be worse. NHDES shore land protection regulations says the applicant doesn’t have to treat the storm water from the building because they are over the 20% mark of the overall lot. They are at 17.7% of impervious area on the lot. When they get to 20% they have to treat the impervious areas that are added. They have done the storm water management treatments on the plan anyways. Bob said the applicants felt this was much better, environmentally. Zack asked if the owner had considered a berm behind the garage instead of digging out the hillside. Bob said that this wasn’t considered but it is an option. He agreed that it is an impact but they are maintaining 47% of the woodland buffer. The State requires at least 25% of the woodland buffer be maintained. Bob explained that this buffer is meant to help the natural treatment of the storm water. For the garage, they plan to use some gutter drywells. Marc asked why the garage was on an angle. Wouldn’t it be easier to turn it counter-clockwise? Bob said they would actually have to still cut trees. They have done the calculations on this. They would also have to create more driveway. Whichever way they twist the building it will be non-conforming. Marc asked why the driveway couldn’t be picked up and moved further from the house and away from the setback. Bob said by doing this, they are not lessening the amount of tree cutting needing to be done. Marc agreed, but they would be meeting the setback. He said the only hardship would be that it would be further from the house. Peter said they need an approach to a garage; they need room to maneuver to get in and out of it. The site chosen considers this. Chair Lick thanked Marc for his suggestions as they show how difficult the lot is to place the garage. Bob said they were trying to lessen the amount of impact. The public comment section was closed. The Board members did not have any further comments. It was moved by Zachary Brock and seconded by Sam Gordon to approve the application for the variance on the buffer for the garage, based on the comments and narrative provided by the applicant. The motion was Approved unanimously. Case ZBA 2023-06: Concerning a request by Mark and Diane Preston, Map/Lot 02-632-219, 115 Old Blaisdell Road, for a Special Exception to permit an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a new, detached garage, pursuant to Article IV, B.3 for ADUs. The proposal is for a detached garage with a one-bedroom efficiency apartment. Bob had no further information to offer. Zack asked what the area they are allowing the applicant to build to. Sam said the footprint of 1,194sf is the livable space of the principle house. 40% of this is less than 750’. Zack thought that they should consider living space for both dwellings but sees that the size for the ADU was unreasonable. Chair Lick said that they could say that based on their review of the ordinance, they would use the footprint of the building and not living space. 760sq’ would be 40% of the footprint of the principle house. It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Zachary Brock to approve the special exception to allow a detached ADU of up to 764sf which is 40% of the gross footprint of the primary dwelling. Chair Lick said that clarity in the ordinance would be helpful to know whether the living space or the gross square footage should be considered in these cases. The motion was Approved unanimously. Meeting Minutes: Review and approve minutes of the February 15, 2023 ZBA meeting. It was moved by Betsy Forsham and seconded by Derek Lick to approve the minutes of February 15, 2023 as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously. Election of Officers: It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Betsy Forsham to nominate Derek Lick to remain as Chair of the Zoning Board. The motion as approved unanimously. It was moved by Derek Lick and seconded by Sam Gordon to nominate Betsy Forsham as Vice-Chair of the Zoning Board. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Derek Lick and seconded by Betsy Forsham to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The next meeting will be held May 17, 2023. The meeting adjourned at 9:05pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton