Chair Elizabeth Hackett called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members attending: Elizabeth Hackett, Perry Onion, Mike Teunessen, Nate Abbott, and Zannah Richards. Also in attendance: Annette Andreozzi, Land Use Administrator The Chair made introductions and explained the ZBA procedures. Three positive votes would be needed for any decision to pass. She explained that the ZBA does not do group site walks. The members look at the sites independently. Each case is separate and dependent on the site involved. ZBA decisions stay with the property not the owner. OLD BUSINESS Continued Public Hearing Case # 2018-00004 Benjamin Morse, owner: requests a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 and Article VII-C to build a 70 x 25 house with deck into the road and rear setbacks, and with 2 septic system waivers. Property is.28 acres located on Beaver Drive, Map/Lot# 122/020, in the Residential Lake zone. Mr. Abbott moved to reopen Public Hearing Case #2018-00004 Benjamin Morse, owner Seconded by Mr. Teunessen. Staff stated the waiver variance was not needed because the DES waivers were not those covered in the Gilmanton Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Morse asked about having signatures on the email that was sent by Mary Sawyer. He hadn t receive it with much notice. He felt that most of the statements in it were not accurate, and he did not have time to review it in depth. He felt it should not be considered. Ms. Hackett asked when Mr. Lucas s letter came in. Staff indicated letter was received the day of the meeting. She read it for the group. It has been included in the Morse ZBA file. She stated that all of the info should be submitted to staff before the packet goes out to the Board so the board has time to review it. Mr. Morse said, in replying to the letter and email, that he does not need to have a permit to cut trees. The runoff on Beaver Drive is already there. He has a driveway permit from the Sawyer Lake District. One of his abutters clear cut their property without a Shoreland permit which he should have had. Mr. Morse is outside the Shoreland area and didn t need a permit for a few trees. His property is not 2 lots. If the ZBA wants to require a property survey after granting a variance, that is more reasonable than requiring it 1 of 11
beforehand. The slope on his property is only a 16 percent grade. Mr. Teunessen said the Lucas letter referred to an RSA that is for class one roads. Beaver Drive is a class 6. Mr. Abbott asked the applicant to go over what the space in his footprint would be used for. Mr. Morse said 56 of the length includes house & garage, then 14 of deck. It is 1 ½ stories with a walk-out basement. He wanted to know how the interior living space affects the variance. Mr. Abbott said the house was designed for adequate space. Mr. Morse said a chief complaint of the Sawyer Lake District is that there is junk in too many yards. He didn t want to be the person with the junk. There would be 960 SF of living space on the first floor. 480 SF on the second floor. Mr. Abbott said 1440 SF total, making sure he understood the space. Mr. Morse said he could cut the size of the garage. He could put the driveway off of Deer Drive, but he would have to cut more trees. Mary Sawyer said she represented all the abutters. The application states there would be a 10 rear setback. Mr. Morse said he put 10 on the application so he has wiggle room for placement of concrete. Ms. Sawyer said she had concern of the slope. She thought the road crew was concerned about the slope. At the District meeting they thought this variance would set a precedent. She wants privacy so Mr. Morse should not cut his trees. She thought the lot was unbuildable. Mr. Morse said he cut nowhere near the property line. Deer Drive is a natural embankment which protects the property. He got a driveway permit from Mr. Dow, District Commissioner. He objected to saying the sheet of signatures are supporting the letter, because he felt it was just the sign-in sheet from the meeting. Mr. & Mrs. Strode questioned if Mr. Morse addressed removing trees on Fox Drive. Mr. Morse said he addressed runoff in the document he submitted. Ms. Hackett told abutters that they can go into the office and review information that is in the file. It is their responsibility to do their homework. The lots in question are not unbuildable lots. The ZBA reviewed that at the previous meeting. Most of the people in the audience do not have the required one acre lots. She explained that if someone doesn t want to have a building on the property next to them, they need to own the lot. Also that they have the opportunity to vote on changes to the ordinance. The road is a steep grade with other houses on it, and there are bigger houses in Sawyer Lake. Mr. Hackley, a resident, not an abutter, stated that the District handles taxes for roads. The presented list of signatures was signed by persons who had heard Ms. Sawyer s presentation at the district meeting. He felt he pays taxes so the ZBA will protect his way of life, and the law does go by precedents. The Sawyer Lake subdivision was in 1950, before zoning. [It was 1959 and was supposed to be only vacation camps ] Mr. Snyder asked how many variances where being asked for. 2 of 11
Ms. Hackett stated 2, front & back setbacks. The applicant is more than 35 from the side roads. The ZBA is to give leeway under the right conditions, staying within the confines of the ordinance. Richard Adams, Sawyer Lake Commissioner, stated that the lake is getting over built with a lot of runoff into the lake. He asked if it is an empty lot, why they should go out of the way to make exceptions. Mr. Abbott asked why there was not a variance request for lack of lot size. Staff said that Zoning Ordinance Section 7-c, stated conditions for building on non-conforming lots. Mr. Abbott said the ZBA judgements seem, to the audience, to break the rules, but the rights of the town are voted by the people. The owner of a lot of record has rights. The Board is dealing with 2 variances, rear setback and front setback. The ZBA determines if this is an appropriate way for a landowner to seek rights. Mr. Morse stated that responsible new construction by a builder will not be detrimental to the lake. What is detrimental is all the current owners that are in violation of the Shoreland Act. Mr. Onion stated that the ZBA is required by law to go by specific criteria. The Planning Board s job is to present changes of zoning rules for Sawyer Lake. He couldn t use his own judgement if it opposed the law. Mr. Teunessen said environmental issues need to be addressed. Mr. Hackley stated abutters needed to bring concerns to the Planning Board. ZBA has to go by the law. Mr. Snyder asked again about the number of variances. Mary Sawyer asked about the septic. Ms. Hackett stated that the septic design had been state approved. Ms. Sawyer said there was no survey so the property line couldn t be determined. Ms. Hackett said that Mr. Morse understood. Mr. Morse said that there is a pin on Mr. Snyder s land and his septic designer squared on that pinned. His building will have more protections for the lake than others. Mr. Bantz said that it would be a big house with only 2 bedrooms, wondering what would happen in the future. Mr. Morse said he would have to come back before the board to expand if he ever wanted to. Mr. Teunessen moved to close Public Hearing Case #2018-00004 Benjamin Morse, owner Seconded by Mr. Onion. 3 of 11
NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Case # 2018-00005 Rebecca & Robert Ronstadt, applicant, Pensco Trust, owner: request a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 & ZBA decision #2016-00006 to have outdoor seating. Property is.44 acres located at 518 Province Road, Map/Lot #127/37, in the Village zone. Ms. Hackett stated the applicant was not the property owner. She read the approval of the owner for the applicant to act. Ms. Ronstadt said she was running a restaurant. Since the gas tank was removed people don t know where to park. And people need to walk around the cars to get in the door. She wants to make it friendly. Their license allows 24 seats inside. They don t need outdoor seating to increase capacity. They will create an aisle by putting planters in the road. The tables and chairs they want to use would be removed in winter months. Turns out the town owns the property practically to the front door. The BOS is willing to allow them use of that town property. They don t want to ruin the look of the property. The property line for the café is odd. The road agent felt drawing lines for parking would make it safe. Liability & safety are the thing. They are trying to create an image of a nice place. She couldn t do a lot of things because the property is in the historic district. People don t know it is a restaurant. They want 3 bistro tables. Mr. Ronstadt said there was already a safety problem on that site. The barriers will address that. Ms. Hackett said that the previous special exception stated no exterior seats. A letter from DOT was received, which she read, and it is in the file. Ms. Ronstadt spoke to DOT. She felt they were far away from the state road. They are not serving food or alcohol outside. Ms. Hackett asked about striping on the map supplied by the town administrator, and why people don t park where they are supposed to. Ms. Ronstadt said it is town property. Ms. Hackett said parking needs to be delineated. Ms. Ronstadt thought they had 125 in front of the restaurant. Ms. Hackett confirmed that the applicant did not want parking in front of the tables as they had originally submitted with their application. Mr. Teunessen said he was more concerned about traffic safety on Currier Hill road. The corner is problematic. Ms. Ronstadt said BOS were aware of the problems, and will work it out. Mr. Eisenmann, abutter, said the challenge he has, and he spoke to the ZBA when there was a change of use, is that it is a challenging property, not appropriate for use as a restaurant. There is a safety problem, and the septic is 60 from his well. The restaurant 4 of 11
will affect the septic. He was concerned about the alcohol. He spoke about the continuing change of owners that want the restrictions revisited. Conditions that were put in 2 years ago are being revisited. A septic approval for the load of the site still hasn t been demonstrated. He is not opposed to a café. He wanted to know what would happen if the ZBA conditions weren t met. If 4 tables are at the roadside he is ok with that, but anywhere else changes the way the property is used. Ms. Ronstadt said the septic system approvals were passed on from the former owner. She thought they were the same as required. Mr. Abbott read the condition #2 from ZBA decision #2016-00006. Ms. Ronstadt said the septic was put in 1989. Mr. Abbott stated that what exists isn t in compliance. The decision states clearly what is needed. And a plan is needed in case the system fails. There has been a change in the use of the septic system. He said that the email the Ronstadts sent to him included the wording of the 2016-00006 decision so the applicant was aware of the condition. Mr. Ronstadt stated that they didn t buy the restaurant to expand it. Beer & wine is for takeout. Mr. Abbott asked Mr. Eisenmann if he perceived an impact from the change of use over the past 2 years. Mr. Eisenmann said there had been less traffic, but with the new changes there will be parking concerns. Mr. Teunessen asked if the Ronstadts need to meet existing conditions, should the ZBA even continue with the application. Mr. Abbott said it is up to the BOS to enforce the ZBA conditions. Mr. Eisenmann stated that condition #10 of decision 2016-00006 says no sale of alcohol. If that is going to change that is a non-compliance. Mr. Abbott told the Ronstadts they would have to come back about the alcohol if they want to be compliant. Ms. Hackett stated that the notice for the meeting was only for the outdoor seating. Mr. Abbott felt the BOS could give a temporary waiver, or not, because they are the enforcement agents. Mr. Teunessen moved to close Public Hearing Case #2018-00005 Rebecca & Robert Ronstadt, applicant, Pensco Trust, owner. Seconded by Mr. Abbott. Public Hearing Case # 2018-00006 Edward Klish, owner: requests a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 & Article VII-B-3 to use a porch in the lake setback as living space. Property is.172 acres located at 1 Gun Way, Map/Lot #131-6, in the Rural zone. 5 of 11
Mr. Klish said that since day one he framed his shed as a home. The area indicated as a porch is no different from the rest of the house. The second floor is storage space. He wanted to make the kitchen space where the porch is. The building has been approved. The inspector has been out there. The porch is an enclosed area. Mr. Teunessen said in the past the Board has gone out of the way to make sure porches are not used as living space. Mr. Klish stated the building inspector said that maybe he could make the shed a home. Mr. Abbott said that what was represented by the applicant wasn t what the inspector said. Ms. Hackett said the 2012 building permit says the original shed would be a porch. Mr. Klish came before the board in 2017 twice. Mr. Onion read the conditions of the two ZBA decisions, #2017-00013 and #2017-0001. Mr. Abbott asked when the porch was enclosed. Mr. Klish it was enclosed from day one. When he put the kitchen in the porch area it was near the plumbing of the bathroom. Mr. Teunessen moved to close Public Hearing Case #2018-00006 Edward Klish, owner. Seconded by Ms. Richards. Public Hearing Case # 2018-00007 Christopher Roy, owner: requests a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 and Article VII-C-2 to build a porch in the road setback. Property is.41 acres located at 10 Abnaki Path, Map/Lot # 131/65, in the Rural zone. Mr. Roy stated he tore down the deck a couple of years ago. Mr. Abbott asked if it will be screened in. Mr. Roy said screened in and roofed. [It had not been at that time.] Ms. Hackett read letters of support, which are in the record. The house is 42 from the road with the deck of 16 it will be 8 into the setback. Ms. Richards said it is a flat lot. Mr. Onion asked the applicant if he would be ok with a condition that the deck never be four seasons. Mr. Abbott moved to close Public Hearing Case #2018-00007 Christopher Roy, owner Seconded by Mr. Onion. 6 of 11
DELIBERATIVE SESSION: Case # 2018-00004 Benjamin Morse, owner Ms. Hackett stated that the ZBA had heard a lot of testimony & concern from abutters. Board members had gone to look at the lot. It is a more difficult case than usual because of abutters concerns. The lot appears to be conducive to building, though the road is steep and not that wide. Ms. Richards said it is tough. At least it is 2 former lots together. If it didn t slope as much there wouldn t be concern. It is the lot next to this that has removed all its trees. The applicant has left a row of trees as a barrier. Mr. Abbott said the lake is in a troubled condition, but is this the one that breaks the camel s back. We don t have a metric that says this is the one that will do it. If the applicant can take advantage of his rights with a smaller house it would be less nonconforming into the setbacks. He didn t like the slope of the road. He did like the tree line. He agreed that the water drains into the swell away from the property. Conditions for approval should have a minimal amount of impervious surface. There is no condition that can be said about water diversion or if he builds in a certain way that causes impact to others. There are many deficits to the road. The standard in that community is different from the rest of town. Ms. Hackett asked what the applicant does with the property if the variance is not approved. Mr. Abbott stated that he builds a smaller house. Ms. Hackett said there were 2 parcels. Now it is one lot. Mr. Abbott stated that if the Board forms the opinion that the applicant could make a smaller house to take advantage of his rights, that is legitimate. Mr. Onion said one of 5 criteria for a variance is the spirit of the ordinance. The preamble of the Zoning Ordinance states it is to promote health & safety, and to preserve rural charm. Mr. Abbott read the Zoning Ordinance s definition of the residential lake zone, which states the purpose of the zone is to allow for higher density single-family dwellings. He wasn t sure it was fair to deny on the bases that the building will be too big. Mr. Onion felt the Board could consider the cumulative effect on the region of granting similar variance to others. MOTION: Mr. Teunessen moved to deny a variance in Case # 2018-00004 Benjamin Morse, owner: requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 and Article VII-C to build a 70 x 24 house with deck into the road and rear setbacks. Property is.28 acres located on Beaver Drive, Map/Lot# 122/020, in the Residential Lake zone. The granting of the variance would be contrary to the public interest because of 7 of 11
the negative environmental impact to the soil around the properties and to Sawyer Lake, due to the slope of the property, and the limited area of the lot. Seconded by Mr. Abbott. Ms. Richards asked what the recourse would be for the owner. Ms. Hackett stated that the applicant could bring new info to the ZBA, design a house that fits the setbacks, or make a new design. Vote was 3 for the motion to deny, 2 against. Motion to deny carries. Case# 2018-00005 Rebecca & Robert Ronstadt, applicant, Pensco Trust, owner MOTION: Mr. Abbott moved to grant a variance in Case # 2018-00005 Rebecca & Robert Ronstadt, applicant, Pensco Trust, owner: requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 & ZBA decision #2016-00006 to have outdoor seating only according to plan presented. Property is.44 acres located at 518 Province Road, Map/Lot #127/37, in the Village zone. a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the board perceives there will be no added impact for town services and the Board has found no evidence that it would be contrary; b. The spirit of the Ordinance is observed because the town Fire & Police Chiefs feel there would be no impact on public safety to sit at tables immediate outside the restaurant consistent with the plan presented; c. By the granting of the variance substantial justice will be done because the property applicant may acquire greater profitability and public benefit for the property; d. The Board saw no evidence presented and formed the opinion that granting the variance would not create diminution of value to the surrounding properties; e. Literal enforcement of the ordinance could result in unnecessary hardship to the property owner seeking it owing to special conditions of the property, namely the physical geometry of the building, and the town and state road, that 8 of 11
distinguish it from other properties in the area, AND i. a fair & substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision & the specific application to this property because the dining facility is popular with local residents and it will be better for the public in the opinion of this Board, ii. the proposed use is a reasonable one because it will help increase visibility of the restaurant & prevent unsafe parking. CONDITIONS: 1. All planters, furniture, and light fixtures must be approved by the Historic District Commission. 2. The Board of Selectmen must sign and record permission, and an agreement to use the town right-of-way. 3. Planning Board must sign a site plan that reflects the presented outdoor seating & additional parking. 4. All previous ZBA conditions must be met except condition # 6 on Decision #2016-00006. 5. Tables and chairs may only be out during business daylight hours. 6. There may be a maximum of 4 tables outside. 7. The placement of tables and chairs will be consistent with exhibit A in the ZBA file. Mr. Teunessen seconded. Case # 2018-00006 Edward Klish, owner Ms. Hackett said the owner wishes to turn the shed/porch into the kitchen for his house. MOTION: Mr. Abbott moved to deny a variance in Case # 2018-00006 Edward Klish, owner: requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 & Article VII-B-3 to use a porch in the lake setback as living space. Property is.172 acres located at 1 Gun Way, Map/Lot #131-6, in the Rural zone. The spirit of the Ordinance would not be observed because the lot meets none of the dimensional requirements & the building already has a number of variances. 9 of 11
and By the granting of the variance substantial justice will not be done because the Board refrains from allowing porches to be used as living space when they already violate the 75 lake protection setback. Mr. Teunessen seconded. Vote for the motion was 4 for denying, and one against. Motion to deny passed. Case # 2018-00007 Christopher Roy, owner Ms. Hackett stated that Mr. Roy was looking to build a porch in the road setback. MOTION: Mr. Abbott moved to approve a variance in Case# 2018-00007 Christopher Roy, owner requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV Table 2 and Article VII-C-2 to build a 16 x 14 porch in the road setback according to plans submitted. Property is.41 acres located at 10 Abnaki Path, Map/Lot # 131/65, in the Rural zone. a. The granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because there will be no added impact for services; b. The spirit of the Ordinance is observed because the district is left virtually unchanged from its condition 2 years prior; c. By the granting of the variance substantial justice will be done because the applicant has kept his construction within a prior structure doing so with best practices; d. The Board saw no evidence presented and formed the opinion that granting the variance would not create diminution of value to the surrounding properties; e. Literal enforcement of the ordinance could result in unnecessary hardship to the property owner seeking it owing to special conditions of the property, that the building had a deck which the owner took a little too long to replace 10of 11
distinguishing it from other properties in the area, AND i. a fair & substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision & the specific application to this property because the continued use of the property will reflect the earlier established use, ii. the proposed use is a reasonable one because a screen porch is a necessity in this district. CONDITIONS: 1. The porch may not be enclosed as heated living space. 2. Dimensions shall not exceed 16 x 22. 3. Any steps will not be placed within the setback. Seconded by Mr. Teunessen. APPROVAL OF March 15, 2018, meeting Due to the late hour minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Mr. Abbott and seconded by Mr. Teunessen to adjourn. Vote passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Annette Andreozzi, Land Use Administrator 11of 11