Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Meeting Minutes
ZBA Members present: Charlie Sorenson Chair, Rex Baker Vice Chair, Hal Grant, Jeff Trudelle, Mary Ann Noyer
ZBA Members absent: Edward Tibbetts, Patrick Gagne
Attendees: Michael Amato, Emily Golden, Jason Golden, Don Scott
Recording Secretary: Mary Ann Noyer
Chair Charles Sorenson opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. After introducing the board and explaining procedural protocol, the chair named the five ZBA members present as the voting members for the two matters before the board.
Jason & Emily Golden, 241 Skatutakee Road (Map 20-Lot 57) applying for a variance from Article 15.13. to construct an open deck within 50 feet of Lake Skatutakee. Mr. Golden referred to the plan submitted with the application, denoting the proposed location and dimensions of an L-shaped open deck to be attached to the north and west facing facades. He noted there is no proposed change to the footprint and the deck would be no closer to the lake than the existing dwelling. According to the plan, the dwelling is 32 feet from the water.
The Chair referred to Article XV, the Shoreland Overlay District, which supersedes other provisions in the town ordinances that are relevant to the project. Article 15.13.2. reads Open decks as additions to existing nonconforming structures and which are proposed within the seventy-five (75) foot setback requirement are permitted conditioned on:
15.13.2.1. Maintaining a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet.
In order for the ZBA to grant a variance, the property owner must demonstrate unique conditions on the property which separate it from other similar properties. The applicants must demonstrate how and why it would be unfair to them to be denied the variance, such that they would be deprived of a reasonable use of their property. The chair noted that decks almost never meet the hardship requirement for location closer than 50 feet from the water.
Given this, the Chair asked if an alternative location for the deck were possible, such as off the west façade, where a distance of 50’ from the water appears to be possible without action by the ZBA? The applicant stated that existing trees, a fire pit and a patio would need to be removed, making this difficult.
The board addressed the applicants’ question as to how other decks around the lake are allowed, explaining that the Shoreland Overlay ordinances were enacted exactly because of environmental and aesthetic concerns about development too close to the water and to prevent any such further similar development. The existing structures were built prior to the enactment of these stricter provisions.
Mr. Sorenson then discussed all the Article XX criteria required to grant a variance, including:
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.
20.1.3.2. The grant of the variance requested would not be contrary to the public interests.
20.1.3.3. By granting the variance requested, substantial justice would be done.
20.1.3.4. The requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
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.
Focusing on the unnecessary hardship criteria, he again explained to the Goldens that there has to be something unique about the property, such as steep slopes or an outcropping, that would present extreme barriers to locating the deck elsewhere. The key issue is whether there is another possible location for the deck and is the property somehow distinct from others.
Mr. Golden noted that practically speaking having the deck in a different location prevents them from enjoying the lake, the reason other owners have their decks directly overlooking the lake. Though not extending closer to the lake, Mr. Sorenson explained that it’s a matter of limiting anything from being built within 50’ of the water.
The applicants wondered how the ZBA had previously approved a project, never implemented, for this parcel and the prior owners that involved removal and replacement of the entire dwelling, while their current proposal is minor? Attendee Don Scott, who had worked on that project, reminded the board that it was an approved special exception to reconstruct the dwelling further back from the lake, pulling it out of the 50’ setback. With the current application to construct within the 50’ setback, the chair explained, different provisions, the Article XV provisions, are triggered. If a deck already existed there, it would be allowed to continue but, without that, the 50’ requirement prevents it, unless a variance is granted. The ZBA emphasized that it is bound by these regulations and by an applicant’s ability to meet all the criteria.
Beginning deliberation, the board asked itself, given all the required criteria, whether not granting a variance in this situation rises to the level of a hardship. They reviewed in depth, with the applicants, the existing conditions of the parcel and whether or not constructing a deck of the proposed 6’ x 20’ dimensions, outside the 50’ limit on the side of the house versus directly on the lakeside, were possible. The applicants cited the existing trees, patios and walkways that interfere with doing so.
Voting on 20.1.2.5., the board voted unanimously 5-0 that the hardship criteria was not met in this instance. Therefore, the variance could not be granted.
Don & Kathy Scott, 144 Main Street (Map 30 – Lot 63), applying for a special exception under Article 5.4.1. and 5.3.3. to construct an 8.5’x31’ addition on the rear of the house for living space. The lot is nonconforming, due to its size and less than required road frontage for the village residential district. The Scotts propose to expand the volume of their dwelling in a direction away from the nonconforming aspects in the sense that they are not encroaching on side, rear or road setbacks, and the proposed addition meets the 100’ wetland setback requirement as depicted in the site plan.
The board referred to the submitted plans and Mr. Scott pointed to the existing and proposed conditions. He noted the proposed location of the addition relative to the required 15’ side setbacks and road setback, as well as to the 100’ required wetland buffer. The board confirmed that the addition meets all the stated requirements. Mr. Scott noted the additional requirement of a minimum 5’ setback from the septic tank, which triggered the need for a revision to the plan, submitted to the board and dated July 15, 2026.
The revised location of the addition’s foundation will go on the beam of the el, attached to the main section of the dwelling, so that the 5’ requirement can be met. Separately, the board confirmed that the height of the addition will not exceed 12’.
The ZBA turned to the special exception criteria under Article XX, as follows:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board confirmed the residential use is not changing.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Mr. Scott reiterated that there is no change in use or number of bedrooms, and the board confirmed that the addition meets the front, back, side and wetland buffer setbacks, as well as the impervious cover limit.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Given the proposed location in the rear of the house, and no change in use, the board agreed.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The chair noted that the septic tank location has caused an adjustment in the foundation location as depicted on the plan submitted 7/15/2026 and this is the plan the ZBA is addressing.
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 confirmed that the only waiver being sought refers to an addition on a nonconforming lot under 5.4.1., allowable as long as the conditions under 5.3.3. are satisfied.
ZBA members had no additional questions and confirmed that no questions or concerns were raised by abutters. Members further unanimously agreed that all the conditions under 20.1.2. are met.
Mr. Sorenson then moved to grant a special exception under 5.4.1 and Article 20.1.2. to build a new 8.5’ x 31’ addition (263.5 SF) on the back of the existing dwelling structure at 144 Main Street, Harrisville, NH, in conformity with the revised 7/15/2026 plans, materials and applicants’ presentation to the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 15, 2026. The height will not exceed 12 ft. The structure will meet all side, rear, septic tank and 100 feet wetland setback requirements, as well as the 30% impervious cover limits. Rex Baker seconded. The board voted 5-0 in favor.
Other business
The ZBA Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2026 were unanimously approved.
At this time, members returned to address questions from the Goldens relative to the plans approved for the prior owners of 241 Skatutakee Road. The board confirmed that the special exception to relocate structure was approved in December 2023 and expired in December 2025. A more recent survey confirms the current measured distances from the lake, which differ from the measurements in the 2023 plans.
The board further noted that to construct a deck in conformity with the Article XV Shoreland ordinances and all other setbacks and ordinances would require a building permit only.
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm.