May 8, 2000


Mr. Walter Kosik, the Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.  He then introduced the Secretary, Therese Soucy.


Mr. Peter LaPolice, the Acting Clerk, called the roll:


PRESENT:  Walter Kosik, Peter LaPolice, Edmond Gleason, Alternate David Hennessey, 

        Alternate Peter McNamara.


ABSENT:    George LaBonte, Alternate Jim Bundock, Alternate Carolyn Carter


The Chairman announced that Mr. Hennessey would be voting for Mr. LaBonte.


CASE # 2172 –  ML 11-238 – Morin, Stephen & Susan/36 So. Shore Drive - Seeking a variance to Article III Section 307-12,Table 1 to permit terms to be waived for the demolition of an enclosed 8’x 24’ porch and to rebuild that portion of the house.


Mr. Peter LaPolice, the Acting Clerk, read Article III  Section 307-12, Table 1.


The conditions of a Single Family Dwelling – minimum lot size 43,560 square feet, 200 foot frontage, building set backs are 30 feet from the front, 15 feet from the sides and 15 feet from the rear.


The Acting Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Stephen Morin then read aloud the following five criteria:


Item #1.   The addition would be aesthetically pleasing & add to the property.


Item #2.   It would add to the taxes in town.


Item #3.   They would not be able to use land to its fullest potential if denied.


Item #4.   The use requested is consistent with uses of surrounding lost.


Item #5.   All codes, setbacks and septic requirements will be next.


Mr. Morin explained that this lot is undersized but is larger than most in the area. The problem being that the road frontage does not meet code.




Ms. Shirley Wakefield, 38 So. Shore Dr., Pelham, NH, is in full accord in what Mr. & Mrs. Morin 

wish to do.


Mr. Kosik then asked Mr. Morin to step up for explanations on his plan.


Mr. Hennessey asked if this property was on the lake?  Mr. Morin said no.


Mr. Morin then proceeded to explain that they would like to take down the old garage and place it on the other side, relocate a shed, tear down the porch which is no good and exceed the sized of the porch by 4 feet.  This will be all within the setbacks.  The actual lot size is .6 of an acre.


Mr. Gleason asked if he was demolishing the house.  Mr. Morin explained that he was saving the 1st floor.  Mr. Gleason then asked what was behind the house.  Mr. Morin said a brook runs behind the house.  There are no houses there and the land behind is owned by Moe Picard.


Mr. Hennessey asked what the 20’ x 30’ garage was being used for and where would the propane tank be.  Mr. Morin noted that the garage would be used for storage and he pointed to where the tank would be located on the plot plan.


Mr. Hennessey expressed his concern that this may be a Conservation issue.  Mr. Morin explained that the stream is partly on his land and partly on Moe Picard’s land.  The stream is only there when

there is a heavy rain.


Mr. Hennessey then asked if work had been started as yet and Mr. Morin responded no.


Mr. LaPolice expressed his concern with the leach field.  Mr. Morin stated that the present leach field is working but he has Gary Hamm of Derry designing a new septic.  The town engineer has already looked at it & the town will get a copy of the design.


Mr. Kosik asked if he was living there now and Mr. Morin said yes.


BALLOT VOTE:  Mr. McNamara – Yes; Mr. Hennessey – Yes (Granted with the condition that the Building Inspector must check to see if Conservation Board needs to be involved); Mr. LaPolice – Yes (Granted with condition that Septic System is replaced); Mr. Kosik – Yes (Granted with condition that leach field is replaced); Mr. Gleason – Yes.




Mr. Kosik reminded Mr. Morin that he must wait 20 days before he can apply for a building permit.


CASE # 2173 – ML 4-118 – Messineo, Augustine & Joyce/ 9/11 Washington Street - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-14 to permit a buildable lot with 12.5 feet less than 200 foot frontage.


Mr. LaPolice, the Acting Clerk, read aloud Article III, Section 307-14 Frontage:


“All lots, except those for the use of industrial buildings, shall have at least two hundred

            (200) feet of frontage on a public right-of-way.  Lots for the use of industrial buildings

may have at least two hundred (200) feet of frontage on a clearly defined, fifty-foot-wide privately owned right-of-way in lieu of frontage on a public right-of-way. Whenever a lot for the use of an industrial building has its frontage on a privately owned right of way, all set back lines will be measured from the edge of the privately owned right-of-way


The Acting Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Augustine Messineo, 9/11 Washington Street, appeared before the Board to present Case #2173.


Mr. Messineo then read aloud the following five criteria:


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


Item #2.   It will increase taxes in the town.


Item #3.   Cannot use lot to its fullest potential if variance is denied.


Item #4.   It will be consistent with surrounding lots.


Item #5.   We will meet all town codes and requirements including septic, setbacks, etc.


Mr. Messineo explained that the plan has a duplex to the right side but is now being used as a single family leaving the left side open.  They would like to divide the property in two and build on the left side.


Mr. Kosik asked what the frontage would be on the existing lot.  Mr. Messineo said 185 ft.

Mr. Kosik then asked what the total frontage is now.  Mr. Messineo answered 375 ft.

Mr. Kosik commented that one lot would have 200 ft and the existing lot would be 175 ft.  Mr. Messineo said that is correct.  The existing lot will be 175 ft.  45,000 square feet continuous the other 50,200 square feet continuous.  Mr. Kosik then remarked that they actually have 200 ft on the larger lot and the other is 25 ft shy on the frontage.




Jim Orr, 7 Washington Street, stated that he does not have a problem with it.


John Will, Washing Street, not a direct abutter, stated that he does not have a problem with it.


Houng K Taing, Taing Family Trust, 36 Brookview Drive, does not have a problem with it


Questions where then asked by the board.


Mr. Hennessey asked if this duplex being used as a condo?  Mr. Messineo replied that it is listed as a duplex and one side being used.


Mr. LaPolice remarked that the problem then is the 25-ft on the existing lot and Mr. Messineo replied yes.


Mr. Gleason commented that this plan must go to the planning board.  Mr. Messinneo explained that by subdividing the new section is no the problem.  The runoff of water is not a problem and is on the existing lot and not on the new section.


Mr. Hennessey stated that he is concerned about the water.  Mr. Messineo replied that the water is not standing water but rather running water.


A discussion then occurred between the members about the continuous land and waiving the frontage.


BALLOT VOTE: Mr. McNamara – Yes; Mr. Hennessey – Yes (Granted with the condition that the Planning Board approves the continuous lot to be subdivided); Mr. Kosik – Yes; Mr. Gleason – Yes; Mr. LaPolice – Yes (Granted with condition that frontage must meet 200 ft.)




Mr. Kosik reminded Mr. Messineo that he had to wait 20 days before he could apply to the Planning Board.


MINUTES REVIEW – April 10, 2000


MOTION: (Gleason/Hennessey) To accept the minutes of April 10, 2000 Board meeting as read.


VOTE  5-0-0   The motion carries.





It was the consensus of the board to hold Election of Officers when a full board is present.




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


VOTE: 5-0-0   The motion carries.


The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.


                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,



                                                                                                Therese Soucy

                                                                                                Acting Recording Secretary