Town of Sunapee
Zoning Board of Adjustments
May 14, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Present: Peter Urbach, Chairman
James Lyons, Vice-Chairman
Robert Henry
Alex Kish
Charles Balyeat, Alternate
Edward Frothingham, Alternate
Staff: Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
Camille Holmes, Recording Secretary
Also Present: Peter White, Glen and Martha Field, Michael and Janet Jesanis, Anne-Marie and David Irwin, Louise Bonfiglio, Phil Mathewson, George Pellettieri, Greg Girgsby, Deidre Sheerr-Gross, Peter Blakeman
Not Present: Harry Gazelle
Bennie Cooper, Alternate
1) ROLL CALL: Peter Urbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2) DISQUALIFICATIONS/DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES: There were four regular members of the Zoning Board present and they would need one alternate. Charles Balyeat, Alternate, stood in for Harry Gazelle.
3) MINUTES: Peter Urbach stated that there were two sets of minutes, one from January 15, 2009 and one from April 9, 2009. The Jan. 15 minutes were a corrected set that they had gone over at the last meeting that had one minor error on page 2 line 89, to change ‘get’ to read ‘set’. Alex Kish made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Jim Lyons seconded the motion. The MOTION was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. The minutes for April 9, 2009 had no corrections. Charles Balyeat made a motion to approve the minutes. Edward Frothingham seconded the motion. The MOTION was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
4) COMMUNICATIONS: Roger Landry reported that the Planning Board had met last week and had approved the opening of the Old Farmers Market in the old town hall. They had also approved a statement of property usage for a new dental office above the existing post office in Georges Mills. This coming month the Planning Board will have a couple of subdivisions, two lot subdivisions on Pinnacle Road and two lot subdivisions on Apple Hill. He went on to say that for the next meeting in (June), he had one Special Exception application for now, but that there may be two. He also said that building permits were catching up to last year’s number, but were still down by 10 from where they had been last year. He said that there were a lot of additions (sheds, garages, interior renovations).
Charles Balyeat interjected that he had a copy of the State RSA and zoning laws digest that he had gotten at this past Saturday’s meeting in Manchester and asked if any of the Board members wanted a copy. Roger said that if anyone wanted a copy, to let him know and he would get one.
With no other administrative matters to discuss, Chair Peter Urbach opened the regular meeting by welcoming everyone. He said that, (by way of background), the ZBA members are elected volunteers who serve without compensation and that the alternates are appointed volunteers who also serve without compensation. The Board consists of five regular members and three alternate members. He said that for this meeting, they were missing two regular members and that one of the alternates would be filling in. He stated that this evening there were three cases from two applicants and the Board would hear from all the applicants and any interested abutters in each case. The Board hoped to reach a decision on each of the cases this evening, however, the rules permitted the Board to arrive at a decision any time
within the next 30 days. Decisions by the Board require a vote by the majority of those voting members present and tonight that would be 5 voting members meaning that three votes were needed to reach a decision. The Board hoped to hear all sides of every issue and the members were not experts in any particular area, but would listen to any ideas and/or concerns, and would attempt to do what is right for the community while acting within the Sunapee zoning ordinances and the State laws.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
09-03
MAP 133 LOT 28 Charles & Martha Field
15 Garnet Street
The applicant is seeking an Area Variance Article from III Section 3.10.to reduce a pre-existing non-conforming lot size and annex a subdivided piece to an abutting property to improve property lines.
Roger Landry explained to the Board that the applicants were asking to take a non-conforming lot and make it more non-conforming and making a non-conforming lot less non-conforming.
Martha Field stated that they had their property surveyed and found that the next door neighbor‘s propane tank was located on the Field property. Mr. Mathewson basically did not have any backyard, (the exit and entry to his rental house was right at the property line), and this also created a hardship for Mr. Mathewson whenever he hired any workers to do anything to the back of the house because workers had to come onto the Field property. She went on to say that it was a liability concern for them as well as the tenants that occupied the house and that they (Mr. & Mrs. Field) and Mr. Mathewson felt a responsibility to clean up the properties in the event that either homeowners sold their properties.
Phil Mathewson introduced himself as the abutter and neighbor of Charles and Martha Field . He presented the Board members with photos showing the property line(s), the location of the propane tank, the back of the Field property, and the entire lot. He said that the idea they had come up with was for him to purchase the piece of land from the Fields. The square footage of the land mass in question was 1,805 sq. ft. with 4.88 feet on one end and 38.25 feet on the opposite end, making it a triangular piece of land.
Alex Kish asked for clarification regarding the annexation of the piece of land and Roger Landry stated that Mr. Mathewson could not go to the Planning Board asking for the annexation without an Area Variance from the Zoning Board. Peter Urbach stated that the transfer of the property would not take place until approval was given by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board.
Bob Henry made a motion to approve the applicants’ request for an area variance to reduce a pre-existing
non-conforming lot size to allow annexation of a subdivided piece of their property to the abutting property (11 Garnet Street) per drawings submitted. Jim Lyons seconded the motion. The MOTION was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Roger Landry advised the Board that, per instruction from the Town attorney, they had to change the measurement of a right of way and measure it from the center line rather than from the (road) edge so that they are consistent with the road setback right of way as stated in the State regulations (in the event that they had to defend it in a court of law). Peter Urbach asked if that change would be codified in an ordinance and Roger responded that yes it would be next year. He also said that the center line of the right of way could be found by a site survey.
09-04
Map 126 Lot 24 Michael and Janet Jesanis
8 Old Norcross Road
The applicants are seeking relief in the form of a variance from Article III Section 3.10 to reduce road front (right of way) set back from 50 feet to 27 feet for the relocation of an existing outbuilding.
Michael Jesanis stated the existing garage was situated inches from the driveway and the right of way and they wanted to save the structure and move it adjacent to the tennis court, which was currently a grassy area, but in the future would be restored to use as a tennis court. The garage in the new location would be angled away from the driveway and the right of way and be less non-conforming. They intended to use it as a workshop/storage area. He stated that it would be 27 feet from the center line because it is very close to the edge of the right of way and will be angled away from the right of way. Roger Landry interjected that the letter from the McLaughlins showed that they were in support of this variance.
Bob Henry responded that he had a problem with this because it was a major infraction on the right of way no matter how they measured it and it wasn‘t a necessary structure as they already had a garage (attached to the new house). They could move the garage to another location which is flat and easily accessible and certainly would be ideal for a garage. Mr. Jesanis responded that they are trying to retain the flexibility to restore the tennis court at a future date and that won’t be done immediately for budget reasons, but it is something they wish to do and don’t want to tear down the garage. By moving the garage, Mr. Jesanis said that one corner would be 2 feet away from the right of way, but the major part was on average more than 20 feet away. Right now the whole structure
abuts the right of way.
Alex Kish stated that he had an issue on the argument that the area variance enabled the applicant use of the property with special conditions and that he saw that there was no real hardship in not relocating that existing garage in an alternate location. He also saw that there are other reasonably feasible places to put the structure and the property does not present a hardship in doing so. Roger Landry responded that if they put the garage on the tennis court,that prevented them from restoring the tennis court as Mr. Jesanis had stated earlier that they intended to do. It also meant that they would have to place the garage in a way that encroached upon the lakefront. Roger stated that the hardship in this particular case was that the Town hardship in conforming to the setback and it didn’t really need the
variance.
Mrs. Jesanis stated that they did look at moving the garage to a different location, but that it meant taking down a lot of trees. George Pellettieri stated that moving the garage to the different location also involved the rain garden location that would mitigate the runoff into the lake. Bob Henry said that a variance was supposed to be a very unusual circumstance and you have to demonstrate hardship. He thought Alex was correct, that there were many locations and to put it there did not show any hardship.
George Pellettieri stated that part of the dilemma was that the buildable area was only 55% and Peter Urbach said that would be more persuasive if they didn’t have the old tennis court. Ed Frothingham asked if they could move the tennis court closer to the house and Michael Jesanis responded that they couldn’t meet the setback requirements if to their property and the Fitz had also consented. He stated that he would let the Irwins speak to the issue. Mr. Irwin responded that if the alternative involved removing trees, that was a very bad alternative. He did not want anything to happen that would exacerbate the runoff situation anymore than it already did. Mrs. Irwin commented that the trees in question (that were being removed if they relocated the garage to the south part of the
property) were scruffy and not a great loss and she agreed with Alex Kish that it wasn’t a hardship. George Pellettieri responded that removing a certain amount of trees was reasonable, but there was a tipping point that would have an adverse effect on the terrain.
Alex Kish stated that he wanted to revise his earlier statement and that he thought a 50 foot right of way was excessive. The hardship relates to the right of way and that slightly altered his perception. George Pellettieri interjected that the right of way was taking up an ordinarily buildable area that they could have used to relocate the garage.
Peter Urbach asked for any final comments from the Board and the public and there being none, he asked for a motion. Bob Henry made a motion to approve the variance Article III Section 3.10 to reduce the road front (right of way) setback from 50 feet to 27 feet for the relocation of an existing outbuilding. Jim Lyons seconded the motion. The MOTION was APPROVED by a vote of 3 approved and 2 opposed votes.
09-05
Map 126 Lot 24 Michael and Janet Jesanis
8 Old Norcross Road
Michael Jesanis presented his case for a variance stating that he and his wife had purchased the property at 8 Old Norcross Road last year and it currently has three buildings onsite, a cabin, the house proper, and a garage/outbuilding. They wanted to move the outbuilding to another location on the property and build a replacement home. They thought they had included everything to comply with the site planning, but had found out approximately six weeks ago (when they brought their plans to Roger Landry) that the twelve foot wide driveway, which they didn’t think was considered a road, required a setback variance request. He said that Mr. Pellettieri, site planner, would show them where the new construction will be relative to the right of way and the location of the driveway which they would be
moving closer to the property line. He asked if the variance was needed and if they could do this without a variance. Roger Landry responded that the Town attorney had said that a variance was needed and that precedence had been established that setbacks are required from rights of way. Peter Urbach asked Mr. Jesanis if he had any issue with that and Mr. Jesanis said that they did, but if the Board wished to proceed on the variance request, they would proceed to have a discussion about the merits of the requests.
Mr. George Pellittieri, site planner, stated that he was responsible for siting the house and thought from his reading of the Town regulations that the right of way did not constitute a road and was clearly a driveway from his perspective. Roger Landry interjected that for the record, a right of way of record, especially one of 50 feet in width, is considered to be used for all as a street, road, or whatever, and that the deed explained it that way as well. He quoted from the deed, ‘the premises are conveyed subject to an easement to Lot 2 to use a 50 foot wide right of way referenced above for access to and from Lot 2 to Lot to the 50 foot right of way for all purposes for which streets and ways are used in Sunapee’.
Greg Grigsby responded that the confusion on their part was the wording in the zoning that reflected a setback to a right of way that was constructed to the road standards and this was not, but they did not want to continue to debate it and would like to go forward with the request for a variance.
Mr. Pelletieri presented the site plans and stated that the location of the proposed house is being pulled back behind the 50 foot setback, leaving the waterfront buffer undisturbed. They would try to minimize any disturbance (from the new construction) to the site by trying to locate the new elements in that area and leaving access to the property (on Garnet Hill Road) the same for the Irwins. They also did not anticipate any change for the other abutter, the McLaughlins. He submitted an email from the McLaughlins indicating that they are in agreement and approve of the changes that are being proposed. They are also proposing to change part of the driveway and it will be partially in the right of way, but the drawings show it as 65 feet instead of the 50 feet as stated in the deed. Bob
Henry asked if the right of way was drawn after the subdivision was created and Peter Blakeman responded that he had spoken with the original surveyor who said that there were two houses on the property (that was one lot) and the lot had been subdivided to make two lots so that the right of way followed the existing driveway out to that second house.
Mr. Pelletieri then stated that the cabin would be removed altogether and the garage would be relocated to a place along side of the old tennis court. The proposed development site meets the maximum 25% lot coverage for improved surfaces. The other concern was the drainage on the property because of the fair amount of water that comes off of Garnett Hill and providing temporary and permanent erosion controls, so they hired Peter Blakeman.
Michael Jesanis interjected that they were moving the driveway to within the 50 foot right of way and Roger Landry stated that they were asking for a five and a half foot relief (off the center line of the 50 foot right of way).
Peter Blakeman stated that he was brought into the project to design a storm water plan. He said that for the house itself the biggest key on his side was that the storm water was contained on site. He said the Irwin property has a low spot right in front of their house and water pools in the middle of the gravel driveway. What he is proposing is to put in rain gardens in several areas around the house, which are known as low impact development and what it does is take one area on the property and directing everything to that area. Rain gardens are designed to look and fit the property much better with plants that are suitable for that area and with filter beds that collect and distribute the rain water. Parking is designed to have the gravel driveway rebuilt to include a turn-around and the only
hurdle during construction will be to make sure the temporary controls are being captured and used as sediment basins through the swale and diversions.
Roger Landry interjected that Peter should tell the Board that the State allowed 20% and they were hoping to have 30% and Peter responded that for the State requirement, once you get above 20% impervious , then you need to provide a storm water management plan and the next limit for CSPA is 30% impervious. He stated that they are very sensitive to the runoff and the plan is set up to prevent any runoff going over to the Irwin property.
Bob Henry asked if it would be easier to change the right of way and Michael Jesanis stated that the right of way was owned by the McLaughlin family and he had tried to go that way, but because Susan McLaughin did not have sole authority, it would take a long time to accomplish. Peter Urbach said that the Board had received letters from both Susan McLaughlin and the Fitzes agreeing with the variance requests.
Alex Kish asked what the criteria was that determined the front of the house and the back of the house in this situation and Peter Urbach responded that the road is usually where the front is. Roger Landry interjected that in the six years that he had been here, they had not considered the lake side the front of the house in any cases that he sat in on. Peter Urbach asked Roger to put that on his list for future reference, the clarification of what was the front versus the back of the house and property. Roger responded that for this case, they were looking at the front setback, from the center line of the roadway and in this particular case, he reiterated that they were looking for a five and a half foot relief.
Anne Marie Irwin stated that they were concerned about all the water runoff and asked how they would be protected from it. Peter Blakeman responded that per the site plan water would not allow beyond the diversion(s) and there were no plans to change Norcross Road (where the Irwin house was located). David Irwin stated that he thought they were underestimating the amount of water that a heavy rainfall could produce in both directions down Norcross Road and then across to the lake. He was apprehensive that disturbing this area was going to make it worse. Peter responded that he understood the Irwins’ concerns, but the key point was that the drainage from Garnett Hill Road was beyond the scope of the construction on this property. They were not touching anything up in that area. Mr. Irwin said
that they were making the impervious area substantially larger and he was concerned about the effect of that.
Deidre Sheerr-Gross interjected that that was what they were taking care of, the impervious area, the existing condition on Norcross and they were not going to take care of any area outside of the property.
Mr. Irwin responded that any changes in an unfavorable situation gave them cause for concern. He suggested that Mr. Blakeman come by the properties on a day when it was pouring rain so that he could see how much water was really running off. Michael Jesanis said that he had called Mr. Blakeman last week when there was a heavy rainstorm and they saw that some of the runoff ran across his property before going toward the Irwin property. They would be putting in erosion controls so as to not make the situation worse.
Mrs. Irwin asked who would make certain that they didn’t get washed away in the process of the construction. Roger Landry responded that their concern about the runoff was important, but it had nothing to do with this variance. If Mr. and Mrs. Jesanis didn’t need a variance, they would be asking Roger for a building permit which he would grant and the Irwins may not have known about it until the construction started and because Mrs. Irwin had brought it to everyone’s attention, it was now a matter of record. He went on to say that it was the responsibility of Mr. Blakeman and his professionalism and his license to ensure that there wasn’t a problem for the Irwins. Mr. Blakeman stated for the record that it was his intention to have frequent communications with the Irwins, as well
as contact with Ms. Bonfiglio and her project managers on the site at all times. They really do want to be good neighbors and if there are issues that are resulting from their activities, they will deal with them. Roger Landry stated that the Irwins could contact him if there were any problems that were not being resolved and he would do what he could to help. However, the Town would not police the project. He did assure the Irwins that the best contractors were involved.
Peter Urbach asked if there were any other questions or comments from anyone else and there being none, asked for a motion. Bob Henry stated that there was a conflict with the application, which stated 40 feet and it should really be 44 feet. Peter Urbach said it should be changed to the 44 feet.
Alex Kish made a motion to approve the request seeking a relief in the form of a variance from Article III Section 3.10 to reduce the road front (right of way) setback from 50 feet to 44 feet for the construction of a new replacement home. Bob Henry seconded the motion. The MOTION was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Camille Holmes Approved_________________
Recording Secretary
_______________________ ____________________________
Peter Urbach, Chairman Alex Kish, Vice-Chairman
_______________________ ____________________________
Robert Henry Harry Gazelle
_______________________ ____________________________
James Lyons Bennie Cooper, Alternate
_______________________ ____________________________
Ed Frothingham, Alternate Charles Balyeat, Alternate
| 
