APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

July 10, 2000

 

Mr. Walter Kosik, the Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM.

 

Mr. George LaBonte called the roll:

 

PRESENT:  Walter Kosik, George LaBonte, Edmond Gleason, Peter McNamara, Alternate David

        Hennessey, 

             

ABSENT:    Peter LaPolice, Alternate Jim Bundock, Alternate Carolyn Carter

 

Mr. Hennessey  will vote in place of Mr. LaPolice.

 

CASE # 2175 –  ML 7-187/LAPOINTE, Paul & Theresa –4 Michelle Ave. – Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-74 to permit the construction of an accessory dwelling in the residential zone.

 

Mr. Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.  Mr. Gleason then read Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-74.

 

Theresa Lapointe, 4 Michelle Ave., explained that this in-law apartment would provide living space for her father-in-law for the rest of his life.   She has made copies for each member of the proposed plan and the design of the state approved septic design.  They have net all the conditions required.  They will have a common entrance.

 

PUBLIC INPUT:

 

Robert Langlais of 2 Lisa Terrace is in favor.

 

Mr. McNamara asked how high the new addition was.

 

Mr. Lapointe stated that it did not give the high on the plans.

 

The top plate is 16ft.  The lot is 1.3 acres.  The have frontage of 218-ft.  They have a total of 44,954 sq. ft

 

Mrs. Lapointe said that page 7 shows all of the dimensions.  It also shows on the septic design.

 

The waste disposal was approved by the Department of Environmental Services.

 

BALLOT VOTE:  Mr. Gleason – Yes; Mr. Hennessey – Yes; Mr. McNamara – Yes; Mr. Kosik – Yes, it meets the criteria; Mr. LaBonte – yes.

 

 

Mr. Kosik explained to Mr. & Mrs. Lapointe they had to wait 20 days to apply to the Planning Board.

 

 

CASE #2176 – ML 12-18/WATSON, Alfred & Laura- 227 Old Gage Hill Road North – Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-74 to permit the construction of an accessory dwelling with the living area of 700 square feet in the residential zone.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters.  Mr. LaBonte then read Article XII, Section 307-74.

 

Mrs. Watson, 227 Old Gage Hill Road North, explained that she is for a variance to go beyond 500 sq. ft. because of her husband’s health issues.  He husband has cancer, emphysema and he does not walk well.  Since they do not know what the future holds, they would like the extra room.

 

Mr. Kosik stated that an in-law apartment can only have 500 sq. ft and he does not know if this can be waived.  Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act could it be extended to 700 ft?

 

Mr. LaBonte asked if the designs were make up to incorporate for wider doors and entrances because of a wheel chair. 

 

Mrs. Watson said she did not know she did not remember discussing it with the designer. 

 

Mrs. Watson’s son-in-law explained that the wider doors would be easier for Mr. Watson to get around.

 

Mr. Gleason asked if this was on the first floor and how much of a problem it could be if it was 500 ft instead of 700 ft.

 

Mrs. Watson explained that they would take down the garage and build there.  If it were 500 ft they would live with it.  However it would be more congested especially if they have to bring in equipment, as his illnesses become worst.

 

PUBLIC INPUT:            None

 

The members of the Board then discussed this issue.  The main concern was that they were asking for a special exception, which should be 500 ft and not 700 ft.  If this were designed for a handicapped person then the ADA would then come into plan.

 

Mr. Gleason made a motion to grant for 500-sq. ft. for the special exception.  Then they can apply for a variance with the Planning Department if they want 700 ft.

 

Mr. LaBonte seconds the motion.

 

All are in favor.  The motion carries.

 

BALLOT VOTE  Mr. Geason – Yes; Mr. McNamara – Yes; Mr. Hennessey – Yes; Mr. Kosik – Yes (condition that it is 500 sq. ft.); Mr. LaBonte – Yes.

 

Mr. Kosik explained that Mrs. Watson would have to wait 20 days to apply to the Planning Board.

 

CASE #2177 – ML 7-14-20/NYSTROM, Carl – 20 Clark Circle – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to waive the 15 foot side setback requirement and to permit the construction of an attached garage 10 feet from the side property line.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters.  Mr. LaBonte then read Article III, Section 307-12.

 

Mr. Carl Nystrom, 20 Clark Circle, appeared before the Board to present Case #2173.

 

Mr. Nystrom then read aloud the following five criteria.

 

Item #1            The proposed addition will be aesthetically pleasing and add to the property thus having no adverse effect on surrounding properties.

 

Item #2            The proposed addition will add to the taxes being paid on the property.

 

Item #3            The attached garage can only be built on the side.

 

Item #4            The use being requested is consistent with uses of the surrounding lots and variance being granted will allow us to use our property in the same manner.

 

Item # 5           If the variance is granted we will meet all the other requirements that the town will place on us such as following building code, obtaining all permits, etc.

 

Mr. Nystrom explained that the current existing structure is a 2 story Cape and they would like to add a 2 car garage with a 16ft bay door.  The layout of the property line is an unusual angle.  The front corner has about 20 ft while the back corner is approximately 9 ½ to 10 ft. from the property line

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the land had been surveyed.

 

Mr. Nystrom stated that it was surveyed in 1993 and again in 1995 by his Dad when he planted trees.  He is quite certain of the boundary lines as they are well marked.

 

Mr. Hennessey asked if there were any deed restrictions, wetlands, a not cut zone, etc.

 

Mr. Nystrom stated that there are no wetlands and that property is elevated.  He stated that he is approximately 50 ft away from his neighbors on that side of the house.  They are parking their cars in the driveway now where he would like to put up the garage.

 

PUBLIC INPUT:

 

Ann Johnstone of 18 Clark Circle and her husband are in favor but are questioning the amount of footage from their property line.  Their estimate would be about 5 ft from their line instead of the 10-ft.

 

Mr. Gleason asked where the boundary line is now.

 

Mrs. Johnstone stated that it was 49 ft from the property line, which they have no problem with.  It is the way the angle of the Nystrom house is that they are questioning the area of the garage and how close it would be to their property line.

 

Mr. Nystrom stated that he had a good drawing from the bank.  The garage would follow the angle of the house where there are trees now.  He is extremely confident of the 2 markers of the property line.  However a survey has not been done.  If they go out 21 ft for the garage it would be a 9ft difference.

 

Mr. Kosik said that only a 10-ft variance could be granted and a surveyor would have to come out.  The Nystroms would be subject to be inspected and certified.

 

No one was in opposition.

 

BALLOT VOTE:  Mr. McNamara – Yes with a 10 ft variance; Mr. Hennessey – Yes as requested with a certified plot plan;  Mr. Gleason – Yes subject to having a survey done for the 10 ft variance; Mr. Kosik – Yes 10 ft from property line as requested;  Mr. LaBonte – Yes.

 

This case is granted with a 10-ft variance only.

 

Mr. Kosik explained that Mr. Nystrom had to wait 20 days before he applied to the Planning Dept.

 

CASE #2178 – ML 7-155/TOKANEL, Paul & David – Theodore Avenue & Economou Avenue – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-14 to permit a single family house lot to be served by a joint driveway, with less than 50 feet frontage.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters.  Mr. LaBonte then read Article III, Section 307-14.

 

Mr. Groff represented Mr. Tokanel. 

 

Mr. Kosik then moved the meeting to the downstairs lobby because there were several people who could not climb the stairs.

 

Mr. Groff showed the colorized plans for easier explaining.  He showed the original subdivision plan where some of the lots were not developed and some lots were not approved.  They are asking for 6-7-8 lots to be approved.  There would be one driveway to service the lots.  They would combine 3 lots into 1.   There is a large wetland conservation district in the area.  The total lot would be 5.6 acres.  They would gain access off of Economo.  The driveway would be 540 ft and 16ft wide.  If the driveway were made bigger it would go into a wetland.  They would have to work with the fire chief.

 

Arthur Demers of 8 Economo Ave. stated that he was notified for 1 and not the other case.  He stated that there are lots of wetland in the area and the water comes by the road.  It is the biggest problem.  He also noted that there would be no place for the town to plow in the winter and no room to turn. 

He is against this.

 

Mr. Groff then read the 5 criteria.

 

Item #1            The proposed structure will be of equal or greater value that the surrounding properties.

 

Item #2            The proposed use will add to the taxes being paid on the property.

 

Item #3            If a variance is not granted, the property will be rendered useless and cause it to have little or no value.

 

Item #4            The use being requested is consistent with uses of the surrounding lots and variance being granted will allow us to use our property in the same manner.

 

Item # 5           We are only requesting a variance to waive one of the zoning’s requirements and we will meet all the other setbacks and codes.

 

Lorraine Cosgro of 5 Economo Drive stated that every time a home is built they have water problems.

 

Donna Allen of 2 Economo Dr. stated that all the neighbors have sump pumps in their cellars and both sides of the street get a lot of water.  She asked what the town would do for the residents.

 

Mr. Kosik stated that they are only dealing with a zoning issue as to whether to waive the 200 ft frontage.  It doesn’t mean that it will go through.  They still have to go in front of the Planning Board.

 

Laurie Gullage of 3 Economo Dr. stated that she has water in front of her house.  In the back yard there are duck ponds and she gets water in her cellar.

 

Mr. Groff stated that the Planning Board and the Conservation Committee would deal with the water.

 

Mr. Gleason asked about the 50 ft set back and if soil test and perk test had been done.  It is right on the buffer zone.

 

The answer was that it is up on a hill and the soil is gravel.  The perk test showed good drainage.

 

Mr. Hennessey stated that some of the criteria apply and some don’t.  The decrease in value of the land to the neighbors should be taken into consideration.  He asked how much will the taxes increase to other properties.  Another concern was the size of the house.  They could be up to 4 bedroom houses.  How much would it cost to educate 1 child in Pelham right now and would the taxes on the house be sufficient to pay for the schooling of the children that this house could hold?

 

Mr. Groff stated that it cost approximately $3,500 to $5,000 to educate a child in Pelham.  He cannot answer the other questions because of pending laws in the State Legislature such as the Clermont Case.

 

Mr. Hennessey said that the public interest is more than offset by education school children.  Does it benefit the town?  The Town could purchase this land for conservation.

 

CASE #2179 – ML 7-154/KOUMIDES,Mary – Theodore Avenue and Economo Ave. – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-14 to permit a single family house lot to be served by a joint driveway, with less than 50 feet of frontage on a public way.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. George Demers was not notified for this case.

 

Mr. Groff stated that the same criteria applied for this case also.  Mr. Kosik waived the reading of the criteria since they were the same.

 

Mr. Groff stated that on this parcel more lots were being combined.  It would be a 6.6 acres.  Everything else is the same as Case #2178.  They would share the one driveway.

 

Mr. Kosik stated that they would vote separately on the cases.

 

The meeting then went back upstairs for further discussion by the Board.

 

Mr. Kosik said that he could find many things wrong.  The road is not wide enough.  There are 2 houses instead of one.

 

Mr. LaBonte stated that there is approximately 6 acres going to each lot however.

 

Mr. Gleason noted that there is no substantial evidence not to grant this.  His concerns are the abutters and the water problems that they have.  It is on high ground and the test pits have been done.

 

Mr. Hennessey stated that this was a good idea for provisions for open space for wetlands.  Under the variance guidelines this should not be approved.  The school issue is germane to this case.  What does the town lose?

 

Mr. LaBonte stated that they are taking 12 acres and putting 2 houses up.  It will increase the taxes and the rest of the acres are not useable.  If the Town purchases open space, they are not gaining any taxes.

 

Mr. Gleason stated that the issue is the variance.  It will be subject to all the rules of the Planning Board and the Fire Department.

 

Mr. McNamara said his concerns were the same as Mr. Hennessey’s.  If we do not grant the variance, the land is rendered useless anyway.

 

BALLOT VOTE CASE #2178:  Mr. McNamara – No it does not meet criteria 2 & 3; Mr. Hennessey – No it does not meet criteria 2; Mr. Gleason – Yes; Mr. Kosik – Yes; Mr. LaBonte – Yes.

 

Variance is granted.

 

BALLOT VOTE CASE #2179:  Mr. McNamara – No it does not meet criteria 2 & 3; Mr. Hennessey – No it does not meet criteria 2; Mr. Gleason – Yes; Mr. Kosik – Yes, Mr. LaBonte – Yes.

 

Variance is granted.

 

Mr. Kosik stated that they must wait 20 days before they apply to the Planning Department.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION: (Gleason/Hennessey) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE: 5-0   The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

 

                                                                                                Therese Soucy

                                                                                                Recording Secretary