Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Meeting Minutes
Members present: Charlie Sorenson Chair, Rex Baker Co-Chair, Patrick Gagne, Hal Grant, Jeff Trudelle
Attendees: Deborah Heath-Rogers, Paul Rogers, Don Scott, Tom Weller
Recording Secretary: Mary Ann Noyer
The Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment met on Wednesday, January 21, 2026 at Town Hall, 705 Chesham Road.
Chair Charles Sorenson opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. He named the voting members for the evening’s business as follows: Hal Grant, Patrick Gagne, Rex Baker, Jeff Trudelle and Charles Sorenson.
He explained the hearing process to the applicants and attendees, whereby the applicants would present their case, the board would ask questions, then solicit comments from abutters, and from members of the public, if any attending,. Finally, the board would deliberate and come to a decision.
Paul Rogers & Deborah Heath-Rogers, 5 Pond Road (Map 51-Lot 21, applying for a special exception under Articles 5.3.3. and 9.1.6. to expand a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot on Harrisville Pond. Representing the property owners, Don Scott referred to the submitted plan and described that the proposed expansion includes adding 495 square feet on the east and west sides of the existing structure. The expansion is for more living space, including a kitchen/dining area to the east and a master bedroom to the west, but would not add any additional bedrooms. The applicants also propose a slight, roofed extension of the deck on the Pond Road, or north side, for an open porch. There would be no changes to the existing pond side deck.
Mr. Scott noted the existing impervious cover percentage is 21.6%. After the additions, the impervious cover percentage will total 25%. The limit under town ordinances is 30%. To the chair’s question whether these calculations include the patio, Mr. Scott stated they do not, as the patio will consist of pervious materials atop a stone/gravel bed, all part of a new groundwater infiltration system. The house will have 18” deep infiltration trenches all around the dripline, with pipes inserted at the bottom directing the runoff to the gravel bed under the pervious patio, creating a reservoir to capture rainwater below grade, which slows the water’s infiltration time into the ground. This reduces any additional surface water created by the structure’s expansion. The deck, however, is included in the impervious cover calculation.
The board and Mr. Scott discussed the difference between driveways, considered impervious under town ordinances, and patios made of pervious materials which can, if the board agrees, be considered permeable. The state accepts pervious systems. The Town’s ordinances, specifically Article 4.1.14., noted the Chair, addresses pervious and impervious cover, stating “in no case shall any parcel or lot have an impervious cover of more than 30% of the total area. The total shall include structural footprint, impervious roadway and any other impervious cover. For purposes of this provision, impervious roadway includes any area installed or used as a driveway, parking area, regardless of surface material.” Therefore, the board cannot consider any driveway pervious, but could consider and accept other areas consisting of pervious materials as pervious.
Mr. Scott then addressed the two relevant ordinances. First, Article 5.3.3., which states: “By special exception, the expansion must be in the direction away from the non-conforming aspect of the structure…for the purposes of this ordinance, open decks are not considered expansions.” He reiterated that the only additional decking is on the roadside. Second, under 9.1.6., “ No dwelling or structure, other than docks or fences, shall be erected closer than seventy-five feet from the high-water mark. In the case of an existing non-conforming structure, no addition shall be made which will be closer to the high-water mark than the nearest part of the existing structure.”
Mr. Sorenson noted the amendment made a couple of years ago to Article 9.1.6., which added the provision that expansions are allowed within the waterfront buffer as long as they are no closer to the high-water mark, and that the property has to be made more nearly conforming than the existing structure or existing conditions of the property. Included in the amendment is an explanation of “more nearly conforming,” which can include “alteration or size of the existing footprint, or redevelopment of the existing conditions of the property, such that the structures of the property are brought into greater conformity with these ordinances.”
The chair noted that, even if the board accepts that the patio is pervious, the structural expansion adds to the overall impervious surface and, thus, this aspect does not bring the proposal into greater conformity overall; however the amendment to 9.1.6. also includes other methods for greater conformity, including “reducing the overall square footage, enhancing stormwater management, adding infiltration areas and landscaping, upgrading wastewater treatment…” Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Scott to further describe the drainage and stormwater management improvements.
Mr. Scott emphasized that the existing conditions on the property contain no stormwater management systems to prevent water from flowing off the property directly into the lake, except the vegetative buffer at the water’s edge. The proposed system of infiltration trenches will capture the stormwater off the existing and expanded roof, the deck, direct it under the deck and into the under-storage area under the patio. In addition raised terracing of the ground will provide additional protection and infiltration. All surface water off all of the impervious areas will be captured.
Addressing the setbacks on the west and east side properties, Mr. Scott noted the closest distance from the existing deck to the property line to the west is 20’ and the closest distance from the proposed expansion is 26’ from the proposed expansion structure to the property line to the west. On the east side, the existing deck is, and will remain, 26’ from the lake and the closest point of the proposed expanded structure is 46’ from the lake and 20 feet from the property line to the east. The expansion also will conform to required setbacks from wetlands under 3,000 square feet, as the house will be 25’ from the wetland on the adjacent property to the east.
Mr. Scott, further explained the calculated distances on the site plan. Addressing an abutter’s question about proximity to the lake, he confirmed that the structure will be no closer than the existing 46’ feet from the shoreline.
He reiterated that the two improvements to make the property more conforming include the landscaped terracing on the lakeside and roadside and the stormwater infiltration system. The Chair asked to what extent the increased roof area would add to the concentration of runoff? Referring to the roof edges depicted on the architectural drawings, Mr. Scott pointed out that all the lines from the existing A-frame and the additions will be directed into the new infiltration trenches, and pointed to the ditching and pipes and landscaped terracing and the direction the runoff will take into the basin area under the patio. Tom Weller added that the new dormer falls within the existing footprint, so it’s not adding water.
Mr. Scott then addressed volume, noting the exiting volume totals 10,625 cubic feet and the proposed structure would be 18,686 cubic feet, a roughly 40% increase. The board asked about the proposed height and architect Tom Weller confirmed it will remain 26.5’, no higher than the existing height. The maximum height allowed under the ordinances is 35’.
Addressing abutters’ concerns about adequacy of the woodland buffer, the property owner shared photos of the existing vegetation, noting the only cutting he has done is of overhanging branches on his side of the property line. Mrs. Rogers noted there hadn’t been any cutting in several years so they trimmed the low-hanging branches. The applicants pointed out the property line within the vegetative buffer and relative to the ditch that runs from the road down south toward the lake. The one tree where the Rogers did remove branches is on their property.
The board then discussed views from the adjacent properties and from the lake and how an expanded structure might affect these views. The applicants noted the abutters to the west are further out on the lake and would not have clear views of their house and the view from the lake is of the house on a slant, so there would be a skewed view of the expanded structure, seeing mostly the corner of the existing deck and the existing A-frame. There is also a vegetative buffer on the east side. To the concern of the abutter in that direction regarding any proposed tree cutting, Mr. Scott noted he doesn’t believe any will be needed; if it is, it must be done according to the required point system under the state shoreland protection act.
An outdoor shower and a bulkhead into the basement will be installed on the east side, off the kitchen/dining addition.
Addressing an abutter concern whether the new dormer area would eventually become a new bedroom, the chair confirmed that the existing septic system from 2018 has a 2-bedroom capacity and the proposed structure will contain 2 bedrooms, the same as currently exists. Don Scott turned to the 2nd story floor plan, pointing to hall space, new windows and a study area. The architect explained that the dormer is required for headroom to ascend the stairs. The existing bedroom is being remodeled into a new master bedroom, not an additional bedroom. They hope to make usable space out of the existing upstairs area, which is not usable.
The board turned to the required criteria for a special exception under Article 20.1.2., as follows:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. Members noted the structure is currently a dwelling and will remain one, and the proposed structure will be no closer to the lake. The proposed structure also meets the side setback requirements and wetland buffer requirements.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Mr. Scott noted the new structure will be the same use with the same number of bedrooms, two, and the side woodland areas will remain as is.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. There is no expansion toward the road, and existing parking locations will remain as is. There will be no effect on traffic along Pond Road. Members raised no concerns.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Mr. Scott noted the existing septic is a 2-bedroom system and the new structure also will have 2 bedrooms. The existing well also is adequate to accommodate the expanded living space.
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. Mr. Scott confirmed the proposal complies with frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, and sanitary requirements, and the only waiver being sought is for the 75’ setback from the lake.
The board had no additional questions or comments. Mr. Weller added that the purpose of the project is to provide the opportunity for the homeowners to age in place. It currently is a cramped space for full-time living.
The board entered the deliberative session, considering 5.3.3 and whether the expansion is away from the non-conforming aspect. Members noted the expansion is parallel to the lake. On a prior, similar application, the board concluded that a parallel expansion was not considered an expansion in the direction of the pond. Mr. Sorenson reiterated that the parallel expansion here keeps the house at the existing 46’ distance from Harrisville Pond. Mr. Baker noted it’s an expansion of volume and footprint within the nonconforming aspect even if going no closer. Considering Article 9.1.6., the board noted it seems to allow the expansion, as long as the structure does not extend closer to the highwater mark. The chair believes that these articles were considered together in past decisions. All agreed, particularly considering the proposed improvements.
On Article 9.1.6., the board unanimously agreed that the stormwater management measures render the proposal more nearly conforming. They then addressed the Article XX provisions.
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board unanimously agreed the structure is in essentially the same location relative, and no closer, to the pond; it’s within the setbacks, including the wetland.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The board cited the vegetative screening that exists, the infiltration trenches and dripline to be installed. Regarding abutter concerns about the view from the pond, the board did not see the expansion affecting this, as it is not so large or intrusive, and will be no taller. Members unanimously agreed.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The board agreed and had no concerns.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The board unanimously agreed that, based on the representation that it is a 2-bedroom house and will remain a 2-bedroom house, the existing septic and well facilities are adequate.
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 only requirement being waived is the 75’ setback from the pond to 46’. All agreed.
The deliberations concluded, Mr. Sorenson moved that, Based on the final plans submitted on January 15, 2025, I move to grant a special exception under Articles 5.3., 9.1.6 and 20.12 for the construction of a 516 square feet addition to the existing structure at 5 Pond Road (Map 51 – Lot 21), which will have a total of two bedrooms. The expansion will be a minimum of 46 feet from Harrisville Pond. It will meet the 15 feet side setbacks and 25 feet wetlands setback under the Harrisville Zoning Ordinances. The project will employ the water drainage and infiltration measures depicted on the January 15, 2026 plan submitted by the applicants. Rex Baker seconded. The board voted 5-0 in favor.
A Shoreland Permit application will be submitted to the state and must be approved before a building permit is issued.
Minutes of the previous meeting, August 2025, and related Notice of Decision – Members approved the minutes as prepared. Mr. Sorenson raised that, in the meeting and in the Notice of Decision, the board applied the criteria under one provision of Article XII related to undeveloped areas versus developed land, which the application involved; however, in the meeting minutes and the Notice of Decision, in the course of applying the wrong provision, the board did address all of the factors that satisfy the correct provision, Article 12.9. The board came to the conclusions that met the criteria, but used 12.9.4. Given that all of the relevant criteria were considered, the board was satisfied that the correct decision was reached but that discussion by the board was important.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.