Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, May 15, 2024
Meeting Minutes
The Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment met Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at Town Hall, 705 Chesham Road.
ZBA Members present: Charles Sorenson, Chair; Rex Baker, Vice Chair; Hal Grant, Alternate; Andrea Hodson, Select Board Representative; Patrick Gagne; Jeff Trudelle; Edward Tibbetts, Alternate; Mary Ann Noyer, Alternate
Members of the public: John Battle, Greg Grigsby, Barbara Watkins
The Chair opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. Mr. Sorenson named the voting members for the evening as follows: Andrea Hodson, Rex Baker, Pat Gagne, Hal Grant and Charlie Sorenson. ZBA member Jeff Trudelle recused himself from the proceedings.
Following introductions and an explanation of hearing protocol by the Chair, the board proceeded with the following:
George F. & Ann B. Colony, 289 Breed Road (Map 72-Lot 5), applying for a special exception under Articles 5.3.2., 5.4.1. and 15.13.1. of the Harrisville Zoning Ordinances to replace an existing non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot in the lakeside residential district.
Architect John Battle and Site Designer Greg Grigsby, agents for the property owner, explained the proposal to use the existing footprint as a guide to construct a new house that is more nearly conforming relative to setbacks and impervious cover. The height of the new dwelling will be increased by 7.5 feet to allow for more modern construction and clearances but, at 31 feet, will still be 4’ below the town’s 35’ height limit for structures.
The applicants noted that a Shoreland Permit through NH DES will be applied for separately.
Referring to submitted plans of existing and proposed conditions, Mr. Battle and Mr. Grigsby described where the new 4-bedroom house would be located relative to the existing dwelling. They pointed out the increase in setback distances from the lake, from the adjacent property, and from the road. The project aims for equal, if not improved, protection for Silver Lake. The applicants noted the project reduces nonconforming aspects, including a slight reduction in impervious cover.
The property owners are working with engineers and their neighbors to reconfigure a new, shared septic system that relocates two tanks away from the lake, even though the current proposed design conforms to state regulations. A final state approved system is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicants confirmed that, in order to rebuild the dwelling, the existing holding tank must be moved.
The Chair asked the applicant to consider Article 5.3.3., not part of the applicant’s original application but triggered because of the increase in volume of the proposed dwelling. 5.3.3. states that, by special exception, non-conforming structures may be increased in volume, but the expansion must be in a direction away from the nonconforming aspect. The Chair asked the applicant as a matter of clarity to amend the application to include 5.3.3., even though 5.4, already included, refers back to 5.3.3. The applicants agreed.
Mr. Grigsby described in detail how and why the property owner, in conjunction with the abutter and the engineer, are working to upgrade the existing approved septic design. They aim for both environmental and aesthetic improvements by removing two holding tanks, re-piping, and tying in to existing leach fields across Eastside Road, accommodating several properties, and preserving vegetation in the waterfront buffer.
Addressing impervious cover, Mr. Grigsby noted the existing property’s calculation of 50.35%, mostly due to the existing house and driveway. The proposed site conditions lower the impervious cover to 46.04%, making it more nearly conforming. It is the reduction in area of the dwelling, including decks and porches, from 2373SF to 2137SF that reduces impervious cover, roughly a 10% reduction of the footprint. Because the town doesn’t cite walkways in its provisions on impervious cover, Mr. Grigsby later stated that the walkways are not included as part of the project’s impervious cover calculations.
The setbacks, the applicants noted, are as follows: the closest existing point to the nearest property to the north is 4’4”. The next closest existing side setback is 5’9. Relative to Silver Lake, the owners intend to maintain the house on the same plane to provide equal protection to the water. With the proposed narrowing of the house design, roughly 240 square feet of the dwelling will come out of the state’s 50’ lake setback requirement. The closest points to the lake from the north and south corners of the existing dwelling are 20’5” and 20’2”. The proposed design will mean setbacks of 26’7” and 20’2”, so the same setback on the south corner and an increased distance from the north corner due to the shoreline curve. The applicants confirmed that the proposed rotation of a set of stairs on the south side of the dwelling, an area of 21SF, puts a few of them and a sliver of the dwelling just outside the 50’ setback.
The ZBA Chair asked Mr. Grigsby to clarify the two- or three- inch discrepancy between the plan and the application narrative for purposes of the Notice of Decision. Mr. Grigsby advised using the number on the plan.
Support for the project in a letter to the board from the Brauns, abutters to the north, was noted by Mr. Grigsby and confirmed by the Chair as entered into the public record.
The board then moved to the special exception criteria under Article XX, asking the applicants to summarize the detailed project narrative included with their application.
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board agreed there is no change in use, as the existing residential dwelling will remain a residential dwelling.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Mr. Grigsby noted the reduction in encroachments on the adjacent properties and the reduction in footprint, so there will be less dwelling within the waterfront buffer, thus an improvement and no adverse effects. To mitigate the effect of the slight increase in height of the house, Mr. Grigsby pointed to the wall previously constructed along the road to offset stormwater damage and additional vegetation to be planted along the wall and road that will enhance screening and offset the nominal height increase. As part of the property owners’ application to DES, they will submit a stormwater management plan involving dripline infiltration trenches for improved drainage. Groundcover and more native plantings will provide added site improvements.
Any roadwork impact from a new septic system will be handled with the town’s Road Agent and any relevant wetland or steep slope provisions would be addressed through the state shoreland and DES applications and the building permit process.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. No issues or concerns were raised as the project will result in the same traffic flow and driveway layout.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.Mr. Grigsby noted that the new septic design is the critical piece, as are the proposed drainage and walkway enhancements. Best management practices will be implemented for all the work and proposed facilities are in accordance with the shoreland protection act.
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. Grigsby reiterated the more nearly conforming aspects of reduced encroachments relative to setbacks, and reduced footprint and impervious cover. While the property owners can’t change lot size or frontage, they are addressing what can be controlled. The dwelling height will be 4’ below the town’s allowed maximum. There will be no change to the parking, and the improved design for both sanitary protection and shoreland disturbances will be reviewed by the relevant departments at DES.
At 7:50 pm, with no additional comments from the applicants or questions from the public or the board, the Chair closed the public hearing portion to begin board deliberation.
Mr. Sorenson noted that he believes the applicants’ thorough presentation established compliance with each of the criteria, but asked the board whether it agrees with Mr. Grigsby’s arguments justifying the granting of the special exception. If so, he suggested the board adopt the project narrative as findings of fact. Mr. Sorenson then moved that the board adopt the written application, in conjunction with the minutes, as the findings of fact. Andrea Hodson seconded. Members voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Sorenson then read aloud the motion to grant a special exception as follows:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment grants a special exception to George F. and Ann B. Colony to rebuild an existing legally nonconforming structure in a more nearly conforming location on a legally non-conforming lot at 289 Breed Road (Tax Map 72, Lot 5) in accordance with Section 5.3.2, 5.3.3, Section 5.4.1, and Section 15.13.1 of the Harrisville Zoning Ordinance. The existing non-conforming house will be replaced by a new structure that will use the existing footprint as a guide and will result in a more nearly conforming house, in accordance with the detailed plans submitted with the Colonys’ application and applicants’ representations at this hearing. The northeast side setback from the abutting property will be increased from 4’4″ to 7’8.” The height of the proposed dwelling will be increased to 31-feet above grade, from the current 23 feet. The proposed 2,137 sq. ft. dwelling will have a footprint that is 10% smaller than the footprint of the 2,373 sq. ft. of the existing dwelling. The corners of the lakeward elevation of the existing building (measuring 20’-2” at the southwest corner and 23’-10” at the northwest corner from the reference line of Silver Lake) will remain 20’-2” at the southwest corner and 26’-7” at the northwest corner from the reference line of Silver Lake. A condition of the special exception is that the applicants’ project will include a septic system in conformity with State DES requirements and the relevant Town of Harrisville Ordinances.
Rex Baker seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The ZBA voted unanimously, 5-0 in favor.
The Chair noted the Notice of Decision would be forthcoming. The applicants offered, for informational purposes, to furnish the board with a copy of the final septic plan.
New business – Property owner request to sell home-baked goods. The board discussed interest by a property owner on Kadakit Street to sell baked goods, using an easel for signage and a cooler of non-perishable items, and whether zoning review is required.
The board addressed the special exception requirement for home-based business, as well as the language stating “Home produce and products may be bought and sold and exposed for sale in this district, with the town ordinances defining HOME PRODUCE, PRODUCTS, AND CRAFTS as “Everything of an agricultural nature grown, produced, conditioned or otherwise processed on the property of the resident; also such articles as are manufactured or altered by members of the household of a bona fide resident of any property.”
Members cited several examples of home products stands around town, such as for flowers, eggs, cordwood and honey, noting zoning review was not required of those property owners. In order to apply ordinances evenly, the ZBA requests that the Planning Board review and possibly clarify the above language to provide examples of such products but agreed that this particular request to sell home-baked goods, as it meets the state requirements for a “cottage business”, at this time does not require town zoning review
ZBA Minutes of January meeting – Members voted unanimously in favor to approve.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.