Zoning Board
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Meeting Minutes
Members present: Charlie Sorenson Chair, Rex Baker Vice Chair, Ed Tibbetts Alternate, Patrick Gagne, Andrea Hodson Select Board Representative, Hal Grant Alternate, Mary Ann Noyer Alternate
Attendees: John Cucchi, Anne Cucchi, Abigail Abrash Walton, Paul Clark, Don Scott
The meeting opened at 7:00 pm. Chair Charles Sorenson introduced the board and subsequently invited Paul Clark of the Affordable Housing Group to speak about that committee’s initiative.
Affordable Housing Group – Mr. Clark shared the implementation efforts under way by the 9 members of the housing team. With an eye to reversing declining school enrollment and lowering the average age of the town’s population, the Affordable Housing Team is aiming to create more housing options and, to do this, aims to propose zoning ordinance changes by working with the Planning Board and its Ordinance Review Committee. The AHG also seeks guidance and input from the ZBA.
The board then proceeded with the following matter:
Cucchi Family Revocable Trust, Dublin Road (Map 30 – Lot 32-11-1) applying for a special exception under Article 12.9.4 to construct a 45-foot by 60-foot dwelling within the 100’ wetland setback and a variance under Article 6.1.3. to construct the dwelling within the 40’ side property line.
Chairman Sorenson opened the hearing at 7:15 pm, noting the voting members would include himself, Rex Baker, Andrea Hodson, Patrick Gagne and Ed Tibbetts.
The applicants submitted a formal request, filed with the Recording Secretary, for recusal by ZBA member Andrea Hodson, due to her role as a SB member in matters leading to litigation between the Cucchis and the Town and to her husband’s position as a trustee of Historic Harrisville, whom the Cucchis claim acted against their interests in prior property matters. The Chair reviewed the recusal process. Ms. Hodson agreed to recuse, but only on the basis of her position as a Select Board member and not the second ground cited. The Chair then named Alternate Mary Ann Noyer as a voting member.
Anne Cucchi then summarized the Cucchis’ request for relief, filed on behalf of the abutting landowner to the west and prospective buyer of the lot, to construct a dwelling 40’ from a delineated wetland to the east and 20’ from the side property line to the west. The Cucchis have a purchase and sales agreement with the abutter; it is the prospective buyer who will build the dwelling. The Cucchis request zoning relief that will “run with the land” such that, upon future transfer of property, any zoning approvals also would be transferred. The Chair requested a copy of the confirmation of the prospective purchase, which the applicants agreed to furnish.
The applicants and prospective buyer obtained a shared driveway permit, issued by the NH DOT and submitted as part of the application. John Cucchi noted the location on the submitted plat.
Separately, Mr. Cucchi confirmed that the septic location delineated on the plat was a possible location for the purpose of the subdivision approval from the Planning Board in 2018, but is not the actual location for any proposed system. That would be pursued separately with DES, and is a condition of the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant explained that, without special exception relief under Article 12.9.4., the Dublin Road lot that was buildable prior to the enactment of the 2021 Wetlands Conservation ordinances is effectively unbuildable, due to the adoption of the zoning amendments. The Cucchis noted on the plat how the wetland buffer requirements restrict development options and pointed to the submitted photos to show the location of the culvert relative to the proposed location of the dwelling. They emphasized that the wetland is seasonal and man-made, deriving from spring snowmelt draining onto their lot through the DOT-installed culvert under Dublin Road. The Cucchis stated that the wetland conditions have remained as they are since the 1970s, when the culvert was built, and they know how the water runs, and how to stay away from it. The wetlands as depicted on the site plan were delineated in 2006 by a certified wetland soil scientist.
Special Exception criteria
Addressing the special exception uses under Article 12.9., allowed under certain conditions, Anne Cucchi argued that the following required conditions exist:
12.9.4.1. The lot upon which an exception is sought was an official lot of record, as recorded in the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds, prior to the date on which this amendment was posted and published in the Town. The applicant stated that the lot was approved by the Harrisville Planning Board in 2018 and recorded in May 2019 at the Cheshire Co. Registry of Deeds, two years prior to the 2021 adoption of the Wetlands Conservation District ordinance instituting a 100’ wetland setback.
12.9.4.2. The use for which the exception is sought cannot feasibly be carried out on a portion or portions of the lot, which are outside the wetlands conservation district. The applicants noted the buffer encompasses nearly the entire buildable area of the lot, as the average distance between the wetland and the 40’ side setback requirement is only 80 feet, leaving no feasible area for a compliant structure. The applicants don’t feel it’s reasonably possible to develop the lot without a special exception.
The ZBA returned to the plat to explore any alternatives to the proposed location. Mr. Cucchi noted that development could occur off of the privately owned Loyd Lane, but not without a lot line adjustment and development of a third house in that area, which already has two new houses, and likely a 200’ road, conditions which could cause additional runoff into the lake. Further, the applicants explained, steep slopes exist between this northerly portion of the lot, and the southerly, flatter portion, which is the more private location of the proposed dwelling.
12.9.4.3. Because of the provisions of the District, no reasonable and economically viable use of the lot can be made without the exception. Ms. Cucchi stated that, without the relief, the 100’ buffer effectively prohibits reasonable and economically viable use of the lot. They worked with the PB in 2018 to avoid long driveways and encroachments into steep slopes and to avoid direct disturbance to wetlands. The wetland area lies entirely on the east side of the lot and the driveway is shared, in order to avoid the wetland. Thus, the only feasible building envelope falls within the required 100’ buffer, requiring relief for reasonable and economic use of the property.
12.9.4.4. The design and construction of the proposed use will, to the extent practical, be consistent with the purpose and intent of this article. Based on the submission of a letter from an abutter concerned about the wetland encroachment, the Chair asked about the proposed size of the dwelling, 2700 square feet, and if it could be reduced. The applicants described it as a modest ranch-style home, one-story with an attached garage. ZBA member Rex Baker asked if the house could be rotated, or oriented to reduce the encroachment. Other members noted the resulting loss of sun exposure along the longer wall by changing the orientation, and also the resulting need to shorten the length of the garage. The applicants noted the resulting loss in the lake view. The Cucchis also had previously noted that the proposed encroachment in the side setback was intended to minimize the wetland encroachment.
12.9.4.5. The proposed use will not create a hazard to individual or public health, safety and welfare, due to the loss of wetland, the contamination of groundwater, or other reason. The Cucchis reiterated that the wetlands are seasonal and due to the culvert under Dublin Road as depicted in the wetland delineation. The applicants are not proposing to build within the wetland area, drain, dredge or disturb it any way. The septic system will be designed by a licensed designer and reviewed by DES, ensuring no contamination to groundwater.
Submitted with the application was a soil survey conducted n 2004 by Brackett Geosciences to ascertain any risk from development. The report indicated no risk to health or safety or to nearby wells or groundwater, due to modern septic design, soil makeup, and natural geology which directs groundwater flow. The applicants also referred to a high intensity soil survey conducted on the original 13-acre parent parcel, which included a detailed mapping of the subject lot. The study denotes that the area proposed to be developed contains fairly well-drained “Agawam” soil and without wetland.
The ZBA then turned to the Article XX criteria for a special exception, as follows:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The subject lot is in the town’s residential / agricultural district and contains acreage and frontage in excess of the required amounts. The proposed development is for a single family residence. No excavation, filling, dredging or development will occur in or on any wetlands.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The lots created in the 2018 subdivision were designed to avoid disturbing any wetlands. The wetlands on lot 30-32-11-1 are on the property’s east side and the proposed use avoids any impact on them. The geological study confirmed that risks will be mitigated through standard septic design and the site’s geological features will act as buffers to abutters and the nearby spring. there is no risk to adjacent areas from residential development.
In addition, to minimize any impact, development will involve best practices, such as minimizing disturbed areas during construction, use of erosion and sediment controls during construction, inspection of controls, preservation of the existing tree canopy and restoration immediately after completion of construction. The board reviewed further details about stormwater management measures for runoff from the house. The property owner will install a 30’L x 2’W x 3’D infiltration trench of crushes stone and perforated pipe on north side of the house and a dry well adjacent to the garage. These features are designed for a 4”, 25-year rainstorm event. The driveway will contain pervious gravel for infiltration and existing vegetation will help reduce runoff and erosion. Average slope is 4% from the road toward the house and not toward the wetland.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Ms. Cucchi noted the driveway permit was approved by the DOT and parking will be on the lot.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The single family residence will be supported by a state-approved septic system and well.
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 dwelling complies with the frontage, minimum land area, 50’ setback from the public right of way, sanitation and parking requirements. The applicant seeks a waiver from the 100’ wetland buffer requirement instituted after the lot was created.
The Chair emphasized that waiving the setback from the wetland does not include a waiver for the side setback, which requires a variance. He then opened the floor for public comment.
Abutter Abigail Abrash asked about the exact location of the proposed driveway and house relative to her lot and driveway across Dublin Road. The applicants noted that the vegetative screening between the house and road will remain for privacy, other than the couple of trees that the DOT asked to have removed for the driveway.
To a question about the need for a pipe in the infiltration trench, the board and applicants discussed the purpose of it. The Cucchis believe such stormwater management systems are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas but that the wetland on their lot does not fall into the category of an organic, naturally sensitive area containing hydric soils and wetland wildlife, and that the existing topography suffices for stormwater drainage even without the proposed additional runoff measures. The additional system is a good-faith effort to demonstrate commitment to low-impact development but don’t feel it should be mandatory.
The Cucchis also pointed to the 2014 Master Plan’s encouragement of a town-wide wetland delineation but they are not aware that any has ever been conducted. Yet, in the absence of the inventory, the 2021 Wetlands Ordinance instituted a 100’ wetland buffer that encompasses much of their lot, that does not contain wetlands designated as prime. The state has no setback for wetlands, except for the 7 prime wetlands in the state, whereas Harrisville requires a 100’ setback from a culvert wetland, severely restricting development on a lot that was created and approved for buildability.
The Chair acknowledged the applicants’ position and frustration, but noted the board’s obligation to work within the existing ordinances and to apply them to the best of the board’s ability and interpretation in this particular situation. The applicants raised the issue of prior discrimination against them and the $53,000 in costs they incurred for studies and tests not required of other property owner applicants. They ask for procedural fairness and that the ordinances be applied consistently. Mr. Sorenson reiterated the board’s narrow jurisdiction and explained his position that the proposed stormwater measures will protect the wetland and area downhill from the proposed development. He emphasized that the board has sufficient and concrete information before it to make a decision under the regulations.
As a final point, the applicants pointed to the housing crisis and efforts to create more housing that are hindered by overly restrictive zoning ordinances. Mr. Sorenson noted that the undertaking of changes to the ordinances is the purview of the Planning Board or Select Board, not the ZBA. He subsequently closed the public portion of the meeting for the board to begin deliberations.
Board deliberation on Special Exception criteria
12.9.4.1. The lot upon which an exception is sought was an official lot of record, as recorded in the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds, prior to the date on which this amendment was posted and published in the Town. Members unanimously agreed the lot existed prior to the enactment of the overlay district.
12.9.4.2. The use for which the exception is sought cannot feasibly be carried out on a portion or portions of the lot, which are outside the wetlands conservation district. The board agreed that building on the northern portion of the lot would be burdensome and less desirable due to the existing topography and development.
12.9.4.3. Because of the provisions of the District, no reasonable and economically viable use of the lot can be made without the exception. Members noted the costs would increase considerably and more environmental impact would result should the proposed dwelling be located where a special exception would not be required.
12.9.4.4. The design and construction of the proposed use will, to the extent practical, be consistent with the purpose and intent of this article. Mr. Sorenson reviewed the specific purposes of the ordinance and noted the proposed particular construction and its location address the factors outlined in the article, avoiding pollution of groundwater or any adverse effect on the wetland or water resource supplies. The board determined that the application materials and review of the special exception criteria further address the purposes of the ordinances. Members also agreed that the wetland is drainage, not naturally occurring, and the result of the DOT’s installation of the culvert which included no provisions for where and how the water would exit on the north side of Dublin Road.
12.9.4.5. The proposed use will not create a hazard to individual or public health, safety and welfare, due to the loss of wetland, the contamination of groundwater, or other reason. Members agreed that additional purposes of prime wetland protection were not felt to be relevant due to the above description in this particular case.
Turning to the Article XX criteria, the board considered each as follows:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. Members agreed the approved lot in the Residential/Agricultural district is appropriate as designated and located in the application.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Regarding the adjacent areas, members pointed to the abutter as the willing proposed buyer and to the proposed location given the topography. Mr. Baker reiterated his singular concern as to the orientation of the house, but the Chair, in weighing any gain from minimizing encroachment, didn’t feel it was enough to justify a condition for reconfiguration of the 45’ x 60’ envelope.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Members unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Members agreed that the state approved septic and well, and proposed stormwater management measures addressed the appropriate facilities needed.
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 emphasized the board would not be waiving any requirements other than for the wetland setback, which could not be closer than 40’ as submitted in the plan.
Mr. Tibbetts then moved to grant a special exception from the 100’ wetland buffer zone and that the structure should be built 40’ from the delineated wetland, and further that the special exception is contingent upon the Purchase and Sales Agreement from Bill Gordon and also contingent upon the project’s compliance with the submitted plans as represented by the applicants with respect to stormwater management and all aspects addressed in the narrative. Rex Baker seconded. The board voted unanimously in favor.
Variance from 40’ side setback
Anne Cucchi described their request for relief from the 40’ setback requirement under Article 6.1.3. to locate the dwelling 20’ from the side property line, to avoid any closer proximity to the wetland. She addressed the variance 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. The applicants argued the lack of negative effect on surrounding properties, as the proposed house is modest and consistent with those in the area.
20.1.3.2. The grant of the variance requested would not be contrary to the public interests. The Cucchis noted the abutting owner is the purchaser of the lot.
20.1.3.3. By granting the variance requested, substantial justice would be done. The applicants noted the granting of the variance will allow reasonable use of the land and denial would cause a hardship with no noticeable public gain.
20.1.3.4. The requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The applicants noted the intent of the development is to minimize density, in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. The owner will also maintain vegetation for privacy purposes.
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. The Cucchis reiterated that the hardship is a result of the Wetlands Ordinance and that moving the proposed dwelling further from the side property line would defeat the purpose of wetland protections.
Mr. Sorenson noted that the combination of the culvert’s dumping onto the property and the resulting wetland distinguishes this property from other similarly situated properties, and for that reason the applicants make a case for hardship.
Board deliberation on variance criteria
With no comments from the public, the board considered the variance criteria.
20.1.3.1. Members agreed there was no diminution in surrounding property values.
20.1.3.2. The grant of the variance allowing the house to be constructed closer to the side setback and away from the wetland was deemed by the board to be in the public interest.
20.1.3.3. In the balancing test for substantial justice, members agreed it would be done.
20.1.3.4. Members agreed the spirit of the setback ordinance is to avoid intrusion onto neighboring properties. In this case, the neighbor will be intruding upon himself and will have the option to develop that land with this in mind.
20.1.3.5. Unnecessary hardship. Members agreed the proposed use is a reasonable one and that the case for hardship owing to the conditions of the property was made by the applicants.
Mr. Sorenson then moved to grant a variance to locate the structure as depicted in the application no closer than 20 ‘ from the side property line to the west, and the location of the structure shall be 50’ from the public right of way and no closer than 20’ from the side property line. Mr. Baker seconded. All voted in favor.
The Chair noted the board needs the signed Purchase and Sales Agreement in order to issue the Notice of Decision and formal approval.
Minutes of February and May meetings – The board unanimously approved both sets of minutes.
New business – Don Scott asked about the expiration date for the Worden special exception. The chair noted it is good for two years from last hearing on the matter, which occurred February 19, 2025. Any extension requires an application from the property owner and a public hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.