TOWN OF SUNAPEE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 25, 2010
PRESENT: Alex Kish, Chairman; Charles Balyeat, Vice-Chairman; Bill Larrow; Jim Lyons; Ed Frothingham, Alternate; Harry Gazelle, Alternate; Peter Urbach, Alternate; Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator.
ALSO PRESENT: Barry Paddock; Amy Manzelli; Donna Davis; Clayton Platt; John Mapley; Kevin O’Shea; Robert Rupp.
ABSENT: Georges Sanders.
Chairman Kish opened the meeting at 7:00.
Changes to the minutes of May 13: Motion by Mr. Kish, seconded by Mr. Balyeat, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Administrative matters: Mr. Kish appointed Mr. Frothingham to vote for Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Landry said the planning board will be reviewing a site plan for a 20 seat restaurant on Main Street at its June 3 meeting.
MOTION FOR REHEARING ON CASE 10-01
Mr. Larrow recused himself. Chairman Kish stated that there will be no public comment accepted during this hearing. Voting members are Mr. Balyeat, Mr. Frothingham, Mr. Gazelle, Chairman Kish and Mr. Urbach.
Mr. Urbach observed that the brief which was submitted does not deal with the subject of a rehearing of the special exception. On April 8, the special exception was considered and denied as the application did not meet the criteria. The motion for rehearing could address the decision to deny the special exception; rather, it addresses Mr. Landry’s decision to require the applicant apply for a special exception. Mr. Urbach commented that the only thing the board can rule on is a motion for rehearing on the special exception. Chairman Kish stated that counsel for the applicant was given the opportunity to make a case for the special exception and he declined. He added that the applicant also denied a 30 day extension to put together a case in favor of granting the
special exception. Mr. Urbach reiterated that the application for rehearing does not addressing the special exception.
Motion by Mr. Urbach, seconded by Mr. Gazelle, to grant the motion for rehearing for a special exception in case 10-01. The motion was opposed unanimously.
CASE 10-09, MAP 128 LOT 51, GEORGE SOLIGAN, 30 GARNET STREET, SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PER ARTICLE III SECTION 3.50-I TO ALTER ROOFLINE ACCOMODATING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FAMILY ROOM.
Barry Paddock presented the case. The proposal is to add a dormer off either side of the existing garage for the installation of a new family room. There will be no water or bathroom facilities and it will be heated with a gas fireplace. The total footage is 380 square feet. Mr. Paddock stated that the project meets the criteria in that a story is not being added; the upstairs attic floor space is being expanded. Construction will not be going higher than the existing roofline. Mr. Paddock feels the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood and is within the height requirement.
Mr. Landry stated that all green cards were received. There were no abutter comments.
Motion by Mr. Larrow, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to approve a special exception as per Article III Section 3.50-I to alter roofline accommodating construction of a new family room. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 10-10, MAP 103 LOT 4, ERIC REIDERS, 90 OAK RIDGE ROAD, SEEKING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE LAKEFRONT SETBACK FROM 50’ TO 34’ FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION.
Clayton Platt presented the case. The property is on Otter Pond; a one story cottage, almost all within the 50 foot setback, is in existence. The owner would like to build an addition on the cottage. Some stairs and a cement walk will be torn out to accommodate the addition. There would be a small decrease in impervious surface. There will be no excavation; the addition will be on piers. Chairman Kish asked if the owner applied to the state; Mr. Platt stated that the shoreline permit was received. Chairman Kish commented that the project seems straightforward. Mr. Larrow asked if the new walkway was included in the application. Mr. Landry said no permission was needed for the installation of the walkway.
Mr. Landry stated that all green cards were received. There were no abutter comments.
Motion by Mr. Frothingham, seconded by Mr. Balyeat, to approve a variance to reduce lakefront setback from 50’ to 34’ for construction of an 80 square foot addition as per revised drawings dated April 20. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 10-11, MAP 128 LOT 81, VIRGINIA H. FEENEY TRUST, 100 LAKE AVENUE, SEEKING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO REDUCE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FROM 1 ACRE TO .542 ACRES.
Clayton Platt presented the case. The owner has two lots, one which is 0.24 acres and one which is 1.47 acres. She would like to adjust her property line, making the smaller lot slightly larger.
Chairman Kish asked what the rationale is behind adjusting the lot line. The owner is thinking of renovating the house on the smaller lot down the line and would like to expand the lot. Mr. Landry pointed out that the lot will no longer be a pre-existing, non-conforming lot if the variance is approved.
Mr. Landry asked if access to the property will be changed. There is a gravel drive and deeded access off an Indian Cave Road. Mr. Platt said that access will remain the same.
Chairman Kish asked if there were any abutter comments. Amy Manzelli, representing abutters Ken and Stephen Foscaldo, addressed the board. She stated that the Foscaldos have concerns with the application. They are in opposition to the variance because they feel the application does not have enough information to substantiate the claim that the lot will be more conforming, the future expansion of the house would require a special exception, and they feel the request does not meet the hardship requirement for a variance. Ms. Manzelli distributed paperwork outlining her clients’ argument and asked that the application be denied.
Chairman Kish commented that Ms. Manzelli is asking the board to speculate on what the applicant may or may not do in the future in terms of the house. Ms. Manzelli said the renovation/expansion is referenced in the application. Mr. Landry stated that if the applicant did not get the variance and it remains a pre-existing, non-conforming lot, there is enough space for a substantial addition to the house without a special exception.
Ms. Manzelli said that one of the criteria is the value criteria and there is nothing to support diminution of value. Mr. Kish commented that the variance is solely to change the lot line and has nothing to do with the expansion of the house. Ms. Manzelli said the rationale behind the request is the eventual expansion of the house. Chairman Kish reiterated that Ms. Manzelli is asking the board to speculate as to what the applicant will do. Ms. Manzelli said if the applicant agrees that the request is strictly regarding the lot line adjustment, she would argue the diminution of value and lack of hardship.
Chairman Kish said that as far as diminution of value, it would be common sense to say that if improvements are made to the house, it would be with an eye to increasing the property value. Ms. Manzelli said the tree cover removal does not necessarily improve the value of her clients’ lots. Mr. Landry asked if Ms. Manzelli brought proof that the variance would reduce the value of her clients’ property. She responded that the burden of proof is on the applicant.
Mr. Landry pointed out that the board must decide according to the five criteria. Ms. Manzelli stressed that all five must be satisfied. Chairman Kish said that it does come down to the hardship issue.
Mr. Platt said that anything to do with renovations would be taken up with the board if need be. All the applicant is requesting is shifting a property line and he does not see where that affects the value of any property.
Chairman Kish said a fair argument could be made that there would be no diminution in value. Ms. Manzelli said the burden of proof is on the applicant that there is not. Chairman Kish said Ms. Manzelli is correct in saying the case turns on the hardship factor. He feels that if the applicant increases the lot size, there is a benefit to the town. Mr. Platt stated that the Foscaldos rearranged their lot lines years ago. Chairman Kish stated that Mr. Platt’s argument that it will bring the lot more into compliance is compelling. Mr. Lyons said that if the lot will become more conforming he does not see the problem.
Chairman Kish said he would like to take advantage of the 30 day window to review the materials from the abutter. Mr. Larrow said he would like to have town counsel weigh in, as he takes abutter concerns seriously. Mr. Platt asked if the applicant can submit a relevant document to the board. Mr. Kish said the board would be willing to review additional information. Ms. Manzelli requested that such information be sent to abutters and that public comment be available at the meeting regarding that information.
Motion by Mr. Balyeat, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to continue the case to the June 10 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:24.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Richardson
______________________________________________ ______________________________________
Alex Kish, Chairman Charles Balyeat, Vice-Chairman
____________________________________________ ________________________________________
Bill Larrow Jim Lyons
_____________________________________________
Ed Frothingham
| 
