The Town of Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment held a public meeting on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 @ the Town Offices located at 705 Chesham Road.

Members present: Hal Grant, Chairman; Charles Sorenson, Vice-Chairman; Patrick Gagne; Jay Jacobs, Selectman, Rex Baker; Andrew Maneval , Alternate; Pegg Monahan, Alternate
Members absent: Jeffrey Trudelle
Members of the public: Marcia Luciano; Gordon Luciano; Timothy Sampson, representing the Lucianos; Sarah Monzon, representing Yont Family Trust; Don Scott, representing Andrew Macdonald; Aaron Gibson; Sarah Atwood; Erik Johnson

Hal Grant called the meeting to order at 7: 04 pm. The Voting Members for the evening included: Hal Grant, Charlie Sorenson, Jay Jacobs, Patrick Gagne and Rex Baker.  Meeting business proceeded with the following application hearings:

Marcia Luciano, 264 Hancock Road (Map 21-Lot 14) The property ownerssought a Special Exception under Article 5.3.3 to replace an existing 1935 single-story cottage, approximately 5,225 cubic feet, with a new, two-story cottage, approximately 10,500 cubic feet, on the same footprint. Representing the Lucianos, architect Tim Sampson referred to drawings and floor plans submitted with the application, showing the proposed increase in volume with no movement of the  building. It is proposed as a wood-frame structure, shingle style with an asphalt roof, essentially replacing in kind and with similar materials to neighboring homes. The foundation will be removed and replaced to stabilize the building.

In response to the board’s question about surrounding properties, the Lucianos noted that on either side of the proposed location of the home, there are no structures as those owners’ homes are across the street.  The deck proposed in a previous application was removed from the design. DES Shoreland Permit By Notification approval for construction was received as well.  The 2,000-gallon septic has adequate if not more capacity than needed for the two-bedroom home.  The property owner may explore the installation of a well.

Asked about the proposed 24’ height of the new building and visual impact, particularly given the lack of trees around it, the architect noted they will attempt to keep the foundation as low to the ground as possible. The owner added that the property sits below the road, approximately 4-6 feet, so it won’t appear twice the elevation from the road.  Mr. Sampson noted any additional height they might have will be from clearing a span front to back and the joists will go three to four inches deeper than if there were a bearing or beam. Mr. Luciano added that there also is no abutter directly behind them and abutters on both sides are elevated.

With no further questions from the board or public, Charles Sorenson moved to grant the Special Exception for the expansion in height of the building on the same footprint as presented in the plan. Rex Baker seconded.  The board then reviewed the required criteria for granting such, as outlined in Article 20.1.2 of the zoning ordinances:

20.1.2.1The specific site is an appropriate location for such use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.2The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.3There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.4Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.5The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, signs and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except where specifically waived by the board, the reasons for such waiver to be set forth in writing by the board. Mr. Sorenson noted the property is non-conforming, as is the building, but that nothing is being waived as the expansion in volume is away from the non-conforming aspects and no other part of the application required a waiver. All agreed.

The ZBA then voted unanimously in favor to grant the Special Exception to the Lucianos.

Yont Family Trust, 71 East Side Road (Map 72 – Lot 21) The Yont family, represented by Sarah Monzon, applied for a Special Exception under Articles 5.3.3 and 5.4.1 to renovate a portion of the existing structure, a portion on the back side, or road side, with an alteration in shape of the rear perimeter but with no change in size or square footage.  The proposed renovated portion would be two stories and insulated for 3-season use, and the original section will remain for summer use only. The family will also propose a new foundation under the house. Ms. Monzon presented drawings, including elevations, of existing and proposed conditions. She noted that the entry will remain close to the existing entry. The board confirmed there will be no increased footage in footprint but that volume would expand due to the addition of the second floor. Ms. Monzon showed view of house from lake, which is barely visible even now given lush vegetation. The applicant noted that the septic is being redesigned completely for the same number of bedrooms as exists now. Meridien Land Services is handling the application with DES.  The house, non-conforming, sits very close to the lake, though the section to be renovated is approximately 50’ from the water. Ms. Monzon showed the plot plan with parking area, leach field, and proposed septic location.

Board members discussed the requirements to meet DES approval as well as potentially applicable local ordinances within the shoreland protection ordinance.  Mr. Sorenson noted the board would have to point to a specific provision with which the application comes into conflict and no such provision was identified.  The applicant did note that additional work will be done regarding drainage, retaining walls and that the issuance of a building permit would depend on meeting those approvals. Article 15.11.2, Andrew Maneval noted, relates to erosion and sedimentation control but he also did not see anything specific related to the application before the board.

The board then reviewed the Special Exception criteria from Article XX:

20.1.2.1The specific site is an appropriate location for such use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.2The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The board unanimously agreed. If there were a place in the regulations to consider the increased drop caused by water from the roof, which could potentially affect the adjacent area, but there is not. The board agreed that the applicant met this condition.
20.1.2.3There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.4Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.5The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, signs and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except where specifically waived by the board, the reasons for such waiver to be set forth in writing by the board. The board noted this is a non-conforming property and no waivers were required.

Mr. Sorenson subsequently moved to grant the Special Exception. Patrick Gagne seconded. The board voted unanimously in favor.

Andrew Macdonald, 33 East Side Road (Map 72-Lot 11)– This application was for a Special Exception under Article 5.3.3 for a proposed expansion in height of a non-conforming structure and proposed addition of stairs connecting two decks. Don Scott, representing the Macdonalds, displayed the existing site plan and the proposed, as well as a 3-D elevation before and after, and photographs. The applicant proposes a second story to the existing shed with a gabled roof over a screened-in porch.  A stairwell is proposed to connect. The slight increase in volume and impervious cover is the reason for the application. Proposed impervious cover will increase from 10.35 to 10.4%. Mr. Scott discussed previous work done for erosion control, all separate from this application. The current application is for volume only. The combined shed with new addition would be between 18 feet and 20-feet high and currently sits 9’ from the side property line. The board asked about existing conditions related to abutters and Mr. Scott explained their locations relative to the proposed work.

Jay Jacobs expressed concern that any approval by the board, unless worded carefully, would leave the door open for the screened in porch to someday be converted to living space.  Mr. Sorenson noted what was being considered was the plan as submitted, an expansion in area for a screened in porch and nothing more. Mr. Maneval asked if the new staircase also required a special exception, as he reads the word structure as including that, though it doesn’t add to the non-conformity. Members agreed the proposed staircase was being addressed as part of the increase in volume under 5.3.3.  Discussion then turned to the roof and its shape and how this might affect the visual impact. Mr. Scott noted the shed lies below the height of the main house and, even with the extra story, the peak would be below the main house. He anticipates the roof will be hipped or gabled. The shed is behind the 50’ setback from the lake, between 50 and 75 feet.

Mr. Scott noted there will be no ground disturbance, so he believes no DES permits are required. With no further questions, the board considered the special exception criteria from Article XX as follows:

20.1.2.1The specific site is an appropriate location for such use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.2The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.3There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.4Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.The board unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.5The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, signs and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except where specifically waived by the board, the reasons for such waiver to be set forth in writing by the board. Mr. Sorenson noted, as with the previous applications, nothing was being waived. All agreed.

Mr. Jacobs then moved to grant the Special Exception under Article 5.3.3 for a proposed expansion in height and volume for a non-conforming structure creating a covered deck with the addition of stairs connecting the existing deck and the newly constructed covered deck. Mr. Gagne seconded. The board voted unanimously in favor.

New business
Inquiry regarding Brown Road property– A couple asked guidance from the ZBA regarding options for seeking approvals to create a legal residence to start a farm. The couple currently lives in an illegal dwelling, as it is not permitted by the building inspector and abuts a neighboring property. They are considering a detached accessory dwelling unit if the property owner determines this is how she would like to proceed, and they understand this would require a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board. For a temporary solution, they will seek a permit from the Select Board to occupy a recreational vehicle on the property. The property owner, it was confirmed, would have to apply for the ADU which would have to meet the conditions under Article XXIX of the ordinances. The parties discussed provisions for septic and water and what is legally required and additional options within the legal parameters.  Don Scott referred the couple to additional information regarding acceptable disposal systems.

Other business
Prior to adjourning, the board moved to approve the minutes of its September meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.