TOWN OF SUNAPEE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 9, 2011
PRESENT: Alex Kish, Chairman, Edward Frothingham, Charles Balyeat, William Larrow
ABSENT: ~Dick Katz; Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
ALSO PRESENT: ~Peter Dwight; Harry Seidel; Daniel Bruzga
Chairman Alex Kish called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM.
The Board reviewed the May 12, 2011 meeting minutes for any required changes.~ No changes required.~
No Planning Board update given from the previous week.~ Zoning Ordinance guidelines were presented by Alex Kish.
Chairman Kish informed the applicant that four members are present which is required in order for the application(s) to be approved.~ The option was given to continue to a future meeting where five members are present.~ Three votes are required for an affirmative vote.
CASE 11-07, MAP 136 LOT 61, SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE SIDE SETBACK 10’ TO 7’ 6” TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 14’ X 18’ STORAGE BUILDING – JEFF & MARIE BAKER – 40 BIRCH POINT ROAD.~
Chairman Kish presented the issue. Harry Seidel was present to explain details of the request. ~Mr. Seidel requested information regarding whether a case can be presented at a future time or if a continuance can be requested if it is sensed that an affirmative vote may not be obtained.~ General discussion regarding this issue.~ Mr. Seidel decided to present the case even though a full Board was not present.~ Design of the building was presented by Mr. Seidel with blueprints of the property and requested improvements.~ Daniel Bruzga, of DB Landscaping, gave details in regard to proposed improvements~in landscaping, as well as intermediary erosion control plans. He will be taking care of the shoreline protection application and has done the site plan for the property.~ A site plan was previously done by C. Hirshberg.~
A site plan sheet was presented to the Board for review.~ Photos were also presented for review.~ Per Mr. Seidel, Roger Landry previously informed him that the side yard setback was 15’; they are requesting a reduction to 7’6”.~ Mr. Seidel stated that the 15’ dimension was in error per revised ordinances that were available online.~ He further stated that 10’ is allowed – in his opinion, with no hardship created.~ He also consulted with the Sewer Commission in order to request 7’6” setback.~~ He explained to the Board that Digsafe has already checked the underground lines on the property.~ Mr. Seidel explained that the orange notations on the photos/drawings were notated by Digsafe – on the actual property.~ The centerline is 3’6” on the photo as notated by Mr. Seidel.~ It was noted that utilities
would have to be moved in order to perform the requested improvements (electric/sewer). General discussion by the Board regarding parking areas and locations as noted on drawings. Per Mr. Seidel, the Fire Chief informed Marie Baker that they would require a 14’ minimum of open area to be in compliance with fire regulations.~
At this time, Harry Seidel cited Article 3.l0 – per article (which states that a 10’ setback is required), applicant is requesting a reduction to a 7’6” setback.~ He explained that the proposed use would not diminish the surrounding property values.~ The new construction does not get any closer to the property lines than the existing residence.~ Temporary erosion controls will be in place as stated previously.~ Use of the building will support the actual residence for maintenance of the property.~ It is felt that the new construction would enhance the property.~ They feel granting of the variance would be a benefit to the surrounding properties and area.~ Landscaping is proposed around the new construction to improve the existing entrance to the property and will assist in enhanced erosion control over
the long term.~ Per CSPA and zoning regulations, the landscaping will be in conformance.~ Mr. Seidel stated on behalf of the Baker’s that there are environmental benefits to the area and property with their proposal.~ He stated that they feel that existing zoning regulations interfere with the property and the applicant is seeking subject variance due to this issue.~ The issues raised by the Fire Chief (14’ – 16’ access area) and utilities involved would have to be addressed. Again, it was stated that compliance dictates that the utilities be moved.~ The site presents a “unique nonconformity” as it did previously in 2006.
The Board questioned the purpose of the side yard setback. Mr. Seidel stated that they feel a minimum buffering area would help with density issues.~ In regard to fire protection – they would not be side by side.~ It is felt that the granting of this variance creates fire protection.~ Chairman Alex Kish explained density requirements and the rationale behind setback regulations.~ Regarding narrowness and the objective, the applicant is prepared to do whatever possible to achieve the best visual “image” by placing the building at the most southerly area of the property.~ They are seeking to lessen density issues in order to achieve the necessary side yard setback variance.~
Again, it was stated that they feel this will enhance the property and not obstruct and/or interfere with neighboring properties.~ Landscaping is proposed to enhance screening.~ Every attempt would be made to not infringe on other properties nearby.~ Mr. Seidel stated that they feel the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.~ It was acknowledged that this is a unique building lot – non-conforming in the extreme.~ Detailed landscaping is proposed per plans and per Daniel Bruzga with a 45’ sq. ft. relief area.~
Chairman Alex Kish asked if any abutters were present for comments.~~ Peter Dwight stated that he had no objections to the proposal.~ Daniel Bruzga stated that the challenge with the site is to create a “visually inviting property”.~~ They are proposing a building with lesser setback in order to create space for needed open areas and plantings to create “screening”.~ Chairman Alex Kish questioned why they were not requesting a building that would be 12’ x 18’ in size.~ William Larrow questioned whether the proposed new construction would be utilized as a shed or garage.~ Harry Seidel stated that a car would fit in this space but will likely be used as shed. A small motor boat would also fit into the shed for winter storage.~
The Baker’s have expressed to Daniel Bruzga that they would, perhaps, like to leave a car at the property in the future.~ It is felt that there would be aesthetic improvement to the property with the new construction.~ Chairman Alex Kish confirmed that it would be utilized as a “multi-use” building.~ Harry Seidel explained that it would have an open interior. Chairman Kish stated that it would, in fact, be an amenity and not a residence.~ It was felt that it would have a small impact on the overall property.~ Harry Seidel further explained that the owners have kayaks that are currently stored beneath the house deck and that they would like to have a place to put extra items in storage.~ Edward Frothingham questioned the door size on the proposed new construction and it was determined to be 9 ft.
wide.~
Chairman Alex Kish asked if there were any further questions from the Board. William Larrow questioned reasons for width of the proposed construction.~ Per Daniel Bruzga, they are concerned with the area for plantings; they do not want the area to be too restricted so the variance would be very helpful.~
Chairman Alex Kish closed the public portion of the meeting. ~General discussion was presented by the Board. William Larrow stated that, previously, in 2005 there was a denial in connection with the property and, in 2006, an approval was obtained. Chairman Alex Kish stated that a reconfiguration and redesign occurred at that time.~ Harry Seidel presented further historical information in regard to the property.~
Chairman Alex Kish stated that this is not necessarily considered a “hardship case”, however, regarding balance the arguments indicate that the provision be granted due to the benefits presented.~ The shed and the 2’6” relief are an issue for the Zoning Board.~ He stated that the overall schema tends to outweigh the ordinance. Chairman Kish did state that the specific location as noted in the plans would be part of the requirement in regard to any approval.~ ~
No further questions were presented in connection with the issue by the Board members.
Motion made by Charles Balyeat to approve Case 11-07, Map 136 Lot 61 for a variance to grant a reduction in a side setback of 10’ to 7’6” to accommodate construction of a new 14’ x 18’ storage building at 40 Birch Point Road to Jeff and Marie Baker as per plans. Seconded by Edward Frothingham. Motion accepted unanimously.
Chairman Alex Kish asked if there were any other orders of business.~ It was decided that the Board would wait to review the procedural rules until Roger Landry and Dick Katz are present for commentary.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Caron
Alex Kish, Chairman Edward Frothingham, Vice Chairman
William Larrow Charles Balyeat
| 
