Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, July 16, 2025
Meeting Minutes
The Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment met on Wednesday, July 16, 2025 for a site visit followed by a public hearing at the Town Offices, 705 Chesham Road, in Harrisville.
Members present: Charlie Sorenson, Rex Baker, Ed Tibbetts, Jeff Trudelle, Patrick Gagne and Hal Grant
Members of the public: Ashley Tucker, Caleb Blackwell, Jeff Grant (public hearing only) and Sean Grant (public hearing only)
Site visit
At 6:30 pm, members convened for a site visit at 788 NH Route 137, for the purpose of viewing the proposed location for a garage and of ascertaining the conditions and features of the property. The ZBA viewed the proximity of the proposed garage to the side boundary, to the road/public right of way, and to the wetlands on the abutting property owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. They also viewed the septic and well locations and ascertained the distance of the proposed garage relative to these and to the existing dwelling and driveway layout.
Following the site visit, members convened at Town Hall to consider the following:
Ashley & Chad Tucker, 788 NH Route 137 (Map 10 – Lot 27-4) applying for a special exception under Article 12.9.4 of the Harrisville Zoning Ordinances to locate a detached 2-car garage with attached carport within the 100-foot wetland buffer. The applicants also seek a variance under Article 6.1.3 to locate the 40’ x 42’ structure within the side setback.
The voting members for the evening were noted as Jeff Trudelle, Pat Gagne, Rex Baker, Ed Tibbetts and Charlie Sorenson.
Relief from the wetland setback
Mr. Sorenson opened the hearing with the matter of the special exception under 12.9.4 for encroachment in the wetland buffer, specifically for locating the accessory structure 50’ from the wetland edge, when the required setback is 100 feet.
Applicant and property owner Ashley Tucker explained that the location was chosen due to the several factors on the property that make alternative locations difficult. To locate the garage in front of the house and closer to the road, in full compliance with the ordinances, would require removing trees and boulders, rerouting and enlarging the driveway, and excavating for a frost-wall foundation due to the soil conditions. The applicant felt such a location would have a more detrimental environmental impact, would be far more costly and would be less directly accessible from the house.
The board noted that, due to the size of the garage, town building regulations for construction on Alaskan slabs may require either reducing the size or constructing a full foundation with frost walls. This issue would be addressed by the building inspector prior to issuance of a building permit.
The chair returned to the purpose of the wetlands ordinance, which is to protect the wetlands from intrusion, adverse development and surface and stormwater runoff. He asked the applicant how the garage would be oriented and what provisions have been made to treat runoff. Ms. Tucker noted the roof would be pitched such that runoff would not travel in the direction of the wetlands; however, while no plans have been made thus far to address stormwater off the building, they could be considered. The board advised the applicant that measures must be taken to prevent sediment runoff into the wetland, and to prevent erosion, during construction. The applicant agreed.
A representative from the abutting Army Corps of Engineers spoke to their position, not in opposing the project, but to notify the owners of generic concerns related to development impacts on wetlands and liability should any environmental issue ensue. The ZBA chair confirmed with the applicant that no activity other than storage would occur in the structure.
ZBA members then offered stormwater treatment options, including a drainage swale or other mechanisms to direct runoff away from the wetland and foster permeability on the applicant’s lot. Mr. Sorenson noted such measures could be conditions required as part of a special exception. Members also noted the soil conditions in the proposed location appear porous and favorable for such on site permeability.
Continuing to address the criteria under 12.9.4., the board confirmed that the project would not result in any loss of wetland or contamination of any kind, or pose any hazard to individual or public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Tibbetts noted it is a customary use of a garage, for storage and vehicles in a residential zone and a use that would pose no danger or contamination.
Turning to the special exception under Article XX, the board considered the following:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The chair noted the proposed use is a garage next to a house in the residential agricultural district, with adequate acreage and frontage, and that no excavation or dredging would occur at the proposed location.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed would not adversely affect the adjacent area. Mr. Sorenson stated that the natural vegetation and terrain provide a buffer between the subject lot and the closest abutter, and that the proposed garage location lies on a flat area, with no slope toward the wetland. He added that the board does not consider the expected rainwater emanating from the garage roof to be substantial.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board noted the proposed location is as far from the public way as reasonably possible.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The chair returned to the board’s earlier comments about measures to manage runoff, whether a swale or catch basin or drainage trench.
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 relevant language for this aspect of the project is the waiving of the 100’ setback requirement to consider a special exception for 50’; the board otherwise found the proposal complies.
Mr. Blackwell from the Army Corps noted they like to inform adjacent property owners that their wetlands, following unusual amounts of rainfall, can rise over their 950’ boundary and reach abutting properties, possibly flooding a basement or reaching foundations, though he noted this doesn’t seem relevant or an issue here.
The chair closed the public hearing portion for board deliberation. Members noted that the delineation of the wetlands surrounding the property and the specific site conditions on the lot, including the location of the septic and well, the soil conditions in the front of the property and flatter, more optimal conditions in the proposed location rendered the proposed garage site the most reasonable and viable. The proposed location was considered by the board to have the least impact. The cost of the project was also considered to be significantly more by trying to construct the garage in front of the house instead of to the side and rear.
Voting on 12.9.4.2., the board unanimously agreed that the project could not feasibly be carried out on a portion of the lot outside the wetlands overlay district. The board also unanimously agreed that, under 12.9.4.3., the proposed location is the most reasonable and economically viable.
Under 12.9.4.4., the chair suggested that, for the design and construction to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the wetlands ordinance, conditions should be attached regarding stormwater control measures to keep runoff from traveling toward the wetlands. Members unanimously agreed to include the conditions.
The board had no issues or concerns related to 12.9.4.5. agreeing that the project poses no hazard to public health or safety, no loss of wetland, and no threat of contamination.
With no further discussion, Mr. Tibbetts moved to grant the special exception from the 100’ wetland setback to a 50’ setback, conditioned upon the applicant’s developing a rainwater control system along the side facing the wetlands, and that the structure will be built consistent with town ordinances for foundations. Jeff Trudelle seconded. The board voted 5-0 in favor.
Relief for the side setback
Following up on a question raised at the site visit, the ZBA asked the applicant if the garage could be moved 5’ further away from the side setback such that, under 6.1.3., a special exception rather than a variance would be required. Ms. Tucker agreed that they will move it 5’, such that the distance from the side boundary would be 25’ rather than 20’.
With the confirmation, the board addressed the special exception criteria under Article XX.
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. Mr. Sorenson pointed out that, under Article 6.1.3., auxiliary structures can by special exception be located 25’ from the side setback, further noting that, in this case, the lot line is well-screened, in keeping with the purpose of side setbacks to avoid density and protect privacy. All agreed.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed would not adversely affect the adjacent area. With the setback and the screening, the board agreed there was no adverse effect. The chair also noted the letter of support from the abutter who had no concerns with the initial proposal to locate the garage within 20’; thus, it’s reasonable to assume that a 25’ setback would be agreeable as well.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Members unanimously agreed, particularly given the distance of the structure from the road.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. All agreed.
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 unanimously agreed the proposed use was in compliance, with no waiver other than to grant the special exception to be 25’ from the side boundary.
Mr. Sorenson then moved to grant a special exception to locate the garage 25’ from the side setback to the south of the property. Mr. Tibbetts seconded. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
The board will issue a notice of decision outlining the conditions of the approval.
Minutes of previous meeting
Members approved the minutes of the June meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 pm.