Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Meeting Minutes

The Harrisville Zoning Board met Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at Harrisville Town Hall, 705 Chesham Road.

Members present: Charles Sorenson Chair; Rex Baker Vice Chair; Andrea Hodson Select Board Representative; Patrick Gagne; Jeff Trudelle; Ed Tibbetts Alternate; Mary Ann Noyer Alternate. Members absent: Hal Grant Alternate

Attendees: Don Scott, Kathy Bollerud, Akhil Garland, Lee Garland, John Cuchi, Anne Cucchi, Jon Richardson, Ranae O’Neil, David O’Neil, Patricia Colony, John J. Colony, Adam Schepker, Beate Becker

The meeting opened at 7:00 pm to address the business of two special exceptions and a motion for rehearing.

Mr. Sorenson explained the process on motions for rehearing, noting it involves board discussion only, with no comment from the applicant, abutters or the public.  He further explained, if the motion passes, the Worden application would be reheard at a future time. If the motion to rehear is denied, the applicant has the right to appeal the ZBA decision in State Superior Court.

Voting members – For the two special exception applications, voting members were named as follows: Rex Baker, Patrick Gagne, Andrea Hodson, Jeff Trudelle and Charles Sorenson.  For the motion for rehearing on the granting of a special exception on September 20 to Pamela Worden, Ed Tibbetts would vote in place of Jeff Trudelle, recused for that application.

John A. Cucchi, Motion for Rehearing, ZBA Decision of September 20 to grant a special exception to the owners of 153 Skatutakee Road. Mr. Sorenson noted that, in its consideration, the board relies on the materials submitted by the Cucchis, and the board’s knowledge of the basis of its decision to grant the relief. ZBA members raised no additional questions or concerns. Subsequently, Andrea Hodson moved to deny the request for rehearing. Patrick Gagne seconded. The ZBA voted 5-0 in favor. The motion for rehearing was denied.

Adam Schepker, 46 Prospect Street (Map 51 – Lot 5) – applying for two special exceptions under Articles 6.1.3. and 12.9.1. to construct a 24’ x 28’ garage twenty-five feet from the public right-of-way and within the 50’-100’ wetland buffer.  Don Scott, representing the property owner, referred to the submitted site plan to denote the proposed location of the garage/storage shed in the context of the zoning ordinances and relative to the setbacks.

Addressing Article 6.1.3., Mr. Scott stated that, by special exception, certain structures, including garages, may be located 25’ from the property line in the residential/agricultural district. The requested relief is from the ordinance requirements for a 50-foot setback from the public right of way.

Addressing Article 12.9.1., Mr. Scott explained that the proposed garage falls within the 50- to 100-foot wetland buffer but, by special exception, accessory structures associated with legally existing primary structures may be located in this buffer zone, if it can be demonstrated that no practical alternative exists elsewhere on the lot.  Mr. Scott described the topography of the property and the slope between the proposed location and the abutting field and explained that, because of the adjacent wetland and slope, this was the only practical location.  A shed had previously been located in this area but was removed several years ago in anticipation of replacing it.  A driveway also was previously located here to access that shed.  Mr. Scott noted that a driveway permit has been filed for and obtained from the Road Agent to reconstruct an accessway on this side of the property.

The board asked about Article 12.8.1. and the applicability of language related to permitted uses between 50 and 100 from the wetland edge. The language states: Pathways, decks, gazebos, pergolas, sheds, patios, or similar constructions, provided no more than 20% of the area is impacted and no permanent foundations are involved. The applicant responded that they believe their proposal relates more directly to 12.9.1., special exceptions for accessory structures within the wetland buffer, as garages are not included in 12.8.1.

Mr. Scott then explained the drainage improvements being undertaken to improve stormwater runoff onto Prospect Street and water infiltration on the parcel.  A portion of the existing lawn will be left unmowed to allow for regrowth of natural cover and vegetation. A treatment swale on the uphill side will capture water coming off the field above and water that flows down Prospect Street.  The water will be slowly released back into the wetland via an existing town culvert.

Mr. Schepker described additional cleanup activities and repairs to improve the condition of the house and property.  Separately, a 6 foot boarded fence will screen artistry work from the neighbors.  The garage will store a vehicle, lawn equipment and equipment and materials used for hobbies.

Mr. Scott addressed the special exception criteria under Article XX as follows:

20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The garage will be in an area already disturbed by a previously existing shed and work yard. The garage and 24’L x 6’H fence will enclose and screen the work area. The use will continue as an accessory structure for a single family dwelling.

20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area.  The garage and 24’L x 6’H fence will screen the area from the neighbors’ view. The new swale and converted lawn will provide surface water treatment and improve drainage.

20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. There will be a new and improved driveway, 15’ W x 24’L, for Prospect Street access/egress.

20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The new driveway will be regraded to direct roof and pavement runoff into the new treatment swale, improving the existing low-lying area adjacent to the road which often collects water.

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 and 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. Scott noted that the parcel is 1.3 acres but the location for the proposed garage is restricted by the setback and wetland buffer requirements in the current ordinances. The applicant requests a special exception for a 25’ setback from Prospect Street and for locating the garage between the 50’ and 100’ setback line from the wetlands.

Board questions
Regarding the statement about an existing driveway, Mr. Scott noted prior plans show a driveway previously was located in this area. A second curb cut is allowed by the property owner due to road frontage in excess of 250’. The Road Agent has visited the property and approved.

Board member Jeff Trudelle noted the possible square footage limitation of 600 SF for Alaskan slab, proposed as the foundation, and that the building inspector may thus require that the garage dimensions be reduced accordingly. The ZBA chair confirmed that what the board would be approving would be maximum dimensions, and what the board is reviewing is the setback from the road and wetlands.

Addressing impervious cover, Don Scott noted that with the new structure, total impervious would total 8.2%, well within the town’s 30% limit.

Abutter comments
The applicant confirmed the height of the proposed garage, measured from grade to peak, is 21 feet, and he responded to questions from abutters about building materials and design.  When asked about proposed activity on the property and area outside the garage, Mr. Schepker explained he is a sculptor and occasional welds as part of his hobby. Most of this will be done indoors but, weather depending, he may at times also work outside.

Abutters and attendees spoke in favor of the proposed location and project and noted the characteristic of the existing wetland is such that water is infiltrated prior to reaching it.

Board deliberation
The chair then closed the public portion of the meeting, and the ZBA addressed the Article XX criteria.

20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board agreed based on the testimony of the applicants.

20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area.  The board found that the drainage improvements weighed significantly against any adverse effect on the adjacent area, and felt that neither the presence or absence of a fence adjacent to the garage would have an impact.  The applicant explained that the primary purpose of the fence is to provide a wind barrier.

20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board agreed.

20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The board agreed given the drainage improvements and grading of the driveway area.

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 and 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 only waivers are for a 50’ setback to allow a 25′ setback of the garage and the 100′ setback from the wetland, with the latter only being waived to a distance of 50’.

Following final comments, Mr. Sorenson moved to approve the application for a special exception to allow the garage to be located 25’ from the public way and 50’ from the wetland, in accordance with the plan submitted that includes a treatment swale to capture surface water into a holding area.  Rex Baker seconded.  The board voted 5-0 in favor.

Akhil Garland, 9 Island Street (Map 32 – Lot 24), applying for a special exception to construct a 7’ x 18’ woodshed on an existing concrete slab and to construct a 16’ x 18’ pergola over an existing open deck.

Noting prior approvals from the Historic District Commission and Historic Harrisville for both structures, Mr. Garland described first the proposed location of a 16’ x 18’ timber frame pergola over their deck, which faces Harrisville Pond. Currently the owners put a pop-up tent there in the warm months.  The ZBA chair asked about the distance of the deck to the high- water mark, citing Article 9.1. which states no structure can be located within 15’ of the side or rear boundary, and in this case the rear boundary is the pond. it. A view of the plan and the curved shoreline showed the nearest point to be between 13 ½ and 15’ from the water. The board noted, that pursuant to the ordinance, any approval would require that pergola supports be 15’ from this boundary, which is defined by the state.

The board then considered Article 5.3.3., which states that open decks are not considered expansions; however, roofed porches are.  The definition of an open deck does not denote pergolas, but states that open decks may not be enclosed in any way other than with a 42” safety railing around the perimeter. The board needed to consider, according to the chair, if it was the intent of the definition of open deck to preclude any structure other than the deck itself with a railing.  The question had not come before the board previously. The ZBA also believed the intent of the definition will need to be clarified by the Planning Board.

Mr. Garland noted he doesn’t consider it a roof but something that provides shade. Board members, following a lengthy discussion, concluded they did not consider a pergola an enclosure, though it is a structure and, therefore, that Article 5.3. was satisfied.

The board then moved to 9.1.6., which states that accessory buildings such as storage sheds and gazebos, but excluding automobile garages may be located within the 75’ setback provided certain conditions are met.  The board considered the criteria under 9.1.6.1. through 9.1.6.4. and determined that the proposed pergola satisfied these:
9.1.6.1. The location and construction of the structure is consistent with the intent of the ordinance to maintain a vegetated buffer, which would meet the requirements of 15.8.1.  9.1.6.2. The structure is required as a shelter either for humans, equipment, or firewood.  While a pergola may not be required shelter, the chair didn’t see this as a barrier to addressing the special exception criteria.
9.1.6.3. The structure is customary or incidental to residential and recreational use.
9.1.6.4. Building placement: 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 board raised no additional questions or concerns relative to these conditions.  Abutters also had no concerns or questions. The Chair noted the letter from Historic Harrisville in support of the project, other than amending the dimension of the pergola posts, was part of the record and reviewed by ZBA members.

Finally, the board reviewed the Article XX criteria:

20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use.  Members considered its recreational element, facilitating the use of the deck.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area.  As it doesn’t have a dripline and would replace the use of the tent, members agreed.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. All agreed given the location of the pergola at the rear of the property.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The board did not view this as relevant in this instance.
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 and 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 was waiving the 75’ setback from the pond.

Charlie Sorenson then moved to approve the special exception for the pergola, as submitted on the plans, as long as the pergola is 15’ from the high-water mark and is maintained as an open pergola.  The board voted 5-0 in favor.

Subsequently, the board addressed the 7’W x 18’L x 11.5’H shed, reviewing the proposed location in relation to the boundary lines, existing barn and existing concrete patio, which is roughly 20’ x 25’.  The slab encroaches on the 15’ side property setback, but the shed would not.

Mr. Garland the shed, while providing shelter for firewood, would also serve as an additional buffer for privacy between their property and the abutters’ property.  Mr. Richardson raised concerns, not about the shed itself, but about the removal of 30’ of woodland buffer. He requested a restoration of the woodland buffer, the only woodland buffer on the parcel and one which had been discussed at numerous prior public hearings for the applicant. The board reconfirmed that the shed as proposed was not of concern to him.

Again, Article 9.16. was relevant.

9.1.6.1. The location and construction of the structure is consistent with the intent of the ordinance to maintain a vegetated buffer, which would meet the requirements of 15.8.1.  9.1.6.2. The structure is required as a shelter either for humans, equipment, or firewood.  The applicants confirmed it would be used to primarily store wood but also other items.
9.1.6.3. The structure is customary or incidental to residential and recreational use. The board confirmed this.
9.1.6.4. Building placement: 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 applicants noted the shed would be placed on a small area of an existing concrete slab, posing no change to the watershed.  ZBA members agreed, noting the shed dripline was over this slab and the removal of a pine tree stump in the proposed location had minimal impact.

Returning to the Article XX criteria, the Board addressed:

20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use.  Members agreed, finding the proposed location suitable given previously existing conditions.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area.  Considering the comments of the abutter that the shed is not the issue but the buffer, the board felt this criteria was satisfied.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board felt this not relevant.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.  No issues were raised.
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 and 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.  If approved, the board would only be waiving the 75’ setback from the pond.  All agreed.

Mr. Sorenson then moved to approve the application for a special exception for a storage shed that will be 18’W and 7’ deep located on an existing patio and as noted on the submitted plan. Patrick Gagne seconded. All voted in favor.

ZBA Rules matters – 1) The Chair noted that, while the board’s Rules of Procedure outline the need for a narrative from applicants addressing the criteria of the relief being requested, this requirement is not currently stated on the application form.  Members agreed it should be and thus moved to approve the amended application form as drafted and distributed for review.

2) For the ZBA Rules of Procedure, the Chair recommended adding references to RSAs 676:5, clarifying what appeals from administrative officer decisions are and describing more about the process.

ZBA Meeting Minutes  – Members approved the October 15 minutes.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.