TOWN OF SUTTON

Pillsbury Memorial Hall

93 Main Street

Sutton Mills, NH 03221

ZONING BOARD of ADJUSTMENT

Draft Meeting Minutes for Wednesday October 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

Roll Call: Derek Lick, Betsy Forsham, Samantha Gordon, Katy Beauchemin, Zachary Brock, Peter Stanley

ABSENT: Mark Beauchemin

Peter Stanley said that the abutters had been appropriately noticed, each applicant had paid their fees in full, and the meeting was properly noticed in area publications.

Public Hearing: Case #2020-03 concerning a request by Richard J. Lovell, Trustee of the Richard J. Lovell Revocable Trust, located at 538 Roby Road, Map/Lot #01-890-282, for a variance to the terms of Article X, E of the Sutton Zoning and Building Ordinance, to permit the construction of a Structure (Bridge) in the Wetland Buffer Area.

Mr. Lovell said he and his wife bought the property in 2019. He showed a map of the property on Roby Road. Their access is a bridge that was installed during a logging operation. It is currently falling apart into the Lane River. They would like to get a special exception to do activity within 75’ of the wetlands (inside the setback); they’d like to take out the existing bridge and put a bridge in with abutments outside the setback of the wetlands and have the homestead to be on the west side of the Lane River. They have gotten a LOMA from FEMA which removes 1.6 acres on the west side. Their activity is going to be working within the wetlands setback, managing the water that is coming off the driveway as to not flow into the river, and to make sure they can get this passed so they can get a COP in place.

Mr. Stanley said the reason for the hearing is that in the definition of structure in Sutton’s Zoning Ordinance, bridges are listed. Structures are not permitted in the wetland buffer. That is why they must go through this process.

Chair Lick went around the room to see if there were any questions or comments from board members.

Betsy Forsham said she drove by the site and saw the old bridge. She asked if their intention was to build a house once they can get across the river. Mr. Lovell answered in the affirmative. Betsy said they can’t deny someone the right to access their property. She said along that road there are four or five other bridges that are providing access to property across the Lane River. She had no objections. Betsy noted that the owners will still need to acquire a building permit.

Zach agreed with Betsy.

Katy agreed with Betsy. She appreciated that the bridge spans outside of the wetlands area.

Sam thought this was a reasonable project.

Chair Lick asked for any further comments. There were none.

IT WAS MOVED (Katy Beauchemin) AND SECONDED (Sam Gordon) to approve the variance per the reasons stated above.

A hand vote was taken by the board.

THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chair Lick informed Mr. Lovell that a written decision would be provided to him by Mr. Stanley. There is a 30-day appeal period whereby any citizen could come before the Zoning Board to ask for a rehearing. If the decision was reversed, any construction would need to be removed. Chair Lick said he did not foresee this happening as the request was fairly obvious and was replacing one bridge with another, but he needed to state this fact.

Public Hearing: Case #2020-04 concerning a request by Steve St. Pierre, located at 37 Whiskey Pine Road, Map/Lot #07-847-318, for a variance to the terms of Article V,C,4 of the Sutton Zoning and Building Ordinance, to permit a carport having less than the required setback from the centerline of Whiskey Pine Road, a three rod road in the Rural Agricultural Zone. The actual setback requested is 50’, instead of the required distance of 75’.

Mr. St. Pierre showed a map of his property. He would like to build a carport over an existing paved space. The request is to allow the building to be within the setback from the center of three rod road. It would be a 12’ x 24’ carport, closed on the gable ends. They have used the area for parking cars in the past and he also puts a boat there on occasion. He is trying to protect the vehicles from snow and acorns. He noted that there is a carport across the road and another house further down the road with a garage that appear to have similar setbacks as he is requesting.

Chair Lick questioned number 5, (i). that had been answered by the applicant in the application. The question asks if:

“Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property; and that the proposal is a reasonable one.”

Chair Lick said they have to ask the applicant “why have it where they are asking,” and “could it be set outside the setback somewhere else, in a reasonable way?” He wasn’t sure about the contours of the property.

Mr. St. Pierre said as the house is approached, the left side would not allow enough room from the property line. The north side is all wooded and he doesn’t want to cut into the woods. Chair Lick asked about the back part of the property near the proposed foundation drain and the leach field. Mr. St. Pierre said these two attributes of the land causes the property to be elevated by about 7’ to 8’ which would make it difficult to put something there.

Mr. Stanley said three rod road is very narrow and as the subdivision was laid out, they allowed for a 50’ right of way. The road is not a typical road size for the area; 16’-18’ wide at most.

Betsy said she visited the site from the road. She saw the neighbor who has something built which is less than 75’ from the center line. She noted that Mr. St. Pierre has a two-car garage underneath the house. She wondered if the left-hand side of the house could possibly fit this carport if some trees were cut. She wondered if the wish to not cut trees was a viable alternative to getting a variance. She admitted that his house is elevated from the road. Mr. St. Pierre said the property line is the issue on the left side of the house. The property line is about 40-50’ from the house. Mr. Stanley said he would need to keep 25’ from the property line. This would make things too tight. Betsy wondered if the road-side of the shed had room for the carport. Mr. St. Pierre said that there was a stone wall there, which he wouldn’t want to remove. Betsy agreed that the stone wall should remain. But she thought maybe on the road side of the shed, it could fit. Chair Lick said if they don’t have at least 50’ in that area, it wouldn’t work. Sam said if they judge by eye (using the map), it didn’t look like there was room.

Mr. St. Pierre said there is a massive boulder at the turnout of where the carport would be, and in the back of the paved space and there is a well head. This would restrict putting the carport there.

Zach said he understands about justifying granting a variance, but he is looking at the road and sees it is a minor road. The neighbor mostly impacted by the structure said they are OK with it. He feels this comment from the neighbor strengthens the case towards granting a variance. He would still like to hear more before making a decision.

Katy said the only thing she could see to avoid a variance is possibly turning the carport 90 degrees and then widening the driveway to make the carport go parallel with the driveway. This may include cutting some trees. This may not be ideal. Mr. St. Pierre said they may get another 10’ within the setback if they do this, but he would like to avoid cutting trees and putting more blacktop down.

Sam said she was trying to think of where else the carport could go but she feels it would be unreasonable to reconfigure the driveway, cut trees, and put more blacktop down to avoid a getting a variance. It didn’t seem reasonable to put the carport anywhere else.

Mr. St. Pierre said he thanked everyone for looking at the balance between the environment, using existing space, and putting up a structure that wouldn’t cause problems.

Chair Lick closed the public comment section of the meeting and opened the board’s discussion.

He asked the members what they were thinking.

Betsy said that before, she hadn’t consider the fact that while the carport could be put somewhere else, there would be an environmental impact which could be more detrimental than having it in a place that has already been dedicated for something. It is already paved and it is there. She felt the application was reasonable as proposed.

Zach said there is a turnout on the driveway. Why was this area not considered? Mr. Lick said that it has to do with the elevation increase beyond the backup area. Mr. St. Pierre said his propane tank is actually buried there instead of a turnout. The map they are looking at was what was to be built when the house was built, but the turnout was not created. Zach didn’t think it would be a hardship to put the carport where it is proposed.

Katy said it seemed that the proposed location was the most reasonable place for the carport. She thought it would add to the value of the area by providing protection to vehicles/boat. She felt it was a reasonable request. The abutter’s “ok” with the plan is convincing to her.

Sam said the application for a variance was reasonable. She felt it wouldn’t probably fit anywhere else.

Chair Lick said he agreed with the board. He said if moved somewhere else, it would be hard to get a boat under cover. The asphalt is already there and seems to be the least intrusive option.

IT WAS MOVED (Betsy Forsham) AND SECONDED (Zach Brock) to approve the variance as requested with the addition to the application the fact that the unique attributes of the property preclude the carport to be situated anywhere else on the property.

A hand vote was taken.

THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chair Lick said that a formal approval would be sent to Mr. St. Pierre. He noted the 30-day period, which Mr. St. Pierre had heard at the previous variance case that evening.

Approval of Meeting Minutes of Wednesday September 16, 2020

IT WAS MOVED (Katy Beauchemin) AND SECONDED (Sam Gordon) to accept the minutes of September 16, 2020, as amended by Betsy and Zach.

Betsy had sent grammatical corrections, and Zach Brock said his first name ends with an “h” and not a “k.”

A hand vote was taken.

THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

New Business

Mr. Stanley said there is a request for a special exception for a gazebo that is about 25’ from Blaisdell Lake. The provision in the ordinance is poorly written and unclear and needs an amendment to clean it up. That special exception request will appear on November 18^th.

Old Business

There was none.

Administrative

Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 7:00pm.

Adjournment

IT WAS MOVED (Derek Lick) AND SECONDED (Betsy Forsham) to adjourn the meeting.

A hand vote was taken.

THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 7:55pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary, Town of Sutton