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 husbands 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.
Watsons 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.
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 zonings 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 doesnt
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 dont. 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. Hennesseys. 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.
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