MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUNAPEE
August 9, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Peter Urbach, Vice Chairman, James Lyons, Alex Kish, Harry Gazelle, Alternates: Bennie Cooper and Charles Balyeat and Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator.
Robert Henry and Svend Filby were absent.
Bennie Cooper was designated to vote in place of Robert Henry on all cases at this meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES: The minutes of July 12 were reviewed. The following corrections were made. On page 2, in the second paragraph, in the third line, the following sentence was deleted: The proposal of this tower will not be as high and visible. On page 3, on the fifth line, the sentence will read, “They need to make an area for a garage at road level. On the 9th line from the bottom of the last paragraph on page 3, the sentence will read “This was done so there would be no problem with the stonewall. Harry Gazelle made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected .Alex Kish seconded the motion. All members were in favor.
PLANNING BOARD REPORT: Roger Landry reported that at the August 2 Planning Board meeting there was a discussion of possible changes in the Zoning Ordinances. He also reported that he had received a letter from Mr. Frothingham , who is interested in being a member of either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case # 07-14. David F. Coury. Map # 122. Lots # 24 & 25. Seeking relief for an AreaVariance. from Art. III. 3:10.to adjust lot lines and make lot # 25 a conforming lot of 1.5 acres which will allow the existing house to meet all required setbacks. Lot # 24 will become more non-compliant and will be reduced from 1.3 acres to .80 acre in a Rural Residential Zone. 178 Garnet Hill Rd Sunapee. Michael Fuerst, Attorney from Claremont presented the case. Mr. Coury was not present at the beginning of the meeting. One reason for the lot changes are to allow Mr. Coury to have some land for a side yard. There was considerable discussion concerning this plan. Mr. Fuerst presented a document from Mr. Fritz Giddings, who is a certified appraiser and had concluded that both proposed
lots will remain consistent in acreage and waterfront feet with the lots in the immediate neighborhoods. Mr. Giddings also stated that he feels that the proposed lot line adjustment would provide positive results for the Town. He also said , “
this result does not have any supportable adverse impact on the remaining neighborhood lots”.James Lyons questioned the size of the lots. Mr. Fuerst said the two lots were grandfathered, non-conforming lots. Lot # 25 has a house on it. Lot # 24 is undeveloped. Mr. Fuerst believes that the applicant can qualify for all of the conditions for an area variance. Mr Fuerst went over the requirements for an area variance. The Board questioned the hardship requirement. Mr. Coury at one time did not realize that there were two separate lots. If this application is approved, there would be one conforming lot and one more non-conforming lot. With a new owner of the non-conforming lot , it would no longer be a grandfathered lot. The non-conforming lot would not be entitled to a Special Exception. Jim Lyons asked
what the owner would do with the smaller lot ?
It was stated that the smaller lot is already up for sale. The smaller Lot #24 will have a building envelope that would be 50’by 200’. Alex Kish said that a new owner of Lot #24 would be challenged to proof hardship when he knows that a building could only be 50’ wide. Harry Gazelle was also concerned about the narrow lot. The lawyer stated that a pre-existing, non-conforming house could be up to the lot line if it is a permitted use in Sunapee’s Ordinance. Mr. Furest said that the hardship is the need for a larger side yard. He also said that Mr. Coury might be willing to change the size of the lots. Peter Urbach pointed out that the existing house on lot #25 had been in existence for many years. What is the hardship now ? There was a suggestion of redoing the application. The
requirement of reasonable use does not have to be accepted. A comment was made that it is an asset to the Town to improve properties. Roger said that the Planning Board would accept 100’ frontage on a lot if it meets a 4 to 1 ratio.
The Chairman asked for input from the abutters. Mr. Rufus Ward said at first that he had no objection to the proposed plan and he had submitted a letter. However, in rethinking, he said that he shares the driveway with Mr. Coury and the present plan for the driveway would obscure Mr. Wards half of the drive way. The old driveway followed the stonewall. Mr. Ward’s part of the new driveway would obscure his passage and Mr Ward would be crossing Mr Coury’s land. Mr. Coury had said that he would give an easement, but that has not been done as yet. Mr. Fuerst had suggested there should be a clause about the maintenance of the driveway. Mr. Ward has been the one to maintain the driveway. Mr. Ward has not received a signed document. He would like that done before the Area Variance is granted. At this point at the
meeting, Mr. Coury appeared at the meeting. He said he would take care of the agreement. It was pointed out that this issue of the driveway was between Mr. Coury and Mr. Ward. Harry Gazelle was concerned about lot coverage.
Henry and Lorie Wakeman . abutters, are not in support of the applicants request for the Area Variance. Henry Wakeman presented their objections. They feel that the property value of their property and others on Garnet Hill Rd. will be negatively affected. The request for the change in the lot line of Lots # 24 and 25 would create a “skinny, bowling alley” lot. The abutters privacy would be affected. The character of Garnet Hill Rd. would be negatively affected. The approval of the Area Variance would create a more non-conforming lot and contradict the current character of the road. There would be a safety issue with the road. Mr Wakeman was also concerned about the safety around the docks and swimmers. He does not feel there is any hardship because Mr. Coury could sell the property with a “
no build “ easement within 45’ of the existing 1.3 acre. The Wakemans feels that the
Variance would be contrary to the Spirit of the ordinance. They say that the Spirit of the ordinance is not to allow a property owner to gain as a result of another property owner,s
Loss. Janet and Gwain Gillespie and John Dietal of Garnet Hill Road are also against the Area Variance. They will encourage the majority of the other Garnet Hill owners to speak against the variance. The Abutters letters will be placed on file with Case # 07-14 in the
Zoning Office. The Public part of the hearing ended. Harry Gazelle made a motion to approve the request of David R Coury. Case #07-14. Map # 122. Lot s # 24 & 25. for an Area Variance from Art. III. 3:10. To adjust the lot lines and make Lot # 25 a conforming lot of 1.5 acres which will allow the existing house to meet all the required setbacks. Lot # 24 will become a more non-compliant lot and will be reduced from1.3 acres to .8o acre in a Rural Residential Zone. 178 Garnet Hill Rd. Sunapee. Bennie Cooper seconded the motion. There were five yes votes.
Case # 07-15. Myron and Judy Usko. Map #113. Lot # 25. Seeking a Special Exception from Art. III. 3:50 C. To reduce the side setback on the West side from 25’ to 20’ in order to construct a replacement residential structure and a two car garage in a Rural Residential Zone. 48 Ridgewood Rd. Sunapee. Mr. Usko presented the case. There will be some encroaching into the 50 foot setback of the Lake. Wayne McCutchen, Associates did the plans. He explained the reasons for parts of the plans.One concern was the tapered driveway. The coverage is less than 25%. The request will be an improvement on the Lake front. The plan is to remove the existing house and build a new foundation and erect a two story residence with a two car garage. This is why the twenty foot setback is needed. Peter Urbach read the requirements of
the ordinance. The structure will be more conforming with a larger footprint. Bennie Cooper made a motion to approve the request of Myron and Judy Usko. Case # 07-15. Map #113. Lot # 25. for a Special Exception from Art.III. 3;50 C. To reduce the side setback on the West side from 25’ to 20’ in order to construct a replacement residential structure and a two car garage in a Rural Residential Zone. 48 Ridgewood Rd. Sunapee. Harry Gazelle seconded the motion. There were five yes votes.
Case # 07-16. Myron and Judy Usko. Map # 113. Lot # 25. Seeking a Special Exception from Art. III 3:50 C. To reduce the side setback on the East side from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to construct a replacement residential structure and a two car garage in a Rural Residential Zone. 48 Ridgewood Rd. Sunapee. There was little discussion. Bennie Cooper made a motion to approve the request of Myron and Judy Usko. Case # 07-16. Map #113 . Lot # 25 for a Special Exception from Art. III. 3:50 C. to construct a replacement residential structure and a two car garage in a Rural Residential Zone. 48 Ridgewood Rd. Sunapee. Alex Kish seconded the motion. There were five yes votes.
Case # 07-17. Michael Cook . Map # 133. Lot # 49. Seeking relief from a Special Exception. Art. III. 3:50 C. to reduce the East side from 15 feet to 8 feet to extend the replacement of an existing garage with the construction of replacing a two car garage in a Rural Residential Zone. 69 Lake Ave. Sunapee. The plan is to expand the garage for two cars. Granting the 50% side setback will allow for additional depth of 4 feet and move out of the 10 foot zone next to the street. The plan would be within the 25 % coverage. Mary Smith , an abutter was concerned about any problems with plowing snow. James Lyons made a motion to approve the request of Michael Cook. Map #133. Lot # 49 for a Special Exception from Art. III 3:50 C. To reduce the East side from 15 feet to 8 feet to extend the replacement of an existing garage
with construction of replacing a two car garage in a Residential Zone. 69 Lake Ave. Sunapee. Harry Gazelle seconded the motion. There were five yes votes.
Case # 07-18. Michael Cook. Map #133. Lot # 49. Seeking relief from a Special Exception. Art. III. 3: 50 B. Reduce the road front setback to 10 feet. To accommodate the construction of a replacement, two car garage in a Residential Zone. 69 Lake Ave. Sunapee. There will be a sloped area. The house is 8 feet below road level. Bennie Cooper made a motion to approve the request of Michael Cook. Case # 07-18. Map # 133. lot # 49. Reduce road front setback to 10 feet to accommodate the construction of a replacement two car garage in a Residential Zone. 69 Lake Ave. Sunapee. James Lyons seconded the motion . There were five yes votes.
Case # 07-19. Michael Cook. Map #133. Lot # 49. Seeking relief in the form of a Special Exception. From Art. III. 3:50B. To reduce the road front setback from 50’ to approximately 45’ 4” to allow the construction of a new covered entry in a Residential Zone. 69 Lake Ave. Sunapee. The applicant wants to add a 6 foot times 9 foot 6 “ entry roof with support columns. It will be 10’ to the town right of way and 25’ in height. Bennie Cooper made a motion to approve the request of Michael Cook. Case # 07-19. Map #133. Lot # 49. Special; Exception. Art. III. 3:50 B. Reduce the roadfront setback
From 50 feet to approximately 45’ 4 “To allow construction of a new covered entry in a Residential Zone. 69 lake Ave. Sunapee. Harry Gazelle seconded the motion. There were five yes votes.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Date approved. ______________.
Respectfully submitted,
Edythe C. Dexter, Zoning Secretary. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ALTERNATES; PETER URBACH, CHAIRMAN
SVEMD FILBY JAMES LYONS, VICE CHAIRMAN
BENNIE COOPER ROBERT HENRY
CHARLES BALYEAT ALEX KISH
HARRY GAZELLE
| 
