Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Meeting Minutes
The Town of Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment met on Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 7:00 pm at Town Offices, 705 Chesham Road.
Members present: Charles Sorenson, Chair; Rex Baker, Vice-Chair; Jeff Trudelle; Pegg Monahan, Select Board Representative; Mary Ann Noyer, Alternate
Members absent: Patrick Gagne, Hal Grant, Andrew Maneval, Alternate
Members of the public: Craig Thompson, Sarah Heffron, Chris Guida of Fieldstone Land Use Consultants, Scott Stone, Howard Clark, Jesse Huard, Nikole Huard
The Chair opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. He noted that the voting members for the evening, in addition to himself, were Jeff Trudelle, Rex Baker, Pegg Monahan, and Mary Ann Noyer. For the second item on the agenda, the Town of Harrisville application for a roadside sign, applicant and Select Board representative Pegg Monahan would recuse herself.
Chairman Sorenson invited Chris Guida, certified wetland and soil scientist, to present the first application, as follows:
SRH Farm Food, LLC, 31 Clymers Drive, Map 60 – Lot 55-2, applying for a Special Exception under Article 6.1.3. of the Harrisville Zoning Ordinances to construct two decks within the 50-foot setback from the public Right-of-Way. The applicant also seeks, under Article 20.1.3, a Variance from Article 6.1.3 to construct a 14’x14’ addition on the south side of the property’s primary dwelling, encroaching 12’ into the Right-of-Way. The 41-acre lot is in the Residential/Agricultural District.
Special Exceptions
Mr. Guida noted that one deck was proposed for the primary dwelling and would extend to a point 38’ from the public Right-of Way. The Harrisville ordinances for the Residential/Agricultural District require a 50’ setback from the road. A second deck would extend off the existing commercial kitchen structure, across the driveway from the primary dwelling, 43’ from the Right-of-Way.
Chairman Sorenson confirmed with the applicant that the proposed decks would be open and remain uncovered. The applicants confirmed this is the case. As such, Mr. Sorenson noted, under Article 5.3.3 of the ordinances related to expansions of non-conforming structures, open decks are not considered expansions and, thus, special exception relief is not needed.
Variance
The Variance is needed for the proposed 14×14 mudroom addition to the farmhouse dwelling. Chairman Sorenson explained the Unnecessary Hardship provision, the most difficult of the five criteria in order for a variance to granted. He explained that applicants must demonstrate the unique conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties and that the proposed, in this case, location is not based on the need of the applicant, or the desire to do something with their property; rather, the hardship must demonstrate why the proposed change has to be located where it’s proposed.
Mr. Guida first noted that Clymers Drive, which comes to a dead end near the subject structure, is immediately surrounded by vacant land or primarily by property owned by the applicant. He then detailed the inherent conditions surrounding the dwelling. Two wells, one located on a rear corner of the house and the other in front of the entrance façade, limited those locations as viable options. A significant slope and an apple orchard in the rear on one side, and a stone retaining wall and septic along the other rear portion presented difficult and more costly conditions for a mudroom addition along that façade. The applicants feel the architecture of the front façade of the dwelling, a farmhouse cape dating to 1932, also rendered that façade a less suitable location for a mudroom/entry addition, while the interior layout of the house also makes the proposed location most logical. For these reasons, Mr. Guida explained, the only feasible and most suitable location is along the Clymers Drive façade.
The board further discussed with the applicants the detailed conditions of the building surrounds and the reasons alternate locations were not feasible or presented additional financial burdens. The board then asked Mr. Guida to address the first four variance criteria, which he did as follows:
20.1.3.1. There would not be a diminution in value of the surrounding properties as a result of the grant of the variance requested. The applicant noted that the closest abutter other than themselves was vacant land.
20.1.3.2. The grant of the variance requested would not be contrary to the public interests. Mr. Sorenson explained that, in addressing the concept of public interest, the board must balance the interest of the public in the ZBA’s uniformly applying the zoning regulations against the interest of the individual property owner. Mr. Guida noted that the existing area of the property currently used for living space is at the dead end of Clymers Road and the original existing dwelling was built in close proximity to the road. It was further noted for the record that Ann and George Colony, owners of the vacant land adjacent, submitted a letter to the ZBA expressing no objection to the project.
20.1.3.3. By granting the variance requested, substantial justice would be done. The applicant commented on the financial and structural considerations that would arise from locating the addition elsewhere on the dwelling, including having to replace the wells, septic, the retaining wall and/or having to alter the existing slope.
20.1.3.4. The requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The applicant believes the spirit of the ordinance would be observed in that granting the Variance would allow for the productive use of the existing larger lot, without having to modify portions of the lot already in use for residential, agricultural and commercial uses. In addition the existing dwelling, dating to 1932, and adjacent farm structures are in close proximity to Clymers Drive and the right of way. Finally, the existing slope and septic and dwelling conditions make the proposed location for the addition the most feasible. The addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood or threaten the health, safety or welfare of the public.
The board continued its discussion with the applicants as to how they arrived at the proposed location and design, and, particularly, the limitations presented by the slope, retaining wall, septic and wells. Chairman Sorenson then confirmed that there were no further questions from the board or the public, and closed the public hearing. The board began its deliberation began, particularly on the hardship criteria, reviewing the testimony of the applicants.
Following discussion, Jeff Trudelle moved to grant the Variance, under Article 20.1.3., to SRH Farm Food, LLC based on the hardship created by the existing topography in the rear of the house and the location of two existing wells. The board then reviewed all the required criteria, as follows:
20.1.3.1. There would not be a diminution in value of the surrounding properties as a result of the grant of the variance requested. All agreed, reiterating that only vacant, mostly owned by the applicants, surrounded the existing dwelling.
20.1.3.2. The grant of the variance requested would not be contrary to the public interest. Members agreed it would not be, in that the public interest in this case is the location of the Right of Way, and Clymers Drive dead ends at the dwelling location.
20.1.3.3. By granting the variance requested, substantial justice would be done. Members believed it would be, in that 38’ of the Right of Way setback would still be retained.
20.1.3.4. The requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The board believes the spirit of the ordinance is to serve the public interest by not intruding into the public Right-of-Way for safety and aesthetic reasons and, because there are no immediate abutters to the project, the proposed addition was not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
20.1.3.5. Unnecessary Hardship: Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as defined by New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Chapter 674, Section 33, as amended. Members believed the board should not interfere with two serviceable wells and otherwise impose considerable financial burden on the applicant to locate the addition in another portion of the dwelling.
Having reviewed and agreed upon the applicants’ credible establishment of the above criteria, the board voted 5-0 to grant the Variance for the addition in the location and dimensions specified in the application. The board further noted it would strike from the application the need for the special exception for the reasons stated above. The Chair will draft and issue the formal Notice of Decision.
Select Board Representative to the ZBA, Pegg Monahan, then recused herself from the following matter:
Town of Harrisville, 705 Chesham Road, Map 40 – Lot 46-1, applying for a Special Exception and Variance to replace the existing roadside signboard with a digital, internally-illuminated, sign approximately 16 square feet in total area, in roughly the same location.
Chairman Sorenson explained to board members that Article 17.2.4. of the zoning ordinances restricts signs outside the Commercial and Industrial District to 6 square feet in dimension. The Town Offices and Fire Department are in the Residential/Agricultural District; thus a Variance under Article 20.1.3. is required by the applicant. In addition, internally illuminated signs require a special exception, as provided in Article 17.2.1.1.
Pegg Monahan stated that the current sign, roughly 29 square feet in dimension, is manually operated, time-consuming to maintain, and unlit. She explained that, because of this, information is not as readily shared, as visible, or as current as it could be, and that it’s in the public interest to have a signboard with timely and helpful messaging, particularly in the event of an emergency or unusual circumstances.
Special Exception
The board first considered the applicant’s testimony on the criteria for a Special Exception, under Article 20.1.2.:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. Ms. Monahan noted this is not a new location or a new proposal; the town’s roadside billboard has existed here for several decades. Because this is the location of the town offices, it is the most appropriate location, and the sign is a vital use. The Town aims to most closely emulate what already exists, but to make it programmable from office computers, so town employees can more expediently communicate to residents. The sign will either contain a white background with black lettering or, as recommended by the vendor for better visibility, black background with white lettering.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The applicant explained that thelighting can be dimmed and the sign can be programmed to power off at night. There won’t be any additional external light.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Ms. Monahan noted it would be in the same location and add no new distraction compared to the existing sign.
(20.1.2.4.) Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Ms. Monahan noted the sign will be operated from the wi-fi at town hall.
With no further questions from the board and no objections from the public, Charlie Sorenson moved to grant the Town of Harrisville’s application for a special exception under Article 17.2.1.1. to replace the existing roadside signboard at the town office with a digital, internally illuminated sign. The board finds that under Article 20 of the Zoning code:
(20.1.2.1.) The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The town office is the most appropriate and convenient location for a government public information sign.
(20.1.2.2.) The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The proposed sign is no more likely to affect the area near the town office than the current sign. There are no immediate abutters who would be negatively impacted by the sign given its location and proposed digital design.
(20.1.2.3.) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The proposed sign, like highway signs generally, does not constitute a nuisance or hazard.
(20.1.2.4.) Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The board agreed.
(20.1.2.5.) The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except as allowed by this special exception. The board agreed.
Jeff Trudelle seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and no objections. The board voted 4-0 in favor, agreeing with the findings.
Variance
The Chair reiterated that the Variance is needed because of the size limitation outside of industrial and commercial area. This will be roughly 16 square feet, larger than the 6 square feet allowed under the ordinances, but this includes the framing and posts and is smaller than the existing sign.
The board discussed the exact dimensions as proposed and otherwise considered the Variance criteria, including that the sign would not diminish the value of surrounding properties, would not be contrary to, and in fact would serve, the public interest by providing a convenient source of information, and that not granting the Variance would be contrary to the public interest.
Regarding unnecessary hardship, the board finds Town property and the needs of Town Offices unique. In addition, the purpose of the ordinance is not to interfere with the Town’s duty to provide public information.
With no further discussion, Charlie Sorenson moved to grant the Town of Harrisville a Variance under Article 20.1.3 from Article 17.2.4’s limitation of signs outside the industrial and commercial districts to 6 square feet. The Town intends to erect an approximately 16 square feet sign in roughly the same location. The board finds that:
(20.1.3.1.) There would not be a diminution in value of the surrounding properties as a result of the grant of the variance requested. There is no evidence that an approximately 16 square feet digital sign will have a significant impact on nearby property values.
(20.1.3.2.) The grant of the variance requested would not be contrary to the public interests. To the contrary, granting a variance will serve the public interest by providing a readable, convenient source of important public information.
(20.1.3.3.) By granting the variance requested, substantial justice would be done. See prior responses.
(20.1.3.4.) The requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The spirit of the ordinance is served by granting the variance in circumstances in which such limitations would be unreasonable.
(20.1.3.5.) Unnecessary Hardship: Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as defined by New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Chapter 674, Section 33, as amended.
NH RSA 674:33 states: b)(1) For purposes of subparagraph I(a)(2)(E), “unnecessary hardship” means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: [There is no question that the Town Office and attendant public information needs are unique compared to any other properties in the area.]
(A) 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;
[The purpose of the ordinance is not to interfere with or inhibit the Town’s duty to provide the public with adequate governmental information] and
(B) The proposed use is a reasonable one. [In light of the foregoing, there is no question that the proposed sign is a reasonable one.]
The board voted unanimously in favor, 4-0.
Other business
Scott Stone – Silver Road/Blood Hill Road- Mr. Stone returned to the board for guidance related to the size of wetlands delineated on one of the newly created lots on Blood Hill Road. Before submitting an application to the ZBA for a Variance, as he believes may be required given the new 100’ wetland setback for new structures in wetlands of over 3,000 square feet, Mr. Stone seeks input from the board as to the best approach, including whether to apply for a Variance for setback from the right of way, or from the wetland when the time comes to apply to build a home. Mr. Stone does not believe the vegetation and tree species existing on the property correspond to the state and town definition of wetlands and he plans to hire another soil scientist to assess the area. The board discussed in general the two options for the Variance application and also recommended that Mr. Stone speak to the Conservation Commission Chair for his input.
ZBA Rules of Procedure – Members will review the updated draft Rules of Procedure for vote at the next meeting. An update is required based on new state planning and zoning guidelines that affect municipalities.
The board adjourned at 9:10 pm.