TOWN OF SUTTON
Zoning Board of Adjustment
DRAFT
Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2006
Present: Dane Headley, Doug Sweet, Ed Canane, Tom Brooks, Derek Lick, and Kevin Carr
Also present: Marnee Saltalamacchia, ZBA Assistant
7:00 p.m. Dane Headley opened the meeting. Headley sat in as Chairman for Bill Hallahan.
Derek Lick explained to the applicant that the Notice was incorrect and that we could proceed and Notice that there was an error in noticing but that the other option is to wait and notice it again next month.
Neale Bacon stated that she would like to go forward and she believes that the abutters will not mind.
Roll call: Dane Headley, Doug Sweet, Ed Canane, Tom Brooks and Derek Lick
The sense of the Board was to proceed with the hearing. The only attendee was the applicant.
Case #06-05 Map 6 Lot 450,249
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on September 19, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request by Neale Joyce Bacon for an area variance to the terms of Article IV section C. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to replace an existing garage on an existing non-conforming lot located at 4 Chalk Pond Road in the Residential District. The structure setback from wetland is required to be 75 ft.
Saltalamacchia also stated that no abutters have called or submitted comments.
Chairman Headley read Zoning Ordinance Article IV D. 2 into record.
Neale Bacon stated that having this process to face in any case she decided she would like to add two ft. in width toward the house. She stated that the distance between the garage and the stream would remain the same and she would lessen the distance to the road by one foot. She stated that the existing garage is not safe enough for a car.
Ed Canane and Tom Brooks had no questions.
Sweet asked about what kind of foundation it may have.
Bacon replied that the garage is vicariously balanced on rocks.
Headley confirmed that the applicant would put in a cement slab.
Lick asked whether the dimension of the garage is 14ft. x 20ft. or 16ft. x20ft.
Bacon replied that it is 14ft. x 20ft. and she feels that that is adequate.
Sweet confirmed that the depression area under the garage would be “filled”.
Bacon responded that it would be “filled” prior to the concrete slab being poured.
Headley confirmed that no abutters were present or had made comment.
Lick asked about the footprint as it relates to the garage and the change in the size.
Bacon stated that the extra foot would allow a car to fit in more safely.
Lick confirmed that it would provide easier access to get in and out of the car.
Bacon agreed.
Motion made by Dane Headley to close the public hearing. Seconded by Derek Lick. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
The Board completed the area variance worksheet and agreed with the applicant’s comments on question one.
Question 2 a. & b.– Lick shared that his initial thought was about the impervious surface and footprint but that it is so minor of a change that it seems will not be a detriment to the property and there is no better location on the property for this structure that has been there for many years. He felt that it meets test two because the garage will be a safer structure.
Question 3 – Sweet stated that the spirit of the ordinance is to provide a protective buffer to the wetland and the applicant is not doing anything to change that buffer.
Question 4 – The Board agreed that a 12 ft. garage is not sufficient for a car and storage.
Lick wanted to add a condition to clarify the approval conditional on the applicant’s knowledge that the notice was incorrect because of the reference to the zoning ordinance and acknowledge the risk may be ever so slightly elevated that the case is appealed.
Sweet stated that he would like to see a condition that there is silt fencing installed between the project and the stream during construction.
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant the area variance with two conditions:
1. Applicant recognizes that the notice was incorrect because of the reference to the zoning ordinance and acknowledges a potential risk during the 30 day appeal period; and
2. Silt fencing to be installed between the project and the stream during construction.
Second by Derek Lick.
Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0)
7:30 p.m.
Roll call: Dane Headley, Doug Sweet, Ed Canane, Tom Brooks and Derek Lick
Case #06-06 Map 1 Lot 105,256
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on September 19, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request by Michael and Elke Melody for an area variance to the terms of Article IV section D. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a 12 ft. x 16 ft. x 8 ft. storage shed located at 152 Eaton Grange Road in the Residential District. The structure setback from wetland is required to be 75 ft.
Saltalamacchia also stated that no abutters have called or submitted comments.
Michael Melody explained that he is now storing items such as a lawn mower, shovels, and rakes under his deck with tarps. He stated that this shed would house these common outdoor tools. He summarized his letter to the Board regarding the appeal. He stated that the shed will have the same siding as the house and will alleviate the need for staining or painting that may compromise the nearby wetland. He stated that we found that the water in this area travels back toward the house and caught by the curtain drains. He stated that they would also add additional trap rock in this area.
Chairman Headley asked if the shed would be on a slab.
M. Melody replied that it would be on sauna tubes.
Sweet stated that the driveway last year was light of grass and there were concerns about water traveling far more than when he went there Monday and found the grass and the area stabilized.
Headley thanked that applicant for the detailed work in preparing for this appeal in light of last year’s denial.
Chairman Headley asked for any comments from abutters and hearing none.
Motion made by Dane Headley to close the public hearing. Seconded by Derek Lick. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
The Board completed the area variance worksheets. In doing so, they read over the applicant’s answers to the questions and on Board worksheet questions 1 and 2 they agreed with the applicant’s answers. Other comments included:
#3 Lick pointed out that there is no place on the property where a shed would have a 75 ft. setback. He also commended the applicant for the measures taken to respond to last year’s concerns of the Board.
#4 Sweet felt that it is a reasonable size for a shed.
Headley agreed that a homeowner should have a place to store items of this nature.
#5 Spirit of the ordinance - Table D1 on page 50 of the Zoning Ordinance – suggests that for sheds the distance be less than 75 ft.
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant the area variance. Seconded by Ed Canane. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
8:00 p.m.
Roll call: Dane Headley, Doug Sweet, Ed Canane, Tom Brooks and Derek Lick
Case #06-07 Map 9 Lot 867,282
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on September 19, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request by Freeman and Patricia Boynton for two (2) special exceptions to the terms of Article V section D. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a 14 ft. 8 inch x 9 ft. 5 inch shed and a 6 ft. 9 inch x 11 ft. 8 inch base terminal located on Route 114 in the Agricultural District. The structure setback from wetland is required to be 75 ft.
Saltalamacchia stated that no abutters have called or submitted comments.
Freeman Boynton informed the Board that the address is 1827 Rte 114. He informed the Board of his desire to look for a bigger hill to build a big project. He stated that they found a 47-year-old ski lift online. He stated that a couple of weeks ago they delivered the lift. He referred to building the lift as a big erector set.
He stated that given the liability concerns it would be impossible for us to sell tickets. We do not intend to have the public other than wife, kids, brother and sister. He explained there are typically 23 to 30 of us who get together.
Engineer Ross Stevens stated that ski lift planning is based around the object of the hillside. He explained that in some ways ski lifts are inflexible so we try to optimize the ski-ability. He added that the location chosen for the base terminal and shed are the optimum location.
Stevens shared that the base is an open steel frame with a motor on top of it. He stated that the shed would have the electric parts necessary for operation.
Patricia Boynton stated that we own an excavation company and that is why we have the equipment to work on this project.
Chairman Headley asked if you have done this all yourself.
Freeman Boynton replied that Warren helped with some tree removal and he has had some help with the excavation. He went on to say that Ross Stevens would inspect the site as well as the tram. He explained that we work hard on prime season and then we take months off in the summer and winter and play.
Headley asked about if there were two slopes.
Freeman replied there is one main slope and then a more beginners like trail.
Chairman Headley read article V section D1 of the Zoning Ordinance into record.
Sweet asked who delineated the wetlands.
Ross Stevens responded that Peter Shauer of Loudon, NH delineated the wetlands (certified soil scientist, wetland scientist and septic designer/phone 798-4357 ).
Sweet asked when construction started.
Freeman replied we haven’t started construction but that site work began a little over a month ago.
Headley questioned if the shed needs to be in this close of a location to the base terminal.
Stevens replied that the set up is standard in its configuration.
Headley asked if it would have a generator or any other gas or propane.
Freeman Boynton answered that it is only electric.
Canane asked whether they would have lighting.
Boynton replied that lighting the hillside and ruining the night light is not in his plan.
Chairman Headley questioned security.
Ross Stevens stated that the system could have the switches removed to disable it.
Freeman Boynton added that it would be a chained driveway.
Sweet asked if it is a shared driveway.
Boynton replied it is and he has met with the abutter. He stated that this was part of the original subdivision approval.
Sweet confirmed that the driveway chain may be moved back farther to access the other lot.
Boynton replied that it could be if any need for access came about on the abutting lot.
Sweet asked if seeding has been done.
Boynton replied that we used winter rye and a conservation mix and he is confident that it would come up fast and stabilize soon.
Ross Stevens stated that there is a water bar and an under drain at the upper part of the driveway.
Lick asked if the applicant has considered moving the base and shed 50 ft. further up.
Ross Stevens stated that it is an intention to take fullest advantage of the hill and have the base terminal on flat ground.
Lick confirmed that the steep part is approximately 30 ft. up
Boynton agreed.
Lick asked about approval from the State of NH.
Stevens explained that both the Department of Safety and the Tramway Board of NH would approve and they will meet with the latter on October 16. He stated it would then require a final approval hearing post that meeting.
Chairman Headley asked for any comments from attendees, hearing none.
Motion made by Dane Headley to close the public hearing. Second by Tom Brooks. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
The Board completed special exception worksheets.
Question #1
Lick thought the property and location to others seemed fine.
Brooks thought it was a good location for a ski lift.
Question #2
Sweet stated that there would be no lighting, which is a benefit.
Other comments made by the Board:
§ No undue nuisance - The applicant has stated that the use will be private.
§ Adequate – Following state permitting standards and they would receive licensure from the state to operate.
§ The spirit of the wetlands ordinance is being met.
Chairman Headley confirmed that no abutters or others attended to make comment.
Lick mentioned that this is being considered as an accessory structure and generally, that would be subordinate to another building on the property. He points out that there is no other building on the property.
Lick suggested allowing no operation until the applicant receives the necessary state approvals.
Sweet noted that the distance in the new ordinance is 15 ft. for sheds in this type of wetland.
Motion made by Dane Headley to re-open the public hearing. Second by Tom Brooks. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Boynton stated that he has designed the residence that he hopes to build on this property some day and then this would become an accessory structure. He stated that this would not happen for years but that the top of the lift area (about 400 ft. up) would provide sufficient area for a house.
Boynton added that most likely his children would bring friends.
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant the special exception(s) with two conditions:
1. No commercial use or generation of revenues, and
2. Receive the necessary state approvals and licensure.
Second by Derek Lick.
Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0)
8:50 p.m.
Roll call: Dane Headley, Ed Canane, Tom Brooks, Derek Lick and Kevin Carr
Case #06-08 Map 4 Lot 683,345
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on September 19, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request by Bristol, Sweet and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Kenneth C. and Diane Brown for area variance(s) to the terms of Article IV section D. 2 and Article IV section D. 3 c of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remodel an existing, non-conforming cottage and construct a 24 ft. x 39 ft. garage and relocate an existing 12 ft. x 20 ft. shed and install a 1000 gallon septic tank and 2000 gallon septic tank and pump chamber located (off Gillingham Drive) on Brown Road in the Residential District. The structure setback from wetland is required to be 75 ft. The septic tank setback from all ponds and lakes is required to be 75 ft.
Doug Sweet of Bristol, Sweet & Associates, Harry Seidel of Alae Design, and owner Ken Brown attended.
Harry Seidel reviewed the information submitted in the application regarding renovations that include a new garage, updated mechanical room, and a new master bathroom. He explained that to relocate the existing shed the NH Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act requires a 50 ft. buffer. This means we are more nearly conforming as far as the state is concerned. The state requires that we show that we are less impacting than if we didn’t do this. He stated that the application was submitted to DES and that this may require time prior to approval.
Seidel stated that the septic system meets current DES code. He added that any change to this location with 75 ft. buffer would require approval but with a 50 ft. buffer, it presents less necessary approvals. He made cleat that the original construction precedes current standards for building, septic and all zoning ordinances.
Seidel reviewed the current structure; main rectangle 24x40 with a couple of bump outs. He stated that the most offensive part is the current hip roof that is 19 ft. from wetland and the proposal includes a roof upgrade. He stated that the existing deck is made of flanking that is impervious and this would change to be a deck that water will go through. He noted that the mechanical room would provide service for the septic and the new well.
Seidel stated that there have been no trees cut and there is a heavy vegetated area. He stated that for security as well as personal preference they would prefer the house not be seen. He stated that moving the shed creates an impervious change of 161 sq. ft., which is comparable to one car parking spot.
Sweet stated that the infiltrator trench will accommodate the two-year storm events or smaller. He explained that this is one water treatment and that another is a covered gutter to eliminate pine needles. He pointed out the small basins where the run off will go one of which is the beach area that would have a new berm.
Sweet pointed out that there will be a shrub buffer area created where the existing house is at 19.5 ft. from the shore.
Seidel stated that DES has approved the septic system and submitted a copy of the approval.
Seidel read over their variance worksheet responses as submitted with the application. He added that the driveway is over 50 ft.
Headley asked if they intend to use the property year-round.
Brown stated that we are winterizing it so that we can stay longer.
Sweet added that we have worked hard to prevent water from diminishing the Shoreland including building a stone lined trench. He stated that there would be a diversion swale and underground pipe to capture additional runoff and divert appropriately.
Lick asked about the net impervious at 160 ft.
Sweet reviewed the calculations.
Lick asked about how the berm diverts the flow toward the basin.
Sweet showed where the gutter and downspout would direct runoff toward a natural swale.
Chairman Headley asked for comments from any abutters present.
Raymond Grogan abutter at 363 Newbury Road asked about pumping uphill and if the system lost power how it would prevent back flow.
Sweet stated that there is a check valve as well as standard system preventive measures.
Grogan stated that he is additionally concerned for the septic approval and asked if in fact it is acceptable that the pipe is within 50 ft. of the water.
Sweet confirmed that it meets state requirements and referenced the septic approval.
Richard Andrusiak abutter at 368 Newbury Road stated that they would like to request that the Board call for an independent environmental review.
He read into record a letter that he then submitted to the Board dated 9/27/06.
Saltalamacchia provided the applicant with a copy.
Seidel made comment that Brown has made every effort to hire the best engineer in the area to protect the environment.
Sweet reminded the Board that we did not need to ask for any waivers in the septic application.
Motion made by Dane Headley to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ed Canane. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
The Board reviewed the variance worksheet (on file) for each individual appeal. Comments included:
Question One
Septic –
Carr stated that it would preserve values to prevent problems with the existing cesspool.
Lick stated that he trust the judgment of the state and the approval; it is an improvement.
Shed
Carr stated that it is taking steps to lessen an already non-conforming use.
Renovation and Garage
Agreed
Question Two
Septic
For the better
Shed
More conforming
Renovation and garage
Lick stated that the larger footprint was his concern until he saw the changes in runoff addressed.
Question Three (a.)
Septic, Shed, Renovation and Garage
Non-conforming, predates zoning, setbacks in general
Lick stated that the inability to increase the footprint is not a hardship from his perspective; however, he had no issues with the septic and shed but with the renovation and garage. He stated that the applicant has addressed his concerns through the presentation of information.
Question Three (b.)
Carr felt that it is reasonably feasible and the state approval for septic supports that.
Headley stated that moving the shed is less non-conforming.
Lick agreed that the renovation and garage are already in the setback and proposes a reasonable use of the property.
Tom Brooks stated the project will improve the entire site.
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant an area variance to the terms of Article IV section D. 3 c of the Zoning Ordinance to install a 1000 gallon septic tank and 2000 gallon septic tank and pump chamber. Second by Kevin Carr. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant an area variance to the terms of Article IV section D. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to relocate an existing 12 ft. x 20 ft. shed. Second by Tom Brooks. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Motion made by Dane Headley to grant an area variance to the terms of Article IV section D. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remodel an existing, non-conforming cottage and construct a 24 ft. x 39 ft. garage. Second by Derek Lick. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
10:15 p.m. Meeting Adjourned.
| 
