TOWN OF PELHAM
October 12,
2000
The
Chairman, Walter Kosik, called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
The
Vice Chairman, Edmund Gleason called the roll:
|
PRESENT: |
Walter
Kosik, Edmund Gleason, Peter McNamara, Alternate David Hennessey, Alternate
Carolyn Carter, Alternate Jim Bundock |
|
ABSENT: |
Peter
LaPolice, George LaBonte, Jr. |
The Chairman announced that Ms. Carter and Mr. Hennessey would be voting for Mr. LaPolice and Mr. LaBonte.
CASE #2186 – ML 1-146/SECOND
GENERATION PROPERTIES, LLP – 40 Spaulding Hill Road – Seeking a Variance to
permit construction of a communications tower within a residential district
Mr.
Bundock stepped down for this case only.
Mr.
Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr.
Gleason read aloud Article III, Section 307-58.
Attorney,
Jim Tamposey, representing Second Generation Partnership, LP, appeared before
the Board to present Case #2186. He
began by reading aloud the five criteria:
Item
#1. There will be no decrease in the
value of the surrounding properties:
The applicant proposes to construct a 250’ telecommunications tower on a
95 acre parcel of property accessed off Marie Avenue and Spaulding Hill
Road. The tower will be located far
from surrounding residential structures.
Donovan Appraisal performed an inspection of the area, and research on
property values, and concluded there would be no demunation in value of
surrounding properties.
Item
#2. It is in the public interest: There is a demand in the Town of Pelham and
also surrounding towns, both in New Hampshire and Massachusetts for cellular
telephone service. This site is
necessary for proper cellular telephone coverage. Additionally, the proposed tower will increase the tax base in
the town of Pelham.
Item
#3. There is significant hardship to
the land: Spaulding Hill is a necessary
component of proper cellular telephone and other telecommunications coverage in
the town of Pelham and in surrounding towns.
Experts and potential tower users will testify that this site is necessary
for proper coverage. Additionally, the
only areas in town in which telecommunications towers are permitted, as a
matter of right, are low line commercial and industrial areas, and no number of
towers in those permitted areas will provide the necessary coverage of
telecommunications services. The
telecommunications act has somewhat preempted the traditional hardship
criteria.
Item
#4. There is substantial justice to be
done: Spaulding Hill is a
necessary tower site in order to
provide proper telecommunications coverage in Pelham and surrounding
areas. Without such coverage, there
will be gaps between the coverage.
There are no substitute sites in Town, which could make up for this gap
in coverage. The surrounding
residential area will hardly notice the telecommunications tower and the same
will have no adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. The telecommunications tower is a quiet use
of property, no parties, dogs, children or traffic and mixes well in a
residential area.
Item
#5. This request is within the spirit
of the zoning ordinance: The proposed
use of the property as a telecommunications tower is less intensive than the
use presently allowed in a residential zone.
This is a quiet neighbor, which would be located far from any
surrounding homes. The spirit of the
ordinance is served by a use such as this, which will mix nicely with the
surrounding residential area.
Mr.
Tamposey introduced the following group of people which he intended to have
speak regarding the case he was presenting: Sam Tamposey General Partner of
Second Generation Properties LLP; Andy
Schulman of Getland, Stacy, Tamposey, Schuldus and Steer; Steve Height,
Engineer of Herbert and Associates; Ken Kozyra and Scott Polister of Telecorp;
Mike Notini of Omnipoint.
Mr.
Tamposey said they had appeared two years ago to seek a special exception, for
the same piece of property, which the Board denied. The matter went to court, and the court upheld the Town due to
the lack of committed users for the tower.
Mr.
Steve Height, Herbert Associates came before the Board and explained the
acreage size of ML 32 &
33-146. He said the proposed location
of the facility was approximately 1000’ from any abutting residence.
He
informed that access to the parcel would be through an existing right-of-way
from Marie Avenue. He also informed
that the tower would be made of steel, approximately 250’ tall and the fall
radius would be within the boundaries of the property.
Mr.
Tamposey added, that in order to access the tower, a gravel driveway would be
needed along the right-of-way. He said
there would be a small building at the base of the tower that would be out of
view. He noted that due to the
topography, the first 100’ of the tower would also be out of view. He said that the gravel driveway would have a
locked gate, and the facility would be fenced and locked , except when
employees checked the equipment. Mr.
Tamposey said that each user would have to access the tower one to two times
per month.
Mr.
Ken Kozyra of WFI who represents Telecorp for site acquisition, zoning and
construction appeared before the Board and gave a brief explanation of his
company. He said that Telecorp has two
facilities within Pelham, and a third tower would help them cover an expanded
area, however they would still need to have additional towers to cover the
entire Town. He informed that they have
investigated the area thoroughly for existing facilities to mount their
equipment, however it was a residential zone and the majority of structures
were single family homes, which they have never mounted their equipment
on. He said they have signed a lease
agreement with Second Generation to co-locate on the proposed facility, which
would allow them to cover a large area in Pelham and link their current
facilities to ensure seamless coverage for their clients.
Mr.
Tamposey provided the Board with a map of the Town, which was highlighted to
show coverage areas, and he explained the necessity of locating on higher hills
in Town to provide adequate coverage.
He noted that within Article III, Section 307-58 it states the
preference of pre-exiting towers and existing structures, and went on to say
that within the Town there are no existing facilities that would make up for
the proposed tower. Mr. Tamposey
reiterated that the tower would be 1000’ from any residence. He submitted information to the Board from
Donovan Appraisal, which concluded that in cell tower situations that there is
no demunation of value to surrounding properties.
Mr.
Blain Hopkins, representing Second Generation Properties, LLP, appeared before
the Board and explained that his company has been constructing towers for the
past five years and have been able to gather significant evidence regarding the
impact of towers to the surrounding properties. He said they have performed market analysis to track sales and
thus far have had no instances of demunation of property value due to the
presence of a tower. He informed that
his company has spoken with assessors throughout approximately twenty
communities in Southern New Hampshire. The assessors were asked their
professional opinion regarding demunation of property values in the presence of
towers. He said there were no instances
known. Mr. Hopkins provided the Board
with a copy of his company’s study.
Mr.
Tamposey expressed his opinion for the need of cellular phones and the
importance of telecommunications towers.
At this point, Mr. Hopkins handed out line of site maps, and discussed
the areas in Town that have terrain blockage, which would inhibit servicing
certain areas.
Mr.
Tamposey asked that the Town take the same approach as the Town of Meredith
with regard to #3, the hardship criteria.
He explained that because of the overriding Federal Telecommunications
Act, they have not been as strict with that criteria.
Mr.
Tamposey discussed the necessity for this type of telecommunications
service. He ended by saying there are
significant gaps in coverage in which the tall structures in the Town are not
suitable. He informed they have two
signed leases for co-location, and last, at 250’ they can provide maximum
coverage as well as co-location.
Mr.
Sam Tamposey, General Partner, Second Generation Partnership, LP, informed that
in addition to the two signed leases, they are actively in negotiation with two
additional users for co-location.
PUBLIC
INPUT:
Mr.
Jim Bundock, 20 Scenic View Drive, expressed his opinion that the case doesn’t
meet the criteria for a variance and the uniqueness of the property could have
other uses. He said Article 10 doesn’t,
and in effect doesn’t prohibit personal wireless services. He believes it is in the Board’s right to
deny the variance because the threshold for prohibiting personal wireless
services is not completely seamless coverage.
He spoke of the Virginia Beach case.
Mr. Bundock then asked for clarification of Mr. Kozyra’s credentials, to
which Mr. Kozyra explained that there is no designation for an R.F. Engineer in
New Hampshire. Mr. Kozyra said that he
was accompanied by one of the senior R.F. Engineers of Telecorp and he informed
that Telecorp has a staff of seasoned
R.F. Engineers who prepared the documentation presented. Mr. Bundock
informed he has fifteen years experience of designing integrated circuit
systems as well as modulated systems.
He further explained that Article 10 provides for the use of utility
poles and the like and feels that the proposed use is not a hardship to the
land, but a business proposition. He
said the threshold for preemption of local zoning by the Telecommunication Act
has not been met, and was tested during the previous meeting for this
case. Mr. Bundock then spoke of the
hardship criteria and explained that if the Board granted this variance they
would have to for just about anybody because there is nothing about the
property that distinguish it from other properties in the same area for
suitability. He then discussed Mr.
Tamposey term of ‘necessary cell coverage’ and said it was relative to their
company. He said there could easily be
multiple towers placed on telephone poles to cover a difficult corridor. He ended by saying the threshold of a
variance has nothing to do with how variances are granted in other towns, but
has to do with hardship to land. He
said neighborhoods are about children laughing and community, not about
commercial structures that desecrate the view.
He informed there is evidence, which demonstrates after a tower is put
in place in an area where homes already exist, there was a decrease in property
value of 20%-30%.
Mr.
John Caradonna, Marie Avenue, spoke about the five criteria and noted the
State’s regulation of hardship and discussed two cases. He said the property owned by Second
Generation Properties LP is a residential zone and therefore could be used for
other purposes, such as residential development, agricultural, tree harvesting
or elderly housing. Therefore he feels
that is the most important point in which the variance could be denied. He said as a home owner, he prefers not
living next to a tower and feels that if he were to sell his house, he wouldn’t
get the customer base as compared to not living next to a tower. He then spoke of the spirit of the
ordinance and believes it was to promote competition in the Town, which the
Town already has multiple carriers. He
ended by saying the biggest part of the test that fails is the hardship issue.
Mr.
David Parola, 26 Scenic View Drive, agrees with the other people that spoke
regarding the hardship criteria. He
said he will have a hardship looking at the tower everyday and doesn’t want it
constructed. He said the Town voters
are not excluding wireless, but are controlling it. He has a digital phone which he has had no problem losing the
signal.
Ms.
Holly Saurman, 6 Scenic View Drive, said she didn’t see that much difference
from the last time they appeared before the Board, except the height is
shorter. Her concern was not so much
the decrease in property value, but the quality of her life. She asked if the tower would have blinking
lights, Mr. Kozyra answered yes. She
ended by saying she hopes the Board would deny the plan.
Mr.
Mike Soby, 9 Marie Avenue, wanted to point out that last time this case was
heard (approx. 1998), he inquired if the value of his home would decrease and
he found out it would by 10%-15% and now in 2000, the value would decrease by
15%-20%. He informed that the street is
a cul de sac and the tower would have a devastating effect on the neighborhood. He also said that Marie Avenue floods during
rainstorms and adding a road up to the tower would flood the area even more,
which would devalue homes.
Mr.
Tamposey reappeared before the Board to speak of the issues discussed. He began with saying that the
Telecommunications Act states that it is okay to have holes in coverage, but
without the proposed tower, there would be broad no coverage areas. He then had Mr. Kozyra speak.
Mr.
Kozyra started by explaining that without the proposed tower, there would be a
significant coverage gap of no service.
He said subscribers wouldn’t be able to use their phones at all in this
area. He informed that Telecorp has
attempted to comply with the spirit of the ordinance in this area and
others. He said, to the best of their
knowledge, they have exhausted all possible remedies (i.e. lack of water tanks,
existing flag poles of appropriate size) in this area.
Mr.
Hopkins appeared again to say the Town could not be served from solely from the
industrial/business zone. He said the
former Planning Board Chairperson, Heidi Griffin, asked if he would submit a
map with the areas necessary for towers noted, which he did and should still be
on record.
Ms.
Saurman stepped before the Board to speak again. She said that a 250’ tower with blinking red lights is not a good
neighbor. She ended by saying it isn’t
right and hopes the Board denies the case.
Mr.
Caradonna came before the Board again
and asked for clarification regarding the gap coverage and if they are
representative of a single service provider/carrier.
Mr.
Mike Notini, Omnipoint answered by saying that Omnipoint has the same large gap
in service coverage as Telecorp.
Mr.
Caradonna said there are other carriers in the Town that provide coverage. His house is located in the gap Telecorp
shows, but he informed that three separate companies, with no problems service
his residence. Mr. Caradonna asked for
clarification of a statement made by Mr. Hopkins at the prior meeting. He said that Mr. Hopkins was asked if the
Town would have coverage if a communications tower was located in the Southern
part of Town and also in the Northwest corner at 200’. He said that previously Mr. Hopkins
answered yes to this question. Mr.
Hopkins stood by his previous statement and said that there should be a map
with his notations on record, which was given to Ms. Heidi Griffin.
Mr.
Bundock stepped before the Board once more to inform that when the map is
closely viewed, it is clear that the proposed tower’s coverage radius would
benefit Dracut MA, not the Town.
Mr.
Hennessey said that the marketing analysis didn’t show anything and noted that
the first page shows that comps from 1995 - 2000 were used. He said that doesn’t represent a fair
sampling of property values due to the market appreciating approximately 1.5% a
month. Mr. Hopkins respectfully
disagreed and said they have cataloged the property sales since the wireless
industry began to become very active in New Hampshire. Mr. Hopkins said if each year was viewed
individually the information would validate there is no diminution of property
value. Mr. Hennessey said he questions
the use of the comps and further stated they were insufficient to support the
data. He then asked Mr. Hopkins if the
information on the maps that were provided to the Board contain the same
information as the maps being presented.
Specifically he was interested to know if the maps show a hole created
due to utilizing the Town’s commercial sites and that they support the
information being presented. Mr.
Hopkins said the maps handed to the Board just highlight one of the issues of
the industrial zone being authorized/allowing towers. Mr. Hopkins explained that the maps being presented are the
existing service facilities.
Mr.
Hennessey asked why the mile range was changed on the second to last page of
the information provided to the Board.
Mr. Hopkins said it just shows the blockage as being over a mile. Mr. Hennessey then asked if the same range
of data was being used on all the graphs.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the red lines are at different lengths,
therefore the scale is changed on each page.
Mr.
Hennessey asked if the Pulpit Rock tower was noted on the maps being
presented. Mr. Kozyra answered
yes. Mr. Hopkins said the maps provided
to the Board were only for representative purposes, and have nothing to do with
Telecorp’s service. Mr. Hennessey asked
what the normal radius for a signal was.
Mr. Kozyra answered approximately 2-3miles based on topography. Mr. Hennessey asked for clarification of the
blockage shown on the information provided to the Board and the maps
presented. Mr. Kozyra answered by
saying the maps provided only show line of site. Mr. Hennessey asked if given the existing zoning, adequate
coverage couldn’t be given to the ridgeline of Spaulding Hill to the West to
the Hudson line. Mr. Kozyra answered
yes. Mr. Hennessey then asked if the
majority of property to the East of the Spaulding Hill ridge line could receive
adequate coverage under the current zoning.
Mr. Kozyra answered no.
Mr.
Hennessey asked if it would be less torturous to the zoning laws to ask for a
variance for the height restrictions, rather than the usage restrictions. Mr. Kozyra said he was asked the same
question by the Planning Board in January and said that no matter how tall the
facility is made, it would create enough coverage for the Town because the
signal eventually drops off.
Mr.
Hennessey asked for a response regarding the hardship of land and if there
could be other uses. Mr. Tamposey said
the land is zoned for residential, but the property hasn’t been reviewed for
other uses.
Mr.
Hennessey asked how they have a hardship, if they could use the land for it’s
zoned use since they are not asking for a special permit. Mr. Tamposey asked to view from a
telecommunications standpoint. Mr.
Hennessey ended by saying his understanding is that hardship is from the use of
the land.
Ms.
Carter asked if the owners of the tower in Hudson have been approached. Mr. Kozyra answered no. Ms. Carter then asked if Telecorp approached
Second Generation. Mr. Kozyra said that
the proposal occurred before his employment, therefore, he wasn’t able to
answer the question. Ms. Carter wanted
an explanation of why Telecorp isn’t able to service the Town as other
companies do. Mr. Kozyra answered to
say that each company uses different technology, which creates different types
of signals. He went on to explain that
the tower in Hudson (as informed by Mr. Hopkins) is a radio tower. Ms. Carter said she was concerned with
future variance requests if this one was granted.
Mr.
McNamara asked what percent of the Town would be covered when the proposed
Pulpit Rock and Pentecostal towers go online.
Mr. Kozyra said approximately 1/3 of the Town would be covered with
those two sites as well as the Atwood Road tower.
Mr.
Gleason asked why they are requesting a variance for 250’ when the ordinance
specifies 199’. He also asked if the
gap of coverage is unique to their services.
He also wanted to know if the Town’s assessor had been approached. He informed that they are required to
investigate other sites and he hasn’t seen any documented evidence of such
efforts. He ended by saying he is
concerned with granting a variance in a residential area for telecommunications
where hardship hasn’t been demonstrated.
He asked if they have any documented evidence that research has been
done on other sites and they were found to be inadequate.
Mr.
Tamposey answered by saying they have no written documentation, but their
engineers have informed that without this site, there would be gaps in
coverage.
|
BALLOT VOTE: |
Mr. Hennessey - No (not in the public interest, no
hardship, may decrease value); Mr. McNamara - No (has not met hardship
requirement); Ms. Carter - No (does not meet hardship criteria); Mr. Kosik -
No (does not meet hardship requirement); Mr. Gleason - No (failed to
adequately show hardship) |
|
VARIANCE
DENIED |
|
Mr. Bundock asked to be excused from the remainder
of the meeting.
CASE #2187 – ML
11-17/INDELICATO, Annmarie – 31 Woekel Circle - Seeking a variance to Article
III, Section 307-12, Table 1 to waive the requirements for a lot to install a
foundation and change the house from seasonal to a year round non-conforming
lot.
Mr.
Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr.
Gleason read aloud Article III, Section 307-12.
Ms.
Indelicato, appeared before the Board to present Case
#2187. She explained that the frontage
to the three-season cottage is 50x100’ and the existing house is 22’ wide which
leaves 14’ on the sides, rather than the required 15’. She said they would like to add a full-block
foundation and make the cottage a year-round home. Mr. Kosik asked if they would exceed the footprint. Ms. Indelicato answered no. Ms. Indelicato informed that they are
planning on buying the cottage and would like to add the foundation and also
would like to add a second story. Mr.
Kosik asked the condition of the septic system. Ms. Indelicato informed
that it was checked and has passed inspection.
She said the well was tested and they will need to replace it.
Ms.
Indelicato read aloud the following five criteria:
Item
#1. There will be no decrease in the
value of the surrounding properties: The existing dwelling will be of equal or
greater value than the surrounding properties.
The proposed renovation will be esthetically pleasing and add to the
property, thus having no adverse effect on surrounding properties.
Item
#2. It is in the public interest: The
proposed use will add to the taxes being paid on the property.
Item
#3. There is significant hardship to
the land: There is no additional land
to be purchased in order to conform to zoning.
We will not be able to use our land to it’s fullest potential if the
variance is denied and non-conforming lines already exist.
Item
#4. There is substantial justice to be
done: The use we are seeking is a
permitted use for that district. The
use we are seeking is consistent with uses of the surrounding lots. The variance being granted will allow us to
use our property in the same manner.
Item
#5. This request is within the spirit
of the zoning ordinance: If the
variance is granted we will meet all
the other requirements the Town will place on us by just following the building
code obtaining all necessary permits, etc.
Mr.
Hennessey pointed out that 307-84 requires that the property owner should be
the one to sign and appear before the Board.
Ms. Indelicato informed that the property owner signed a document, which
states that they are acting as the property owner’s agent for securing any and
all permits. Mr. Kosik informed that
Ms. Indelicato had authorization to represent the owner, he also informed that
the application should have been made out in the property owner’s name.
Mr.
Hennessey added that when answering the public interest criteria (#2) the
addition of taxes is not allowed to be sited.
Ms.
Indelicato asked to withdraw without prejudice.
CASE #2188 – ML 1-106/MORAN,
James & Nancy – 3 McGrath Road –
Seeking an equitable waiver of a 30’ setback pursuant to RSA 674:33-A
Mr.
Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr.
Dave Groff, appeared before the Board to represent the applicants. Before he began, Mr. Kosik clarified that
the house is existing. Mr. Groff
explained that the house has existed for 20 years. He said the house had been sold and on record, a plan was
discovered which violated the setbacks.
Mr.
Groff informed that the old plans are in archives, but went on to explain that
in 1994 a subdivision was approved which showed the existing house with the
setback. He said now it is on record. He discussed that in 1979 the former owner’s
land was taken to improve McGrath Road and at the same time McGrath Road was
raised and subsequently there is a large slope down to the house.
PUBLIC
INPUT:
Eleanor
Burton inquired if the Town and/or State were liable, if the change was due to
the road being put in.
|
BALLOT VOTE: |
Ms. Carter-Yes; Mr. Kosik-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;
Mr. Hennessey-Yes (meets 10 year equitable waiver); Mr. Gleason-Yes (meets
equitable waiver) |
|
EQUITABLE
WAIVER GRANTED |
|
CASE #2189
– ML 11-147 & 11-155/JACKSON, Sandra – Gaston Road - Seeking a Variance to
Article III, Section 307-12, Table 1 to permit the reconstruction of an
existing two-bedroom seasonal home and a lot containing 13,000 square feet and
a non-conforming frontage and side setback into a year-round home situated in
the same footprint as the previous building
Mr.
Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr.
Bill Mason, appeared before the Board to represent the applicant. He began by reading aloud the answers to the
five criteria.
Item
#1. There will be no decrease in the
value of the surrounding properties: The proposed structure will be new and
will be of equal or greater value of the surrounding properties and the use
will be consistent with the surrounding properties.
Item
#2. It is in the public interest: While the new residence will add tax
revenues that’s being paid, the proposed new building will represent an
improvement to the building and the grounds that presently exist on the site.
Item
#3. There is significant hardship to
the land: There is no additional land
to purchase by the applicants to bring
the parcel in conformance with the current zoning.
Item
#4. There is substantial justice to be
done: The existing structure is in poor
condition, and granting the variance will allow the applicant to rebuild a new
and sound structure.
Item
#5. This request is within the spirit
of the zoning ordinance: Permits the
applicant to use the property in an orderly fashion with upgrades in
construction of electrical, plumbing and sewage disposal systems in conformance
with the current municipal regulations.
Mr.
Mason gave a brief history of the home.
He said currently the property has been condemned by the Town and is
uninhabitable. He said his clients
would like to rebuild on the existing footprint a year-round two-bedroom
home. He noted that the septic design
has been approved by the State and submitted to the Board. He explained that the septic system design
application submitted to the State noted that it was for a three-bedroom
home. He said the applicant wanted to
ensure that the septic was over designed for sewage disposal.
Mr.
Kosik informed that the board doesn’t have copies of the recently stamped
septic design. Mr. Mason provided a
copy and said that last month he submitted the required amount. He went on to explain the location of the
septic design and said that the plan contemplates a new artesian well. Mr. Gleason asked where the approval stamp
was. Mr. Mason said he made a specific
inquiry and was told that the plan had been approved.
Mr.
Hennessey asked if there was a dredge and fill on the plan. Mr. Mason said there hasn’t been a request
in conjunction with this request. Ms.
Carter said the notes referred to a dredge and fill. Mr. Hennessey said there was a request in 1996.
Mr.
Hennessey asked if this house falls under the Shore Protection Act because it’s
a non-conforming use that hasn’t been used for over a year. Mr. Mason said the structure still exists
and he isn’t aware of the date last occupied.
Mr. Hennessey read from the Model Shore Land Protection Ordinance (1996)
which states:
|
|
“Existing
uses which are non-conforming under this Ordinance may continue until the use
ceases to be active or is discontinued for a period of one year. The existing non-conforming use may not be
changed to another non-conforming use.
Existing non-conforming uses should be required to meet the Shore-Land
natural buffer, drainage and related water quality protection requirements of
this Ordinance. The maximum extent
feasible.” |
|
|
|
Mr.
Hennessey said he didn’t know if the Board could approve because the house
hadn’t been in use for more than a year.
Mr. Mason stepped in to say that he was unclear if it had to be in use. He said as long as the structure exists and
it hasn’t been abandoned and torn down.
Mr. Hennessey said his understanding is once a structure has been
condemned, it can’t be used for residential use. He asked if it was condemned more than a year ago. Mr. Mason didn’t have that information. Mr. Hennessey said there is a question if
this has gone a year as a non-conforming use and said further he didn’t have a
problem continuing this so the Board can inquire of Town Counsel. Mr. McNamara would like to know the date
that the structure was condemned.
Mr.
Geason asked if there was any way to bring the building into conformance. Mr. Mason said he went through the abutter’s
list and said Gaston Street bisects the parcel.
Mr.
Kosik further discussed building on the parcel. Mr. Hennessey said the Shore Line Protection Act provides that
“existing, individual, undeveloped, non-conforming lots of record within the
shore line may be used for purpose of constructing a single-family residential
dwelling”. Mr. Kosik referred to treating
this as a piece of land, not an existing structure. Mr. Hennessey said the Act allows for that.
Mr.
Kosik said he would like to see an updated septic design with a recent State
Stamp. He also informed that
traditionally the Board insists that the footprint remains the same, however,
he wanted to know if the variance was granted would it be possible to move the
house to more or less conform to the side setbacks. Mr. Mason said if the Board found it more appropriate to center
the house on the lot, it could be done.
|
BALLOT VOTE |
Mr.
Hennessey-Yes (subject to State approved septic design on record at Pelham
Planning Department); Mr. McNamara-Yes (condition upon showing approved
septic system); Ms. Carter-Yes (with approved septic design); Mr. Gleason-Yes
(contingent upon State approved septic design); Mr. Kosik-Yes (conditional
approval, septic design from State) |
|
VARIANCE GRANTED |
|
MINUTES REVIEW
August 14, 2000
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Hennessey)
To accept the minutes of the August 14, 2000 Board meeting as read |
|
VOTE: |
(3
- 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
September 11, 2000
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/McNamara)
To accept the minutes of the September 11, 2000 Board meeting as read. |
|
VOTE: |
(5
- 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
Mr.
Hennessey requested a session with Town Counsel to review the regulations and
suggested that an annual meeting be set up and put into a request for
budget. He also noted if there are
insufficient funds for a recording secretary, there should be a request for
budget.
There
was a brief discussion regarding the regulations and the type of information
allowed to be sited by the State.
|
MOTION: |
(Hennessey/McNamara) To request money to meet with Town Counsel to discuss the
regulations. |
|
VOTE: |
(5
- 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Carter/Gleason)
To adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(5
- 0 - 0) The motion carries. |
The
meeting was adjourned at 10:23 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Charity
A.L. Willis
Recording
Secretary