TOWN OF SUNAPEE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 8, 2009
PRESENT: Peter Urbach, Chairman; Alex Kish, Vice Chairman; Harry Gazelle; James Lyons; Bennie Cooper, Alternate; Charles Balyeat, Alternate; Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator.
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Almeida; Pam Flanagan; Larry Keane; Helene Hagan; Leander Chute; Pamela Chute; Margaret Touchette; Raymond Touchette; Elbridge Stockwell; Opal Stockwell; William Stockwell; Randy Lyden; Gerald Patnode; George Stein; Richard Gregory; Lisa Gregory; Ray Gregory; Kelly Ramage; Eric Ramage; George Neuwirt; Roger Rodewald.
ABSENT: Robert Henry.
Chairman Urbach called the meeting to order at 6:59.
Mr. Landry updated the board on the recent planning board meeting during which the planning board approved a statement of property usage for a hair salon in Sunapee Center.
Changes to the minutes of September 10: Motion made by Mr. Cooper to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Balyeat. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Urbach appointed Mr. Cooper to vote for Mr. Henry.
CASE 09-11 MAP 103 LOT 2 – SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PER ARTICLE III SECTION 3.50-B TO REMOVE ROAD FRONT SETBACK DIMENSION FROM 50’ TO 40’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED AT 96 OAK RIDGE ROAD IN GEORGES MILLS, WILLIAM STOCKWELL.
Mr. Stockwell explained the location of his home on Otter Pond. He stated that when building his home he did not account for a place to store firewood. Mr. Stockwell would like to build a six foot high, 7x10, three-sided shed for that purpose. He would like to keep the shed over 50 feet away from the pond and feels his proposed location is the most appropriate available given the zoning ordinations. This case deals with the setback from the road.
Mr. Urbach inquired if there are other locations on the property that would eliminate the need for a special exception. Mr. Stockwell stated that there are no other areas that he feels are suitable for the shed. Mr. Landry suggested the area to the right of the house. Mr. Gazelle inquired if there are any objections from the abutters. Mr. Stockwell said the only abutters present are his parents.
Mr. Kish asked if the shed would have a permanent foundation. Mr. Stockwell said the shed would be built on footers; his intention is to construct the shed to match in appearance with the house.
Chairman Urbach stated that the criteria of a special exception is that it is necessary to fairly utilize the lot.
Motion made by Mr. Cooper to grant the special exception as per Article III Section 3.50-B to remove road front setback dimension from 50’ to 40’ to allow construction of a shed at 96 Oak Ridge Road in Georges Mills, with the condition that the height of the shed not exceed six feet, seconded by Mr. Gazelle. The motion passed unanimously.
CASE 09-12 MAP 103 LOT 2 – SEEKING AN AREA VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III SECTION 3.10 TO REDUCE SIDE SETBACK DIMENSION FROM 15’ TO 7.5’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED AT 96 OAK RIDGE ROAD IN GEORGES MILLS, WILLIAM STOCKWELL.
Mr. Stockwell restated that the proposed location is what makes the most sense. Chairman Urbach suggested putting the shed closer to the house. Mr. Stockwell did not think it would fit well if he did so.
Mr. Gazelle inquired if Mr. Stockwell would consider changing the dimensions of the shed if he put it closer to the house. Mr. Stockwell stated he would like that amount of space to store a significant amount of wood.
Chairman Urbach inquired how many feet exist between the proposed shed area and the house; Mr. Stockwell said it was approximately ten feet. Chairman Urbach said that if the shed were moved closer to the house it would avoid a problem with the setback, or at least make it a special exception rather than an area variance.
Mr. Stockwell said that the septic grinder pump must also be taken into account. Mr. Landry said if the shed were turned, it would encroach on the lakefront setback. Chairman Urbach asked how close the shed could be moved toward the house without interfering with the pump. Mr. Stockwell said about three feet further. He offered to submit a revised plan. The board agreed another visit would not be required.
Mr. Kish inquired how wood is brought into the house. Mr. Stockwell replied that he brings it in through the basement door. Mr. Lyons asked how he would get the wood to the shed. The wood is delivered in the driveway and is brought to the shed in a wheelbarrow.
Chairman Urbach said it appears as though the shed can be moved three feet closer to the house and the setback request reduced by three feet.
Mr. Gazelle made a motion to grant an area variance from Article III Section 3.10 to reduce side setback dimension from 15’ to 10.5’ to allow construction of a shed at 96 Oak Ridge Road in Georges Mills, with the condition that the shed will always be used as a woodshed, seconded by Mr. Cooper.
Discussion on the motion: Mr. Kish stated that he did not feel it was necessary to add the condition that the structure always remain a woodshed. Looking toward future owners, he felt it would be overly restrictive to not allow the owner to change the use of the shed.
The motion passed unanimously.
09-13 MAP 148 LOT 17 - REQUESTING AN AREA VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III SECTION 3.40-C TO REDUCE LAKEFRONT SETBACK DIMENSION FROM 50’ TO 27’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11X13 DECK AT 106 HAMEL ROAD, LAWRENCE AND DIANE KEANE.
Mr. Keane stated that the area proposed for the deck is right off the kitchen, allowing the family to dine outside. He feels it is the most logical place for the deck to go as an eating area. The deck would be constructed of pressure treated wood. There would be no excavation, footers or tree removal.
Chairman Urbach said that the relevant portion of the ordinance states that decks and walkways within 50 feet of water body setback are allowed if the structure is an open deck which is attached to a preexisting structure, extends no more than 12 feet beyond the normal high water and the total decking within the water body setback does not exceed 150 square feet.
Mr. Kish said that it is his understanding that the shoreline protection act would require state approval. Mr. Keane said that he is in discussion with the state to determine if that is the case. He said he would ensure that state permission is acquired if needed. Mr. Landry pointed out that local permission is required first.
Mr. Gazelle inquired if there were any objection from abutters. There were no comments from abutters.
A motion was made by Mr. Gazelle to grant an area variance from Article III Section 3.40-C to reduce lakefront setback dimension from 50’ to 27’ to allow construction of a new 11x13 deck at 106 Hamel Road, seconded by Mr. Cooper.
Discussion on the motion: Mr. Kish inquired about the foundation of the deck. Mr. Keane reiterated that pressure treated lumber would comprise the foundation.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lyons recused himself from the next two cases on the basis that he has not seen the properties. Chairman Urbach appointed Mr. Balyeat to vote for Mr. Lyons.
09-14 MAP 118 LOT 23 - REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PER ARTICLE III SECTION 3.50-B TO REDUCE ROAD FRONT SETBACK DIMENSION FROM 50’ TO 23’ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PROTECTIVE ROOF OVER FRONT DOOR AREA AT 61 PINEY POINT ROAD, P.M.R. TRUST.
Ms. Flanagan stated that she and her husband would like to install a 3’ 6” deep, 8’ wide covering over the front step. Mr. Landry stated that no abutters have been heard from; the public had no comment.
A motion was made by Mr. Kish to grant a special exception as per Article III Section 3.50-B to reduce road front setback dimension from 50’ to 23’ to allow construction of a protective roof over front door area at 61 Piney Point Road, as per submitted sketch, seconded by Mr. Cooper. The motion passed unanimously.
09-15 MAP 238 LOT 38-2 – REQUESTING A USE VARIANCE OF ARTICLE IV SECTION 4.10 TO ALLOW A CONTRACTOR YARD TO OPERATE IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON NUTTING ROAD, GEORGE M. NEUWIRT.
Roger Rodewald, representing George Neuwirt and Susan Spurlock who own the lot, clarified that a temporary variance is being requested. Mr. Urbach pointed out that the papers do not specify “temporary”; Mr. Landry said that the board cannot grant a temporary variance. Mr. Rodewald presented a letter from abutter Allan Lemire supporting the variance request, which Chairman Urbach read aloud.
Mr. Rodewald relayed that Mr. Neuwirt purchased four lots on Nutting Road, developed two and began to develop a third. At this time, Mr. Neuwirt needs a place to store one enclosed trailer, one excavator, one barge, concrete forms and an aerial lift. This is the equipment that is currently on the lot; Mr. Neuwirt has left the equipment there because he has no other place to put it at this time. Mr. Neuwirt is using the lot to park the equipment from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. It is Mr. Neuwirt’s intent to finish developing the lot as a single family residence. It is not his intention to keep it as a contractors yard.
Mr. Rodewald stated that, in his opinion, if farm equipment is allowed in that district, Mr. Neuwirt’s equipment should also be allowed.
Chairman Urbach reminded those present that if the variance is granted that runs with the property forever.
Mr. Neuwirt inquired if it is possible to put a condition on the variance indicating a time frame for the use. Mr. Landry said that it is a state law that a temporary variance is not allowed. Mr. Neuwirt responded that he would still like to seek a variance.
Mr. Kish mentioned that the property is part of a cluster development. Mr. Neuwirt stated that he has a permit for a 40x40 barn and the foundation is in.
Mr. Landry informed the board of the background of the case. Mr. Neuwirt used to operate his business out of his home on Ryder Corner Road. He then moved out the property and purchased Woodbine Cottage, where many complaints were received about all the equipment stored there. Mr. Landry requested Mr. Neuwirt moved his equipment to his Nutting Road property.
Mr. Neuwirt said that the issue here is that people are complaining. He stated that his home on Ryder Corner Road is zoned rural residential, he stored all the same equipment there and no one complained.
Chairman Urbach read two other letters from abutters Belinda Pitrowski and Pamela Chute in opposition to the variance request.
Mr. Kish commented that the requirements for cluster developments are strict and it would be difficult to grant the variance. However, he has heard conflicting testimony on the use. He would like Mr. Neuwirt to comment on whether he is trucking in materials from other jobs and if he is going beyond what is reasonable for the building of a home.
Mr. Neuwirt stated that some of the public comment is justified, however, he presently needs a home base for his business and that the complaints about equipment operating on the lot for over a year is not accurate. The equipment has only been there since June.
Mr. Landry reiterated that state law supercedes any local law and the state does not allow a temporary variance. Chairman Urbach stated that all the board can do is deal with the present request.
Gerry Patnode, 34 Nutting Road, inquired how Mr. Neuwirt’s business would be affected when the roads are posted during the winter months. Mr. Landry stated that the equipment will not be allowed to travel over the road during those months. Mr. Neuwirt confirmed that he is accustomed to planning for that situation.
George Stein, Penacook Path, urged further exploration of the situation.
Pamela Chute, abutter, stated she is strongly opposed to variance. She said approval of the variance sets a precedent for other contractors to operate a place of business in a rural residential area.
Helen Hagen, 296 Nutting Road, inquired why she was not informed of the hearing. Mr. Landry stated that the law requires that direct abutters are notified; Ms. Hagen is not an abutter. She stated that her concern is the fires set by Mr. Neuwirt as they are extremely large and she feels they are unsafe.
Leander Chute, abutter, stated that he has not seen any progress on the house. Mr. Chute is not against people being in business and storing equipment, however, he feels that Mr. Neuwirt goes beyond equipment storage.
A motion was made by Mr. Cooper to approve a use variance of Article IV Section 4.10 to allow a contractor yard to operate in a rural residential district on Nutting Road, seconded by Mr. Balyeat.
Discussion on the motion: Mr. Kish feels the property’s use as a contractor yard goes beyond the reasonable norms for a cluster development, though he is not unsympathetic to Mr. Neuwirt’s predicament.
The motion was opposed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:41.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Richardson, recording secretary
___________________________________________ _________________________________________
Peter Urbach Alex Kish
___________________________________________ _________________________________________
Harry Gazelle James Lyons
____________________________________________
Bennie Cooper
| 
