Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Meeting Minutes
The Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment met on Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at the Harrisville Town Offices, 705 Chesham Road.
Members present: Charles Sorenson, Chair; Rex Baker, Vice Chair; Andrea Hodson, Select Board Representative; Patrick Gagne; Jeff Trudelle; Hal Grant, Alternate; Edward Tibbetts, Alternate
Attendees: Andrew Scanlan, John Croteau, Courtney Cox, Jon Miner, John Evans, Peggy Evans, David Robins, Harry Wolhandler
The Chair opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. He noted the voting members for the evening were Pat Gagne, Jeff Trudelle, Andrea Hodson, Charlie Sorenson and Rex Baker.
Mr. Sorenson reviewed the procedural process for the applications before the board, including presentation by applicants, questions from the board, comments from abutters, and board deliberation. The board addressed the business before it as follows:
Andrew Scanlan, 839 Hancock Road (Map 10 – Lot 36-1), applying for a special exception for a home-based business under Article 4.1.19. Mr. Scanlan explained he is a metal fabricator, building truck bodies and parts, and does welding and services heavy equipment, such as tractors and backhoes. Most of his work takes place at customers’ properties; he otherwise works out of his garage, the construction of which initially was not intended for business use. Mr. Scanlan is the sole employee and currently has no plans to hire.
The noise generated by his business includes machines running, and use of tools such as welders, torches, hammers, or angle grinders. Most of the noise is confined to the inside of the garage; however, occasionally trucks and equipment are tested in the driveway, but rarely is equipment stored there. The business was started in November, with currently one vehicle dedicated to business use.
The board addressed a description of the property and distances to abutters, buffered on all sides by heavy woods. They also discussed the typical schedule of operations, with Mr. Scanlan noting that it tends to be sporadic, with no activity on some days but, occasionally, activity occurs a few days in a row. He typically works from 7am – 5 pm, though mostly off-site. In response to questions about any hazardous materials or solvents stored, the applicant noted that his service truck contains sealed bottles of gasoline and oxygen acetylene.
The ZBA then reviewed the criteria outlined in the home-based business ordinance. Article 4.1.19 states that home-based businesses are permitted by special exception in all districts subject to the following:
4.1.19.1. It shall be carried on by residents of the premises, and a maximum number of non-resident employees as approved by the Zoning Board. The board re-confirmed the applicant is the sole employee.
4.1.19.2. It shall have no outdoor display of goods, and no outdoor storage of materials or equipment unless screened from roads and surrounding properties by natural or structural means to such an extent and in such manner as may be specifically required and approved by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant stated no materials, other than his service truck, are stored outside.
4.1.19.3. The residence or accessory buildings shall not provide window displays or other characteristics or features normally associated with commercial use, except for a permitted sign. The applicant confirmed he has no plans for signage and no sign or window displays exist now.
4.1.19.4. It shall not have an adverse effect on the environment and water resource supplies or the surrounding properties from impacts including but not limited to noise, odor, smoke, dust or lights; soil, water or air pollution; electrical or electronic interference; excessive increases in traffic or in parking requirements. Mr. Scanlan stated that visits from customers to his home are rare, except when a piece of equipment is being dropped off.
4.1.19.5. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of the residence or other structures on the property as a result of the use, unless specifically approved or required by the Board of Adjustment. The board confirmed there would be none.
4.1.19.6. Parking for employees and/or customers shall be provided on-site. The board confirmed this was the case, if rarely needed.
The board returned to the subject of noise generated from the applicant’s business, particularly when the garage door is open and machinery can be heard by neighbors. He equated the level of noise to that of an auto repair shop. Abutters asked questions about noises they’ve heard, including in evenings and on weekends, and requested that the ZBA confine business operations to weekdays. Mr. Scanlan noted he tries not to work after hours but sometimes has family or personal projects.
Additional questions arose about solvents, wastewater, used filters and comparable waste. The applicant noted waste and solvents are stored in two 55- gallon drums on the concrete garage floor, and he confirmed there are no bulk solvents; oil is stored in 5 gallon sealed containers. The garage does not have a drain, preventing solvents from entering groundwater. Mr. Scanlan confirmed the garage walls are insulated and noted he would be willing to put retaining bins around drums.
Mr. Sorenson referred back to Article 4.1.19.4., asking the applicant the possibility of limiting work involving noise to weekday hours between 9 am and 5 pm, inside the garage. Mr. Scanlan stated it was.
The board then referred to Article XX’s ZBA criteria for granting a special exception.
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board agreed, with the chair noting the size of the lot and the considerable forest surrounding the garage.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Other than occasional noise, the board agreed the use would not pose an adverse effect.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Given no increased traffic to the area because of the business, the board agreed.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.Members discussed the recommendation of a simple ventilation fan given the confined space of the garage and the nature of the mechanical work and tools involved. The board also noted the idea of a retention bin around the storage drums.
20.1.2.5. The 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 agreed; no waiver required.
Charles Sorenson then moved to grant a special exception for a home-based business involving work described in Mr. Scanlan’s application, with the following contingencies: loud noise work (fabrication and welding) would be done in the garage building with the door closed, and such work would be done between the hours of 9 am to 5 pm; and 2) the applicant will create some sort of hazardous material retention system within the garage. Patrick Gagne seconded. Having considered all criteria under Article 4.1.19. and Article XX, the board voted unanimously in favor. The board noted it would forward to the applicant a copy of the Notice of Decision.
John Croteau, 185 Eastside Road (Map 71 – Lot 13), applying for a special exception under Article 9.1.6. to install a 7’ x 8’ Rubbermaid storage shed a distance of 10’ from the high-water mark.
The applicant explained that the purpose of the storage container is to house a trampoline raft. He added that the container is surrounded by a high vegetative buffer and that the shed can’t be seen from the lake, nor does it pose any impact to the watershed. It is located adjacent to the water given the sloped nature of the lot.
Charles Sorenson raised the language in Article 9.1.6. stating No structure shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to the edge of any right-of-way, or to the side or rear boundaries of the lot. Mr. Sorenson wondered if this requirement was independent of the 75’ setback requirement from the lake which ensues in the subsequent sentence in the provision (Accessory buildings such as storage sheds and gazebos but excluding automobile garages may be located within the seventy-five (75) feet setback as a special exception provided…)
While members agreed the shed met the criteria for the special exception outlined in 9.1.6. – that it was consistent with the ordinance’s purpose of maintaining a vegetative buffer, was customary or incidental and its purpose was equipment storage – Mr. Sorenson asked if the ZBA was free to allow a building to be closer than 15’ to the high water mark and, in considering the rear boundary of a lakeside property, what is that exactly? Members asked if this provision could be clarified perhaps by the ordinance review committee, though they did not believe it should constrict the granting of a special exception assuming all other conditions were met.
The board then addressed 9.1.6.4., Buildings shall be placed in such a manner as to minimize impact on habitat and at such a location as to have the least impact on the watershed. The applicant confirmed the shed was solely to store the raft and water skis, with no dug foundation, and containing nothing hazardous or having any impact on water quality or habitat.
With no further questions, Andrea Hodson moved to grant a special exception for location of a rubber storage shed 10’ from the lake. Rex Baker seconded. The board turned to the Article XX criteria.
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use..
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.
20.1.2.5. The 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 chair confirmed the only waiver relates to the required 75’ setback from the lake under Article 9.1.6.
The board voted unanimously in favor to grant the special exception. The applicant will receive a copy of the Notice of Decision.
Minutes of previous meeting – The board voted in favor to approve the May meeting minutes.
The board moved to adjourn at 8:40 pm.