MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUNAPEE, NH
January 12, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: PETER WHITE, CHAIRMAN , JAMES LYONS , VICE CHAIRMAN, DON WEATHERSON, RICHARD GUYER AND ALTERNATE: ALEX KISH AND ROGER LANDRY, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
Svend Filby, who is an applicant to be an alternate on the Board , was also present.
Peter Urbach and Robert Henry were absent .
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.
Alex Kish was designated to vote in place of Peter Urbach on the first five cases. He recused himelf on Case # 06-6. Richard Guyer recused himself on Cases # 06-3 and 06-4.
MINUTES: The minutes of December 8, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made. On Page 2, Case #05-71, the word stream was added to the second sentence on the same case , on the tenth line from the bottom of the page, the first sentence will read “ The lot is only 100’ in width.” In the eighth line, the sentence , The Board is very concerned about the closeness to the Lake was deleted. On page 3, Case # 05-72, the slope is 25% not 22%. Don Weatherson made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Richard Guyer seconded the motion. The vote was in the affirmative.
COMMUNICATIONS: There were communications concerning the cases. There will be a Master Plan Meeting on January 19, 2006.
PLANNING BOARD REPORT: Roger reported that an annexation on Hamel Rd was approved. The gallery for Marie Wiggins on Main St. was approved. The Riley Restaurant building was approved to allow existing office space to be used for that purpose or retail space or one residential unit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case # 06-1. Richard Bascom. Map #121. Lot # 27. Special Exception. Art. III. 3:50 C. reduce side setbacks to 15’ and 12.6’ for new construction at Map # 121. Lot #27. West Shore Rd. Sunapee. (Rehearing). Chairman, Peter White, read the conditions of Art. III. 3:50 C. of the ordinance. Richard Bascom presented his case. Harry Gale also contributed. Mr. Bascom said that the Special Exception that was granted August 23, 2005 to reduce the side setbacks to 15’ and 12.6’ for the new construction at Lot # 27, West Shore Rd.was correct.
ZBA MINUTES Page 2. January 12, 2006.
Mr. Bascom said that the case, Chasse VS Town of Candia . 132 N.H. 574. 1989, should not have been used by Atty. Raymond as a reason for appealing the Bascom case, because the Chasse VS Town of Candia involved the grandfathering of the land that was only identified by a lot number. It did not describe any metes and bounds and was not recorded in that manner. The Fernwood Pt. Development was done in the 1950’s by George Dane. Mr. Bascom’s request meets the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Bascom showed the Board a survey map that was done by Clayton Platt in 2002. Most of the lots were sold in 1957, The lot , now owned by Mr. Bascom was not sold at that time. There was a plan of the lots that were recorded at the Registry of Deeds corrected by Mr.Platt’s survey. The entire parcel of
land was recorded. Mr. Bascom plans to build a 26’ x 36’ and 20’ by 12’ a story and a half , single family house. He will need the requested relief from setback dimensions. The proposed house will be 25’ high. Mr. Bascom has the Quit Claim deed , dated July 18, 2003, when he purchased the land from abutters, David and Carole Robinson. There is a set of restrictions that went with the deed. Mr. Bascom read these at the hearing. There had been a boundary line dispute when Mr. Bascom purchased the lot.
Letters were received from Steven and Anne Sharp, and Stewart Schwartz objecting to the proposed building. Atty. Raymond believes that Lot # 27is not a pre-existing , nonconforming lot. Bert Gould is also against the proposal. Bert Thompson voiced that the lot did not exist before 2004. Margaret Thompson said the Mr. Bascom knew it was undersized when he purchased the property. Peter White, Chairman , reminded the Board and the people in attendence that Mr. Bascom had paid for the lot and it is shown on the Town tax map. He also stated that the purpose of the ZBA is to grant property owners relief from the Ordinance. The Board was given a seven page document by Atty. Raymond on behalf of David and Lee Page objecting to the proposed building. Atty . Raymond analyzed Sunapee’s ordinance and what the intent was
of various sections.
Walter Goddard read a letter from the Lake Sunapee Protective Association concerning the need to protect the Lake. This letter was placed on file.
Peter White, Chairman, asked the members what action they wanted to take. The Board has thirty days by their Rules of Procedure to make a decision. Don Weatherson felt that the case should be continued because there was additional information to study before making a decision. James Lyons wanted to make the decision that night. Alex Kish thought that the Board members should take the time to go over all the material before making a decision. Peter White also felt they should take more time to study all the material. He also reminded the group that there were other cases to be heard. Atty. Raymond wanted to continue as long as the abutters were present, A decision was not made on the Special Exception.
The Chairman then opened Case # 06-2. requested by Richard Bascom. Map #121. Lot # 27 for a Variance. Art. III. 3:10. To reduce the roadfront setback to 30’ for new construction . Map #121 Lot #27. West Shore Rd. Sunapee. Mr. Gale was very concerned that a decision on the Special Exception was not made before going to the Variance case. He said the cases were linked and belonged together. He felt the Board should move on and hear both cases.
ZBA MINUTES Page 3. January 12 2006.
The Chairman explained that the cases are separate even though they are linked . At times the Board has had to separate the decisions.
Mr. Bascom said that in order to build the house he needs both requests. He will ask for a continuance. of the hearings. Mr. Gale requested due process. He felt that that they had a right to wait until the decision had been made on the Special Exception before they dealt with the Variance. Atty. Bates voiced that this was not a matter of due process. He said that it was possible the Special Exception question could go on for two years. He said the Board should hear the two cases. Decide the two cases and let the lawyers deal with it. Don Weatherson feels that continuing the cases will put more hardship on the Board. Richard Guyer felt that all the information should be on the table and then make a determination. Roger Landry asked for a short recess for a caucus between Town Atty. Tim Bates, Chairman , Peter White
and himself . The three men returned and the meeting continued. Chairman , Peter White announced that each speaker would be limited to 15 minutes. Don Weatherson made a motion to continue the case. James Lyons seconded the motion. There were five yes votes. Richard Bascom read the copy of his deed. The history of the lot given in the request for the Variance is the same as the request for the Special Exception. Mr. Bascom went over the five criteria requirements for the variance.1. He said the proposal would not diminish the value of the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr.Bascom said “This is a single family neighborhood and the proposed use would be a single family home.” He also said that the lot has town sewer and utilities. It does not have lake frontage. He had pictures of other houses in the development. There are houses and garages closer to the road. The proposal for the lot is not a change of use.. The lot does not
have Lake frontage.
2. Mr. Bascom that the pre-existing , nonconforming lot and the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding properties. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. 3. Hardship a. The unique shape of the lot does not allow the setback requirements to be met. Hardship b. The purpose of the ordinance is not to render pre-existing lots unbuildable , without the variance, this lot can not be developed
Hardship c. The proposed use of the this lot is consistent with the zoning of the area.
4.Mr. Bascom wrote that the lot can not be used to construct a single family home unless the variance is granted. This is related to the substantial justice requirement. 5. Concerning the request is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance , Mr. Bascom wrote “ This is a pre-existing lot with a unique shape. The spirit of the ordinance is not to render this type of lot unbuildable . The proposed use is consistent with the ordinance and consistent with the single family home neighborhood. “ Mr. Bascom went over all the five parts of the requirements .Then Atty Raymond questioned number 1. Concerning the diminuation of the property values. He referred David Paige to speak to the Board. Mr. Paige had contacted Colby Realters and New
London Agency and they reported through letters that there would be a diminish of property values. Harry Gale did not agree. He referred to the quality of the house that Mr. Bascom built across the street. Atty Raymond said it would be true because realtors referred to the density in the area. 2. Atty. Raymond believes there is public interest and concern with density in the area and it is contrary to the ordinance.
ZBA MINUTES Page 4. January 12, 2006.
. Mr. Bascom said that the proposal will not have an impact on the Shoreline Protection Act. He does not have wetlands on the property. Walter Goddard asked about the drainage. James Lyons asked if the cases had gone to the Planning Board There was no need for the request to go to the Planning Board. 3. Hardship a. Atty. Raymond said that the hardship was self-created when Mr. Bascom bought the property to settle a boundary line agreement.Atty. Raymond had also said he would give memos to the members afterwards. Hardship b. and c. No direct comments. 4. Atty. Raymond did not have any sympathy with Mr. Bascom since he felt it was self imposed. Margaret Thompson said that he knew it was a small lot when he purchased the property. 5. Atty. Raymond said that he would
give the members a copy of his memo afterwards.
Mr. Robinson said that he would not have sold the property to Mr. Bascom if he had known he would want to put the house on a small lot. Mr. Paige said he thinks there would be some run-off.
Public part of the hearing closed at 9:27 P.M. Both parties have used their fifteen minutes. Then there was discussion concerning if the abutters would be notified again. Mr. Bascom and Atty. Raymond will be notified. Notification of the next meeting will be posted. They can also call the Town Office. Don Weatherson made a motion to continue the case.and that the same zoning members be notified to act on the cases. All members present agreed. Peter White reminded the those present that there will be no more public input .
Case #06-3. Daniel and Marie Palmier . Map # 108. Lot # 16. Special Exception. Art. III.3:50 C. Reduce 25’ side setback to 18; to modify the existing footprint of the existing garage to accommodate a change in residential use. 50 Westwood Rd. George’s Mills.
Neither the applicants or a representative were present to present their case and the Board all agreed to continue it to the next meeting.
Case # 06-4. Daniel and Marie Palmeir. Map #108. Lot # 16. Special Exception . Art. III. 3:50 I. Alter roofline to existing structure to accommodate a change in residential use. 50 Westwood Rd. George’s Mills. The case was continued to the next meeting.
Case # 06-5. Elaine and John Warren. Map #136. Lot # 61. Special Exception. Art. III. 3:50 C. 1, 2, & 3. Reduce side setback from 15; to 7 ½ ‘ for construction of a new residence. Birch Pt Rd. Sunapee. The Chairman went over the requirements of 3:50 C. Mr. Warren first discussed what they plan to do with the property. There are two pine trees on the Pierce property and they are concerned about the trees. Charles Hirshberg presented the new plan. The applicant had a plan from a previous meeting. They have moved the proposed building about 140’ from the Lake. The house will not block anyone’s view. Mr. Quackenbos was concerned about run-off. There is a soil erosion plan and a planting plan The excavation will be done from the inside of the lot. Mr. Hirshberg said that they have planned
the house so that there will be steps in the grade. The height of the house will be from 25’ to 40’. The property has been in the Warren family for 50 years. Retaining walls will be along the side . Walls will be 3’ in height and out 4’ from
ZBA MINUTES Page 5. January 12, 2006.
the house like terraces. The excavation will be within the footprint. Abutter, Mrs. Pierce objects to the small lots. She also believes in the Shoreline Protection Act. She was concerned about some trees near Stake # 54. She is also concerned who would be responsible if a fallen tree did some damage. She wanted the Board to include a condition in a grant to have about 20 evergreen trees planted along the boundary line of her property. The driveway will be on the flat area. The house is 7% coverage. It would be
22% including the driveway. The Public part of the hearing closed at 10:25 P.M. Peter asked for further information concerning the retaining walls Don Weatherson made a motion to to approve the request of Elaine and John Warren . Case # 06-5. Map # 136. Lot # 61. Special Exception . Art. III. 3:50 C. 1, 2, & 3. reduce side setback from 15’ to 7 & ½ ‘ for construction of a new house. Birch Pt. Rd. Sunapee. Richard Guyer seconded the motion. There were five yes votes. There were no conditions.
Case # 06-6. Paul and Debbie Biehl. Map # 146. Lot # 48. Variance. Art. III. 3:40 C. construct a new home and garage within the 50’ of run-off brook. 350 Bay Pt. Rd. Sunapee. Alex recused himself from the case. Paul Biehl and Bill Holtz presented the case. The stream is seasonal. The applicants have removed the screened porch from their plans. The proposed house will be in the existing footprint. The existing walkway will be removed. There will be a covered walkway from the garage to the house. The house is set back 50’ from the water. There will be a workshop in the lower part of the garage. The garage will be at street level. There will be a 12% lot coverage. The Board went over the five points of the variance. Each one was approved unanimously. The Public part of the hearing closed
at 11 P.M. A motion was made by James Lyons to approve the request of Paul and Debbie Biehl. Case #06-6. Map # 146. Lot # 48. for a Variance. Art. III. 3:40 C. to construct a new houise and garage within 50’ of a run-off brook. 350 Bay Pt. Rd. Sunapee. Don Weatherson seconded the motion. There were four yes votes.
The Board interviewed. Svend Filby as an alternate on the Zoning Board. He is a graphic designer. He is self employed. He has had experience as a real estate investor. He is a resident and property owner in Sunapee. Don Weatherson made a motion, appointing
Svend Filby as an alternate to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. James Lyons seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
.
Respectfully submitted, Date approved:
Edythe C. Dexter, ZBA Secretary
ALTERNATES: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ROBERT HENRY PETER WHITE, CHAIRMAN
ZBA MINUTES Page 6. January 12, 2006.
ALEX KISH JAMES LYONS, VICE CHAIRMAN
PETER URBACH
DON WEATHERSON
RICHARD GUYER
| 
