TOWN OF SUTTON

Pillsbury Memorial Hall

93 Main Street

Sutton Mills, NH 03221

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Approved Meeting Minutes for Wednesday October 19, 2022, at 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order: Chair Lick called the meeting to order at 7:00pm

Roll Call: Chair Lick, Katie Beauchemin, Zachary Brock, Sam Gordon, Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator)

Public Hearings:

Case 2022-5 Concerning a request by Richard J. Lovell, TTEE of the Richard J. Lovell Trust, 6536 Dearborn Drive, Falls Church, VA 22044-1120, for a zoning variance to the terms of Article X, D, 1 and Table D, 1 of the Sutton Zoning and Building Ordinance, to allow a portion of a proposed structure designed for the site to encroach on a 75’ wetland buffer (delineated June 2022) along the Lane River.
Property Location is 538 Roby Road, Map/Lot 01-890-282.

Chair Lick said that due to the fact that they have four members of the board instead of five, the applicants could postpone until the next month. The Lovells were not interested in waiting another month to be heard.

Peter Stanley said that in his opinion the Lovell’s application is complete.

Richard Lovell said this project started pre-covid. They have put in a bridge to their house site where they would like to build. Richard explained that there was an issue with the wetlands setback. 1.69 acres was removed from the flood zone with the LOMA (Letter Of Map Amendment). Richard said that the wetlands they are talking about are manmade due to the bridge that they put in. They had to do another wetlands survey because their septic engineer, Gary Spaulding, identified some things that needed to be added to the map. Richard added that there were some steep areas which would need to be taken into consideration for snow melt, etc. They are trying to find a way to still build on this property. The home plans show that the house is 10’ into the new wetland buffer, which was identified when the second wetlands survey was done. The house is supposed to be 75’ away from the wetlands.

Peter showed the wetland that was installed (manmade) and is exempt. He said the issue is the new wetland that has resulted from this manmade wetland. Things on the property are now crowded.

Zachary wondered about the orientation of the house. Richard said they are looking for as much southern exposure as possible. He has been out with the septic design person a number of times to try and determine the best place for everything. Mrs. Lovell said they are planning to have solar on the roof which is why the southern exposure is so important to them.

Sam asked if the new wetlands was because of the bridge. Richard said that the first wetlands survey is a snapshot in time of 2019 and the second wetlands survey was another snapshot in time, occurring in 2020. The second survey shows this new wet area. It appears to have come from the installation of the bridge. Sam wondered if the wetland would increase in size eventually. Richard said the elevations in that area would likely prohibit that from happening. She asked if they could create a different house configuration or maybe a smaller house to help it fit into the space. Mrs. Lovell said they have tried to twist the location of the house to accommodate the septic and everything else. They have an engineered stamped plan which determined the only place the house could fit in that area.

Sam said they have heard from some people who have been in a similar situation who have explained how they would protect the buffer in the actual construction (runoff, etc.). Mrs. Lovell said they have started working on this to come up with ideas to deal with runoff from the house and the hill. She said the pitch behind the house would be graded to help with the runoff. She wondered if this would just be adding more water into the wetlands. Peter said that they could have infiltration trenches around the perimeter, filled with stone, to help deal with the water. This kind of plan could be required in the condition of approval. Richard said they plan to hold the water and slow it down before it gets to the river.

Chair Lick asked the applicants if they had permission from DES to put the bridge in. Richard said that he did; it was easy because they were replacing an old bridge that was impeding the flow of the river. Chair Lick asked about the road. Mrs. Lovell said that it was a skid road and the placement of the house was also where the staging area for past logging had been. Chair Lick thought that the flow of runoff from the house would be going away from the wetlands. Richard said that in his past professional experience with this sort of thing, water management is simple and it is a matter of slowing it down.

Chair Lick said in some ways the applicant has created more wetland due to the bridge construction. He found it difficult to penalize them for creating more wetlands, which then need to be protected. He was comforted to see the road was between the house and the wetlands. He asked if DES had to review this site plan. Richard said he didn’t feel this was necessary as the water is a fourth-order stream.

Katie asked if the LOMA was impacted by the wetlands. Richard said it was not; this is about the flood zone. Peter said the LOMA takes the house part out of things. The reason being is that the flood insurance program has bad mapping and is not accurate in most places. When an engineer can confirm that an area is not subject to flooding from a 100-year storm, the LOMA can be acquired to take them out of the flood zone category.

Katie asked if they could flip the well and the septic. Richard said they did some pit tests and found that this wouldn’t work; on the opposite side of the septic, they found that they hit water after only 4’ of digging.

Zachary asked what the intent was of the 75’ buffer. Peter said the reason is to have as much undeveloped, un-impacted land between developed areas and wetland areas as possible. This is similar to the shore-land ordinance, which is 50’. Peter added that the applicants had a conditional use permit from the Planning Board for the bridge and the driveway. Zachary felt like this was a reasonable request to be able to use this property.

Peter reminded the members of the ZBA that conditional use permits only apply to access; everyone needs to be able to get to their property. There are very few properties in Sutton that don’t have steep slope or wetland buffer issues when it comes to access.

Sam had no further questions.

The public discussion portion of the meeting was closed.

Chair Lick said as he saw in the worksheet and plan, the applicants are trying to shoe-horn a house on a difficult lot. He is sympathetic to the fact that the wetland area was made when they replaced the bridge. He also doesn’t want to penalize them for creating valuable wetlands. There needs to be some unique attributes of the property to warrant a variance. The steep slopes and wetlands and the placement of the driveway convince him that this is a unique property.

Katie agreed with Chair Lick. She thought the applicants had done a good job with due diligence to figure out how to make this project work. She commended the applicants on their plans to use solar power .

Zachary said there didn’t seem to be much else that could be done to alleviate this problem. He thought they made a good effort to work on this limited site.

Sam agreed with what was said. Based on the required setbacks, it has become a puzzle for them to work out. The wetlands weren’t in the same place when they began this plan. This deserves a variance.

 

It was moved by Chair Lick and seconded by Zachary Brock to grant the variance per the reasons in the application and stated that evening at the public hearing.

Sam asked if there were conditions of approval needed? Chair Lick said he was comfortable without conditions. Katie said she agreed; it is only a corner that is encroaching, not a whole side of the house.

The motion was approved unanimously.

The variance was approved.

Chair Lick said there is a 30-day time period where the decision of the ZBA can be challenged. Any work done to the property by the applicant within 30 days is subject to an overturned decision. He did not believe this would be an issue, but had to state this fact.

 

Meeting Minutes: Review and approve minutes of the 8/31/22 ZBA meeting.

It was moved by Chair Lick and seconded by Sam Gordon to approve the minutes of 8/31/22 as circulated.
The motion was approved unanimously.

New Business:  None Scheduled

Old Business:  None Scheduled

Administrative: The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held on November 16, 2022.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:40pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary

Town of Sutton