The ZBA issued two notices of decision based on public hearings held on July 15, 2026. They are as follows:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Notice of Decision
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Don & Kathy Scott, 144 Main Street (Map 30 – Lot 63), applied 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 confirmed that the addition meets all the stated requirements relative to the required 15’ side setbacks and road setback, as well as to the 100’ required wetland buffer. 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 previously submitted to the board. Under the revised plan 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 applied 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. The board agreed. 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 board 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.
Accordingly, the board granted 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Sorenson, Chair
Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 23, 2023
***
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Notice of Decision
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Jason & Emily Golden, 241 Skatutakee Road (Map 20-Lot 57) applied for a variance from Article 15.13. to construct an open deck within 50 feet of Lake Skatutakee. The proposed change to the footprint and the deck would be no closer to the lake than the existing dwelling, but according to the plan, the dwelling is 32 feet from the water.
Article XV, the Shoreland Overlay District, supersedes other provisions in the town ordinances that are relevant to the project. It states; “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.”
Therefore, a variance from this provision would be required in order for the proposed location closer than 50 feet from Lake Skatutakee to be allowed. For the Zoning Board of Adjustment (“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.
To grant a variance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) specifically must find that:
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.
Under RSA 674:33 defining unnecessary hardship
(b)(1) For purposes of subparagraph I(a)(2)(E), “unnecessary hardship” means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:
(A) No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property; and
(B) The proposed use is a reasonable one.
(2) If the criteria in subparagraph (1) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.
The key issues are whether there is another possible location for the deck and is the property somehow distinct from other similarly situated properties.
Given this, the ZBA considered whether an alternative location for constructing a deck of the proposed 6’ x 20’ dimensions, outside the 50’ limit on the side of the house deck would be possible, such as off the west façade, where a distance of 50’ from the water appears to be possible. The applicant acknowledged that it would be possible but less desirable because of the existing trees, patios and walkways that interfere with doing so.
The board, applying the required criteria, determined that the unnecessary hardship criteria were not met in this instance given the lack of uniqueness of the property and the existence of an alternative location outside the 50’ limit of Article 15.13.2.1 Therefore, the variance was denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Sorenson, Chair
Harrisville Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 23, 2023