TOWN OF SUNAPEE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 9, 2010
PRESENT: Alex Kish, Chairman; Charles Balyeat, Vice Chairman; Ed Frothingham; Bill Larrow; Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator.
ALSO PRESENT: Don Swift, Charlotte Brown, Dick and Betsy Katz, Charlie Hirshberg, John Landsiedel, Doug Gamsby, Jim Townsend, Mike Costello, Wayne Flanagan.
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Kish called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Kish stated that Mr. Lyons has resigned from the board effective immediately. Chairman Kish informed the applicants present that they have the option of delaying their case until there is a five member board. If they choose to proceed, three positive votes will be required for approval.
Changes to the minutes of Sept. 9, Oct. 14, Nov. 11: Chairman Kish commented that Mr. Lyons reviewed the minutes at a prior meeting and had no changes. Motion by Mr. Balyeat, seconded by Mr. Larrow, to approve the minutes of Sept. 9 as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Frothingham, seconded by Mr. Larrow, to approve the minutes of Oct. 14 as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Larrow, seconded by Mr. Balyeat, to approve the minutes of Nov. 11 as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Administrative matters: Mr. Landry stated that on Oct. 7 the planning board approved a two lot subdivision on Lower Winn Hill Road, site plan review for a daycare on Lower Main Street and site plan review for a real estate office on Sunny Lane. On Oct. 21 the planning board completed its review of zoning regulation amendments. There will be a public hearing on Dec. 16 on those amendments. On Nov. 4 the planning board approved a lot line adjustment on Pleasant Place and approved three lot mergers.
CASE 10-20, MAP 104 LOT 34, DON SWIFT, 82 PROSPECT HILL ROAD, SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO REDUCE THE 1.5 ACRE PER DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW TWO DWELLING UNITS ON 1.7 ACRES.
Mr. Swift stated that the dwelling is located on a 1.87 lot. At the time he purchased the property there was an apartment on the lower level occupied by a tenant. Tenant stayed in residence until 2001. The apartment had not since been rented. Mr. Swift recently renovated the apartment and would like to rent it out again. The upstairs and downstairs each has its own separate electric/gas meters, etc. The downstairs apartment has one bedroom and the upstairs has three bedrooms. The structure was served by a two bedroom septic system. A four and a half bedroom septic has since been installed. Mr. Swift presented state approval of the septic system.
Mr. Larrow asked if there were only one apartment downstairs. Mr. Swift said there is. Mr. Larrow asked if he was looking to make it more viable on the market, since the property is for sale. Mr. Swift stated that someone has signed a purchase and sales agreement.
Donna Getinarick, who also lives on the property, stated that the main reason she and Mr. Swift want to rent the apartment is that she lost her job and they need the extra income. At the time they decided to do pursue renting it, they did not have the property on the market. Mr. Larrow asked if it would kill the agreement if the apartment was not approved. Ms. Getinarick said it would.
Chairman Kish stated that four parking spaces would be required. Mr. Swift said there are two garage spots and two outdoor spots.
Chairman Kish asked if there were any abutter comments. There were none.
Mr. Balyeat and Mr. Frothingham said they felt it was a reasonable request. Chairman Kish said his concern is that there are dimensional controls for a reason. He does not feel the applicant meets the hardship requirement and approval would set a precedent for dimensional controls. He stated that the hardship requirement is more to do with the property itself than an applicant’s financial situation. Mr. Landry felt the board should consider that it was a pre-existing situation. Mr. Larrow agreed that it did not meet the hardship requirement and felt the fact that the property was a under agreement made it appear that there was more to the situation than met the eye. Mr. Balyeat felt that whether the house is for sale or not that has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Frothingham felt the applicant had gone through the process of meeting the criteria and feels it would be unfair for them not to receive a variance.
Motion by Mr. Frothingham, seconded by Mr.Balyeat, to approve a variance of Article III Section 3.10 to reduce the 1.5 acre per dwelling unit to allow two dwelling units on 1.7 acres for Map 104, Lot 34, Don Swift, 82 Prospect Hill Road. The motion was defeated 2-2 due to the fact that the application justification does not meet the intent of the ordinance and the applicant does not meet the hardship requirement.
CASE 10-21, MAP 128 LOT 25, JOHN AND NORMA THOMAS, 92 GARNET STREET, SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE LAKEFRONT SETBACK FROM 50’ TO 40’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
Charlie Hirshberg presented the case. The property is a .25 acre lakefront lot located in the residential district. There is an existing cottage and boathouse on the lot. The cottage sits entirely in the 50 setback and will be taken down. If you go 50 feet from the center of the road and 50 feet from the shoreline, there is no place to build a structure without some portion of it falling within the setbacks. The applicants are proposing a 2050 square foot footprint. The house would still infringe on the 250 shoreline setback but would be much further back than the present dwelling. A portion of the porch and garage and part of the driveway will infringe on setback; however, the bulk of the structure is behind the 50 foot setback. Stormwater management is
included in the plan. Proposed impervious area calculations are 29 percent. Mr. Hirshberg stated that according to the CSPA, if there is between 20 and 30 percent impervious material a stormwater drainage plan is required. Mr. Hirshberg explained that plan.
Mr. Landry commented that there is improvement in both setback compliance and stormwater runoff. He added that this property has never been before the board.
Chairman Kish asked if the proposed drive will be paved. Mr. Hirshberg said it will be impervious material. Mr. Larrow asked about total lot coverage. Mr. Hirshberg said there will be 29.6 percent coverage. Allowed coverage in that zone is 30 percent. Chairman Kish asked if there was any thought of incorporating the garage underneath the house to reduce the overall footprint as the plan is still infringing on the setback from the lake. Mr. Hirshberg said the lot is low and a garage under the house would be in the water table, which is also why there is no basement.
Chairman Kish asked if the existing boathouse would remain. Mr. Hirshberg said it is not usable to put a boat in but they do not plan to remove it immediately.
Chairman Kish asked if there were any abutter comments. John Landseidel, 98 Garnet Street, owns the property next door. He is for approval of plan and feels it would better the property; however he would not like to see all the trees taken down.
Charlotte Brown, 121 Garnet Street, is concerned about the boathouse. In the future, she would not want to see it become a huge boathouse. Mr. Landry stated if the applicant wanted to enlarge the boathouse, they would need board and state approval.
Chairman Kish said his only concern is the fact that the porch is not absolutely necessary and infringes on the setback.
Motion by Mr. Larrow, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to approve a variance to reduce lakefront setback from 50’ to 40’ to allow construction of a new residential structure, Map 128 Lot 25, John and Norma Thomas, 92 Garnet Street as per plan submitted Dec. 9, 2010 and acquiring necessary state permit. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 10-22, MAP 128 LOT 25, JOHN AND NORMA THOMAS, 92 GARNET STREET, SEEKING APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE ROAD FRONT SETBACK AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE III SECTION 3.50-B FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
Mr. Hirshberg commented that there are houses and garages that are 8-10 feet off of the right of way on Garnet Street, so the plan is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The house would be 15 feet off the right of way. The entire structure is under 25 feet tall. Mr. Landry read the conditions of 3.50-B and commented this application meets the conditions.
Motion by Mr. Larrow, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to approve a special exception to reduce road front setback as provided for in Article III Section 3.50-B for construction of a new residential structure, Map 128, Lot 25, John and Norma Thomas, 92 Garnet Street per the plan and drawing submitted Dec. 9, 2010. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 10-23, MAP 118 LOT 23, WAYNE AND PAM FLANAGAN, 61 PINEY POINT ROAD, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO REDUCE ROAD FRONT SETBACK FROM 50’ TO 25’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE SHED.
Mr. Flanagan stated that he would like to construct a shed for storage. He said there are six houses in the immediate area that are closer to the road than where he wants to put a shed.
Mr. Balyeat said he felt the shed could be pushed back. Mr. Flanagan said the septic is right behind where he would like to put the shed and he does not want to put the shed on the septic. Mr. Larrow said he is not clear on how the septic system plays into it. Mr. Balyeat said you would not want to put a building on a septic or leech field. Mr. Flanagan said the proposed location is pretty much right up to where the septic is. Chairman Kish is that if it is simply a matter of convenience there is no hardship. He felt that given the amount of land available, it wouild seem there are places where a shed could be placed and meet the dimensional controls. Mr. Flanagan said the hill behind the septic goes up almost 25 feet. He would not be able to take a
snowblower or motorcycle up and down in a practical way. Chairman Kish said there is a concern about setting a precedent by allowing a shed so close to the road without hardship.
Motion by Mr. Balyeat, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to approve a variance of Article III Section 3.10 to reduce road front setback from 50 to 25 to allow construction of a storage shed, Map 118, Lot 23, Wayne and Pam Flanagan, 61 Piney Point Road. The motion was defeated 0-4 due to the fact that the applicant did not meet the hardship requirement and the public interest would not be upheld because it would set a precedent for future development therefore it is not in the spirit of the ordinance.
CASE 10-24, MAP 107 LOT 27, NORMA JEAN GUTHRIE/MCLAUGHLIN QUALIFIED RESIDENCE TRUST, 1110 LAKE AVENUE, GEORGES MILLS, SEEKING APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE III SECTION 3.50-B AND REDUCE ROAD FRONT SETBACK TO 33.7 FEET FROM CENTER LINE OF ROAD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE.
Mr. Hirshberg presented the case. The garage would be 24 feet deep. The existing porch is 30.4 feet from the center of road, the corner of garage would be 33.7 feet. Some pavement will be removed in one area and some will be added in another. New pavement will be pervious pavement. Existing total lot coverage is 40 percent; proposed impervious surface is 39.6 percent.
Mr. Frothingham asked about the design of the garage roof. Mr. Hirshberg said it is a shed roof sloping away from the house. There will be a drip edge to collect water; it is planned to eliminate any offsite runoff.
Chairman Kish commented that a special exception was granted for the existing porch. Mr. Frothingham said he does not see why the garage cannot be brought back four feet. Mr. Hirshberg stated that doing so would eliminate the kitchen window, making it dark in that room. Mr. Landry said even if it were moved back, the garage would still not meet the 50 foot setback.
Mr. Hirshberg went through the five criteria of a special exception. Chairman Kish said he feels the applicant meets the criteria set forth.
Motion by Mr. Frothingham, seconded by Mr. Larrow, to approve a special exception as provided for under Article III Section 3.50-B and reduce road front setback to 33.7 feet from center line of road to allow construction of a new garage, Map 107, Lot 27, Norma Jean Guthrie/McLaughlin Qualified Residence Trust, 1110 Lake Avenue, Georges Mills as per plan submitted Nov. 2010. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 10-25, MAP 107 LOT 27, NORMA JEAN GUTHRIE/MCLAUGHLIN QUALIFIED RESIDENCE TRUST, 1110 LAKE AVENUE, GEORGES MILL, SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO REDUCE SIDE SETBACK FROM 10’ TO 2’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE.
Mr. Hirshberg said the garage would be 2 feet off a 15 foot right of way, which is an access jointly owned by two other property owners. Mr. Hirshberg said side setbacks often related to fire safety precautions for two structures, which does not apply in this case. In terms of roof runoff, a stone dripedge will be installed to prevent water from running off onto the abutting property. The overhang of the garage is 1 foot from property line. Mr. Hirshberg said the drip edge would be two feet wide and go up to the property line.
Mr. Delude, abutter, stated that it is a small lot and there has already been a variance granted for prior construction. He asked if a two foot setback has ever been approved. He is wondering how a structure can be built without having access to the neighboring property for construction and maintenance. He feels the applicant should come back with an alternate plan. Mr. Landry stated that the deed on the right of way does not allow the neighboring property access.
Jim Townsend, abutter, also felt the applicant should come back with an alternate proposal. The right of way is well defined and well maintained. He takes issue with a two foot setback for a variety of reasons.
Chairman Kish said he is having trouble understanding the hardship. Mr. Hirshberg said from the hardship standpoint, it is a primary residence and they want a spot to park a vehicle out of the weather. Also, there is limited storage presently on the property. Chairman Kish said it is not a unique hardship to this property; there is room to park vehicles on site and storage can be accomplished in ways other than the one proposed. He felt that enlarging the footprint with a garage starts to impact the neighbors in a significant way. Mike Costello said it is their intent to retire there in a few years and they would like to house their vehicles under cover. Mr. Frothingham asked if the garage could be shrunk. Mr. Costello said he is willing to
compromise.
Mr. Larrow said he feels there is an issue with the right of way and it sounds to him like an alternative solution can be worked out.
Motion by Mr. Balyeat, seconded by Mr. Frothingham, to approve a variance of Article III Section 3.10 to reduce side setback from 10’ to 2’ to allow construction of a new garage, Map 107, Lot 27, Norma Jean Guthrie/McLaughlin Qualified Residence Trust, 1110 Lake Avenue, Georges Mills as indicated on the drawings submitted. The motion was denied 0-4 due to the fact that the applicant failed to meet the burden to show that denial would interefere with reasonable use of the property and the applicant failed to meet the hardship requirement.
CASE 10-26, MAP 107 LOT 27, NORMA JEAN GUTHRIE/MCLAUGHLIN QUALIFIED RESIDENCE TRUST, 1110 LAKE AVENUE, GEORGES MILLS, SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO ALLOW LOT COVERAGE TO BE REDUCED FROM 40% TO 38.7% BUT STILL GREATER THAN THE 30% ALLOWED.
Chairman Kish gave the applicant the opportunity to withdraw this case. The application fee would be waived if the applicant would like to return with an alternate plan. Motion by Mr. Costello to withdraw the case. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:14.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Richardson
________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Alex Kish, Chairman Charles Balyeat, Vice Chairman
______________________________________________ ______________________________________
Bill Larrow Ed Frothingham
| 
