Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Meeting Minutes
On Wednesday, August 19, 2026 the Harrisville Zoning Board met at 6:15 pm for a site visit at the Breed Road property owned by 211 Breed Road, LLC, followed by a public hearing at Town Hall.
ZBA members present: Charles Sorenson Chair, Rex Baker Vice Chair, Patrick Gagne, Hal Grant, Michael Amato, Mary Ann Noyer
Attendees: Property owners Phil Miner and Kathryn Miner; Engineering and Wetland Scientist consultant Jason Bolduc; Jon Miner; John Newcombe, Bob Wiita, and Audrey Wiita.
Recording Secretary: Mary Ann Noyer
Site visit overview
Attendees walked the property, noting the stakes delineating the location of the proposed structures and the wetland boundary at the rear of the lot. Some attendees also walked through the wetland delineation area to the boundary of the abutting parcel owned by the Wiitas.
Jason Bolduc, the engineer and Wetland Scientist representing the owners, noted that the septic is proposed for the front section of property, in front of the dwelling, and an unpaved driveway is proposed for the southwest section of the parcel off Breed Road. He pointed out the stakes that mark the proposed garage location and the stakes outlining the wetlands boundary. He also described the location of the proposed one-story dwelling that would run north-south parallel to Breed Road.
Mr. Bolduc described the wetlands on the subject lot as being on the fringe of the larger prime wetland that descends toward the Seaver Reservoir watershed and noted that the goal is to develop the lot in a way that poses the least possible intrusion on the wetland, while conforming with the required building setbacks. He noted there is no plan for any tree removal or vegetation disturbance between the proposed dwelling and the wetland boundary. Perimeter drains and infiltration trenches around the structure will manage stormwater runoff and will carry groundwater only.
At 6:45 pm, all site visit attendees proceeded to Town Hall at 705 Chesham Road. ZBA member Jeff Trudelle joined the board at Town Hall, as did member of the public Debbie Abbott.
Meeting and public hearing
At 7:00 pm, Chair Charlie Sorenson opened the meeting. He named the voting members as himself, Rex Baker, Patrick Gagne, Hal Grant and Jeff Trudelle. The order of business would proceed with the applicant presentation to start, followed by board questions, public comments, additional board questions and applicant rebuttals, followed by closing of the public hearing portion for board deliberation.
211 Breed Road, LLC, Breed Road (Map 40-102-17), applying for a special exception under Article 5.4., Article 12.9, and Article 20.1.2. to construct a 3-bedroom dwelling on a nonconforming lot and within 100’ of the wetland setback. The lot is in the Residential Agricultural District and is nonconforming due to its 1.46 acre size in a district with a 2-acre minimum.
Applicant representative Jason Bolduc of ACER Environmental LLC, referring to the site plan, outlined the project. He noted this is a partially forested lot, currently vacant, but where a barn was located approximately 20 years ago and where cows had pastured for many years. Mr. Bolduc conducted the test pit and the wetland delineation.
The owners propose to build a single-family residence, as far as possible from the wetland boundary while conforming to the road setback. He referenced the setback lines on the plan relative to the proposed dwelling and wetlands. The proposed plan also will be submitted to DES for septic approval. A well location is proposed for the area between the back of the house and the wetland boundary. The lot’s topography is relatively flat and forested all around, with one house to the south.
Stormwater management features
The applicants propose a roof runoff stone trench, 30” wide and 1’ deep, around the perimeter of the dwelling and eaves of the structure. The trench will be filled with crushed stone and will prevent stormwater from running off downgrade either into the wetlands or onto neighboring properties. The trench will be installed in areas outside the 100’ buffer as well. Mr. Bolduc stated that the driveway is not within the 100’ wetland buffer.
Impervious cover
Mr. Sorenson stated the board must ensure that the 30% impervious cover limit under the town’s ordinances is not exceeded. Because in this case only 25% of the wetland on the 1.46-acre lot can be counted toward the lot size, the impervious cover must be calculated using this reduced acreage. The proposed dwelling and garage are calculated at 2900 SF. Mr. Sorenson noted that, even adding an additional 1,000 SF of impervious cover to allow for the driveway, the total would not exceed 6%, which is far from the 30% limit.
Vegetation
Mr. Bolduc reiterated that no trees are proposed to be removed adjacent to the wetland; only trees in front of the house where the septic would be located would come down.
To a concern raised about soft soil and abundance of ferns, Mr. Bolduc responded that he augured down into the soil and found a thick loam layer with no groundwater coming up, and the aroma of manure present. He added that the high moisture content of the soil and presence of ferns is from the manure. The soils are not hydric down below; they are upland soils. Because the proposed septic is not in the area of the former cow pasture, Mr. Bolduc noted this is not a problem for septic installation.
Mr. Bolduc did not have the exact calculation of wetland acreage relative to the whole lot. However, the state previously approved the subdivision for across the street, where Mr. Bolduc also had conducted test pits, and he stated they would not have approved the subdivision across the street without adequate room for septic. The town’s health officer witnessed the test pit for the subject lot, but won’t sign off on the application to the state until the ZBA review is complete. DES approval must be obtained before the town will issue a building permit. Mr. Bolduc added that the well must be located 75’ from the septic tank and 75’ from the leach field; this is the state’s priority. There is room on the lot to move the proposed well location, as long as it’s outside the wetland itself and on the lot. The flatness of the lot also is a benefit for locating the facilities according to regulations.
Special exception criteria, Article 12
The board turned to Article 12.9., which sets forth the following:
12.9. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES. Upon application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), a special
exception may be granted for certain uses, set forth in 12.9.1. through 12.9.4., provided the following
conditions are met:
- Sediment in the runoff water, both during and after construction, shall be trapped by the use of sediment basins or other erosion-control methods, until the disturbed area is stabilized. Mr. Bolduc noted the water retention barriers would include siltation fencing directly below development areas, 12-15’ away, and as denoted on the plan. In addition, the least amount of natural vegetation will be disturbed and siltation controls will remain until the disturbed areas have a healthy stand of vegetation. These notes will be included on the Wetland Plan but can be added to the ZBA plan.
- The storm drainage system and culvert capacity shall be based on a design flow with a minimum return interval of a twenty-five year/twenty-four hour storm, and the ability to withstand a 4” rainstorm within a 24-hour period. Mr. Bolduc explained they are not proposing a culvert. Calculating a 4” rainstorm in a 24-hour period would require hydraulic modeling. He believes this requirement relates more to stream crossings. The drainage system planned will capture the runoff.
- Stormwater infiltration systems are installed to reduce surface water runoff. The board confirmed these were discussed. Mr. Bolduc reiterated that the stone trench will capture any impervious surface runoff. The goal is to prevent surface runoff which the plan addresses. Because the lot is flat, Mr. Bolduc noted there is really no concern here, whereas on a lot with a large driveway or an acre of paved area, and on a steep slope, there would be concern.
Asked where the driveway runoff would be directed, the applicant noted the existing culvert in the southwest corner of the parcel, where the runoff would be directed. Mr. Bolduc proposed that a 1’x1’ stone trench could be installed on the lower side of the gravel driveway, which will be gravel. Mr. Miner pointed out on the plan how the drainage currently runs into the culvert.
- No new drainage ways shall be created, nor additional runoff directed to existing
wetlands or to adjacent properties, unless necessary easements are obtained. The board raised no concerns relative to this provision given the information provided.
The board then addressed Article 12.9.4., Development on vacant nonconforming lots provided that all of the following conditions are found to 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 this is so and that the Planning Board agreed.
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. Mr. Bolduc reiterated that, while meeting the road and property line setbacks, this is the furthest from the wetland the house could go without asking for relief from the dimensional setback as well.
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. The board asked if a reasonable and economically viable use could be made of the parcel without a residence – e.g., with a barn or other agricultural use. The applicant felt a special exception would still be required to accommodate such a use; also, pasturing would occur adjacent, and closer, to the wetlands. With their goal of being least offensive, the applicants feel a residence for a young family is the least offensive and preferred use, and that it is an improvement on the prior use, which included storing junk.
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. At this point in the meeting, the board raised no concerns or questions relative to this provision.
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. Mr. Bolduc stated there are no direct wetland impacts from this project and that no hazards will result.
12.9.4.6. The ZBA shall themselves, or upon petition from the Select Board, conservation commission or abutters, hire a qualified consultant or consultants to prepare such studies as are necessary to determine whether the conditions set forth above have been met. The cost of such studies shall be borne by the applicant. Mr. Bolduc offered that he is certifying the wetland boundary, and that he can speak to the wetland and do studies on the wetland, as this is what his license allows him to do. Speaking to the purpose of Article 12 and 12.9.4.4., Mr. Bolduc reiterated that the project poses no direct impact to the wetland.
Mr. Sorenson read the specific purposes of wetlands to confirm no impact to the functions of the wetland. Mr. Bolduc specified that there is no impact to flood storage as no filling of wetlands will occur. Groundwater recharge is not affected as, based on the test pits, this is not an aquifer or groundwater recharge area. Similarly, nutrient removal is not relevant as there is no surface water in this wetland until you get off the lot and down below. Regarding wildlife habitat, the parcel is surrounded by forest and the house is going as close as possible to the road and won’t cut off a corridor. Sediment trapping and retention, similar to conditions for nutrient removal, refers to a larger water system entering wetlands, conditions not present on the subject lot.
The state does not have a setback for wetlands, other than for septic. Mr. Bolduc noted most towns have a 50’ setback with a requirement of a 25’ vegetative buffer and a 75’ setback for septic, most important in Mr. Bolduc’s opinion. The 55’ setback proposed is similar to other towns’ regulations.
Addressing the possible building location on the lot outside the 100’ wetland setback, the applicants noted a small triangular space on the plan, impractical in their opinion. The house footprint without the garage is 1900 SF. Two members of the ZBA who are builders offered that this was a feasible building lot and workable plan.
Public comment on Article 12.9.4.
Bob Wiita questioned that the lot was a pre-existing lot of record, referring to the condition placed on it when it was created through from the 1981 subdivision that it remain one lot with the lot across the street. Mr. Sorenson explained that the Planning Board determined it’s a pre-existing lot of record, a decision the ZBA cannot change. Mr. Sorenson also explained why the application is for a special exception and not a variance.
To Mr. Wiita’s question as to whether another use could be located on the lot, the Chair noted that the same special exception process before the ZBA would be required, unless possibly it were a small barn or garage. He wondered if that is a reasonable and economically viable use?
Mr. Wiita shared a proposed site plan showing where a structure could be built that would be outside the wetland setback. Members reviewed the submission, noting the valid point but also noting the question is whether the proposed plan with the stormwater infiltration measures, as submitted by the applicants, meets the conditions of 12.9. while posing no harm to the wetland. The question before the board is whether or not it should grant a special exception under 12.9.
ZBA member Rex Baker asked if the applicants could make the house a two-story cape instead of a one-story ranch to reduce the footprint. The landowners responded that their goal, and the desire of the prospective buyers, is to construct a house that meets a multigenerational family and thus fits in with the town’s Master Plan.
While the landowners also reiterated there is no plan to cut any vegetation behind the house, the chair noted the board’s ability to require as a condition of approval that this area be left in a natural vegetative state. The applicants noted they understand and are amenable.
Audrey Wiita spoke emphatically in favor of wetland protection and opposed any disturbance on the parcel. She and John Newcombe raised the concerns that future owners could ignore conditions placed on an approval by the ZBA and realistically would cut trees or plant a lawn or gardens. Mr. Sorenson noted the proposed application doesn’t involve cutting and the board would impose the condition.
On Mr. Wiita’s question of how an appeal of the Planning Board’s decision of August 9 affects the ZBA’s action, Mr. Sorenson explained any appeal of the Planning Board decision would likely seek a stay of the ZBA’s special exception decision or from the court; however, because the ZBA acts independently of the Planning Board, that board’s decision to remove the condition allowed the ZBA to consider the special exception application. That said, an appeal of the Planning Board decision could put the ZBA decision at risk. ZBA decisions are also appealable.
ZBA vote on criteria under 12.9
Following review of the 1981 decision and the PB’s decision as to its being an existing lot of record, members unanimously agreed that 12.9.4.1. was met. Members subsequently agreed 4-1 that a reasonable use could not be carried out outside the wetlands conservation district. Mr. Grant did not agree. On 12.9.4.3., members voted 5-0 in agreement. Members voted 4-1 that, with conditions including measures for groundwater infiltration, as well as construction a 1’x1’ trench around the downslope side of the driveway, Article 12.9.4.4. was satisfied.
Mr. Bolduc added that planting more native vegetation is a better option than creating a drainage swale along the wetland, which would interrupt the natural flow of water. Members agreed this would preserve the intent of the article, which is to protect the wetland, and that this condition should be added, specifying the planting of blueberry bushes for added natural buffering.
ZBA member Michael Amato asked about the enforcement mechanisms. The board acknowledged it can be a difficult problem. Typically, neighbors are counted on to report issues for any enforcement action to be taken.
Members concluded 4-1 that the measures proposed would not cause loss of wetland or contaminate groundwater or cause any comparable hazard.
Special exception criteria under Article 20
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The chair cited the applicant’s response that the site is appropriate for a residential structure and will be an improvement of the existing conditions. Other than the presence of the wetland on a portion of the lot, the board agreed.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The property owner stated that a residential use of the property in the residential district is very appropriate and will enhance the neighborhood, considering what had been there or what could be there, and it meets the town’s goals. Significant screening exists between the lot and the closest house.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Mr. Miner noted the state recently analyzed driveway locations directly across the road and was comfortable with the sight lines. 400’ of sight line in each direction are required.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. DES must approve the septic plan before a building permit can be issued.
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. Sorenson noted that one of the special exceptions addresses development on a vacant nonconforming lot due to its size; otherwise, the lot has more than 250’ of frontage, meets the side setbacks and rear setbacks, the wetland setback having been addressed under the Article 12 conditions. The only waiver granted by the board under Article 20 is to build on the nonconforming lot.
Public comment on Article 20 criteria
Mr. Wiita asked about the requirements that the proposal must meet under Article 5.4, specifically that … by special exception, a non-conforming lot may be developed for the uses permitted in the district in which it is located provided that the use proposed for such lot will comply with all the health and sanitary regulations for water and sewage systems as required by the state of New Hampshire and the Town of Harrisville and provided that it complies with all other requirements of this ordinance or amendments thereto other than the non-conforming aspect of the lot. The chair explained that this provision encompasses all the ordinances that would apply to the project and that, should ordinances be identified other than those cited, the Board would have to waive those and explain why.
The Wiitas further disagreed with the board’s finding that the proposal does not adversely affect the adjacent area, believing their parcel and the Seaver Farm wetland and watershed would suffer. The chair cited the language in Article 12 Wetlands Conservation Overlay District that allows the Zoning Board to permit exceptions when the board believes that a project won’t have an adverse effect on the wetlands, that the infiltration trenches, and that the stormwater management measures will preserve the natural condition of the wetlands as they are.
Additional abutter correspondence
The chair shared written comments from the owners of 208 Breed Road who could not attend in person. They accept the Planning Board’s decision to remove the 1981 restriction but note the proposed building falls within the wetland setback. The ZBA acknowledges this but noted its review of the Article 12 provisions. The board further addressed the location of proposed sewage disposal and water supply and noted that the state has jurisdiction over these specific plans. To the abutters’ concerns about impervious surfaces, the chair noted that the most the project would reach is 6-10% of the lot, far below the 30% limit. The question of stormwater runoff was addressed multiple times with respect to infiltration trenches and preservation of natural vegetation on the lot.
Board deliberation and vote on Article 20 criteria
20.1.2.1. Members unanimously agreed the specific site is an appropriate location for such use.
20.1.2.2.Members unanimously agreed the adjacent area would not be adversely affected by the proposed project.
20.1.2.3. Members unanimously agreed there would be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
20.1.2.4. Members unanimously agreed that adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.
20.1.2.5. To waiving the minimum lot size and waiving the 100’ setback as discussed under 12.9., members unanimously agreed.
Charles Sorenson then moved to grant a special exception, consistent with the plans submitted August 19, 2026 by the applicants and presented at this meeting by the applicants and their representative, that complies with the plans as well as the conditions imposed by the board with regard to infiltration trenches and vegetation. Jeff Trudelle seconded. The board voted 4-0 in favor. Hal Grant abstained. The Chair will draft the Notice of Decision which, he noted, depends on the viability of the decision by Planning Board.
ZBA Minutes of July 15, 2026 – Members voted in favor to approve.
Members moved to adjourn at 9:08 pm.