APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

June 11, 2001

 

The Chairman, Walter Kosik, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

 

The Clerk, Mr. George LaBonte, called the roll:

 

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

 

ABSENT:                 Peter LaPolice

 

Mr. Kosik announced that Mr. Hennessey would vote in Mr. LaPolice’s absence.

 

Case #2201 - ML 7-27-7 - MARQUIS, Richard and Cynthia - Fletcher Drive - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of an addition within the side setback

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Richard Marquis, 3 Fletcher Drive read the following criteria aloud:

 

Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: addition will be of the same architecture as the existing home and will be aesthetically pleasing and will have no adverse affect on surrounding properties. 

 

Item #2.  It is in the public interest: add to the taxes being paid to the property and there is a need for what is being proposed. 

 

Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land: land where the addition is to be built virtually useless, therefore placing the addition at that location makes the best use of the property with minimum impact to the yard, trees and quiet countryside.

 

Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done: use is permitted in the district.

 

Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: variance request is only for right setback, will meet all other requirements. 

 

Mr. Marquis informed that he would like to put a 14’ addition to the right side of his split-level house.  He said the yard in the area was shaded and the grass was poor.  He explained that by adding onto the right side of the house they could maintain their living space on one level.  He said if the addition was allowed the side setback would shrink to 13’ instead of the 15’ requirement.  He said other options had been considered, but the proposed location was the best and would make them the happiest.

 

Mr. Kosik asked if they considered shortening the addition.  Mr. Marquis said they had considered shortening, but preferred the wider room. 

 

There was no pubic input.

 

Mr. Gleason asked for clarification of the plan.  He asked if the abutters had been contacted.  Mr. Marquis said the direct abutters didn’t have a problem with the proposed. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked what the total square feet of the addition would be.  Mr. Marquis said it would be 30’x14’, one floor with basement storage underneath. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked if they had a garage.  Mr. Marquis said they had a one-stall garage under, on the opposite side of the house, which was one of the reasons they were proposing the addition on the other side.  Mr. Hennessey asked if they were the original owners.  Mr. Marquis answered no and said they had resided in the home for six years.  Mr. Kosik asked how old the home was.  Mr. Marquis said it was approximately 8-9 years old. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked for a description of the area.  Mr. Marquis explained that certain trees would remain except for a 10’ pine. 

 

Mr. Kosik wanted to make the applicant aware that if the addition were shortened by 2’ he would have to apply.  Mr. Marquis was aware. 

 

Mr. Hennessey reviewed the Simplex standards for hardship as follows: 1) The zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with their reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; 2) No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; 3) The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. 

 

Mr. LaBonte informed that there were new voting slips.  The Board briefly discussed the slips, and decided to defer to the old slips until the new slips could be reviewed and redesigned.  The Board decided to note the case #, date, Board member name and a yes or no vote on the slips. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik – Approved

Mr. Gleason – Approved

Mr. LaBonte – Approved

Mr. McNamara –Approved

Mr. Hennessey –Approved

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Mr. Kosik noted that the Planning Director ask that consideration be given to improving the abutter buffer.

 

Case #2199 - ML 1-112-12 - COUILLARD, Patricia - Keilty Avenue (Lot 12) - Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-73 and 307-74 to permit the construction of an accessory dwelling in residential

 

Mr. Kosik said that the Planning Director’s understanding was that the case would be new because the abutters had been re-notified from last month’s meeting.  He said that per a letter from the Planning Director, the applicant had submitted a new letter of intent and septic plan, which was approved on May 7, 2001 by the Health Officer.

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Ms. Patricia Couillard said she was currently building a home and would like to have her parents live with her.  It was her belief that the code requirement had been met. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Michael Fort, abutter wanted clarification of what the special exception was for.  Mr. Couillard informed that she desired her parents to reside in the house.  She said the reason they had applied was so that they could add a kitchen.  Mr. Fort asked about the abutter notification.  Ms. Couillard said that at the time they processed the application, New American Homes was still the owners.  She said that Mr. Mitchell informed her that all the abutters had been notified.  Mr. Kosik said the Board followed what was in the file. 

 

Mr. Mike Berthiume, applicant along with Ms. Couillard, said he had discussed the abutter list with Mr. Mitchell whom informed him that if there were any additional abutters, they would have been notified. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked for clarification of the parcel behind their home.  He then asked if the home currently existed.  Ms. Couillard said it had been framed, but was not built yet.  Mr. Hennessey said he had calculated the addition, and it met the required square feet.  Mr. Kosik said that Mr. Mitchell confirmed that they met all the conditions.   Mr. Gleason confirmed that the approved septic design was contained in the file. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik - Yes - has met the criteria for a special exception

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. LaBonte - Yes

Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Hennessey - Yes

 

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED

 

Case #2202 - ML 4-174 - SILVERMAN, Kenneth - 160 Jeremy Hill Road - Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-76 to permit a General Home Occupation

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Ms. Elizabeth Skedler appeared before the Board to represent Mr. Kenneth Silverman whom was unable to attend the meeting.  She explained that Mr. Silverman owned a 1200 square foot garage and would like a special exception to purchase motorcycles to ship (once or twice per year) to his corporation in Jamaica.  She informed that he purchased one or two crashed/junk motorcycles at a time.  She said the motorcycles did not run. 

 

Mr. Kosik asked if the motorcycles would be repaired.  Ms. Skedler answered no and informed that they would be shipped in pieces.  Mr. Kosik asked if the oil or gas tanks would be drained at the location.  Ms. Skedler said they were emptied at the auctions.  Mr. Kosik confirmed that Mr. Silverman wouldn’t start the bikes up.  Ms. Skedler said they didn’t run. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked what the maximum number of bikes would be in the garage.  Ms. Skedler said possibly 15-20, but they would be in pieces.  Mr. Gleason confirmed the bikes would be unregistered.  Ms. Skedler answered yes.  Mr. Gleason asked for clarification of the term pieces and wanted to know what precaution was being taken for possible spillage.  Ms. Skedler said that the bikes might be in one piece, or could be missing the tires.  She said the gas tanks would be received, but would be empty and they would be shipped to Jamaica.  She then explained that there was containment section of the garage with a 55-gallon containment tank as well as absorbent pads for storing the gas tanks.  She then provided the Board with pictures of the storage shed.  Mr. Gleason asked if there would be pieces or bikes outside the garage.  Ms. Skedler answered no.  She said people would not be buying parts from the location. 

 

Mr. Kosik asked if Mr. Silverman had applied for a minor home occupancy permit.  Ms. Skedler believed he did and was denied due to the amount of storage in the garage.  Mr. Kosik asked if there would be any employees.  Ms. Skedler said that occasionally Mr. Silverman would hire someone to help load the transport truck. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Silverman would be applying for a dealer license and wanted to know what it would entail.  Ms. Skedler said the license would allow Mr. Silverman to attend auctions and purchase bikes at a discounted rate.  Mr. McNamara asked if there were any state or federal permits required to run the business.  Ms. Skedler said not to her knowledge.  Mr. McNamara confirmed that there was no intent to conduct a local retail or wholesale business, therefore there wouldn’t be added traffic to the shed.  Ms. Skedler answered yes.  Mr. McNamara asked if there would be any metal left around which would need to be disposed of.  Ms. Skedler said there would be, but Mr. Silverman had made arrangements with L&M in Salem for recycling.  Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Silverman was making money from the business.  Ms. Skedler answered no and explained that Mr. Silverman owned property in Jamaica and was helping friends.

 

Mr. Kosik asked if the parts needed to be crated for transport.  Ms. Skedler said the parts were loaded onto a truck and shipped to New York for crating and transport to Jamaica. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked if there was a restriction for the number of unregistered vehicles contained on a property.  Mr. Kosik asked if the bikes were considered vehicles.

 

Mr. Hennessey felt if the Board granted the Special Exception that a condition be added for Code Enforcement’s annual review.  Mr. Kosik agreed.

 

MOTION:

(Hennessey/McNamara) If Special Exception granted, the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to commencement as well as annually. 

 

VOTE:

 

(4 - 1 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. Gleason voted no.

 

The Board reviewed Article XII.  Mr. Gleason was concerned with possible leakage.  There was a discussion regarding junkyards and if this should be considered.  Mr. Hennessey suggested obtaining the Code Enforcement’s opinion.   Mr. McNamara asked that the Fire Chief’s opinion also be obtained.  He said he would discuss with the Chief and report back to the Board. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Hennessey) To continue the hearing until the next posted meeting of the Board and that the opinions of the Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Chief be obtained.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

THE CASE WAS CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 9, 2001. 

 

Case #2203 - ML 11-154 - OUELLETTE, Lance - 13 Gaston Street - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a garage that violates setbacks and lot-size requirements

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. LaBonte stepped down due to a conflict of interest.  Mr. Kosik informed the applicant that the case could be heard with a four-man Board or continued until next month’s meeting.  Mr. Lance Ouellette decided to have the case heard with a four-man Board. 

 

Mr. Lance Ouellette, 13 Gaston Street, read the following criteria aloud:

 

Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: proposed structure would be of the same as surrounding dwellings and would be aesthetically pleasing and have no adverse affect on the surrounding.

 

Item #2.  It is in the public interest: it would solve parking issues and would add to the taxes already being paid. 

 

Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land: would not be able to use their land to the full potential if Variance not granted.  It is already considered an established lot. 

 

Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done: use being granted is consistent with uses being granted to surrounding lots.  Would allow applicant to use their lot effectively.

 

Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: will meet all other requirements of the Town.

 

Mr. Ouellette said he owned two lots, and would like to build a 22’x24’ garage.  He said he met the front and rear setbacks, but didn’t meet the side setbacks by 6’ on both sides.  He explained that there had been a garage previously on the lot, which was torn down by the previous owner who no longer wanted to pay taxes for it.  He said the streets were narrow and during the winter it was difficult to get the snow out of the way.  He added that he would like to protect his and his wife’s vehicles as well as seasonal equipment and patio furniture since they don’t have a shed. 

 

Mr. Kosik asked what utilities would be added.  Mr. Ouellette said he would only have basic electric. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Jay Bibeau, 6 Andover Street, had a previous concern with the garage blocking his view, but had since discussed the situation with the applicant and reached an agreement. 

 

Mr. George LaBonte, 5 Gaston Road said he didn’t have a problem with the garage because he would like to see the applicant’s cars out of the road so that he could move the snow easier. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the garage would be aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Ouellette said it would have the same siding as recently put up on his home. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked if the applicant would be opposed to a height restriction of not more than 24’ in height.  Mr. Ouellette discussed the pitch of the roof, which Mr. Roland Soucy, Building Inspector recommended it be no less than 8-pitch due to the winter weather.  He said the height would be approximately 20’ with a 1’ exposed foundation.   He then discussed the greenery he would plant in the area, which would not exceed 8’. 

 

Mr. McNamara discussed the previous garage and asked what had been on the lot since the removal of the original garage.  Mr. Ouellette said that nothing had been on the lot since the previous garage was removed.

 

MOTION:

(Hennessey/McNamara) If approved, there shall be a height restriction on the garage of 24’.

 

VOTE:

 

(4 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. LaBonte stepped down.

 

Mr. Hennessey reviewed the new criteria. 1) The zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with their reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; 2) No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; 3) The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. 

Mr. Kosik said that he had spoken with the Planning Director who felt the lot of record was ok.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Hennessey - Yes

Mr. LaBonte had stepped down.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Case #2204 - ML 9-41 - CAHILL, Gerald, Sr. (John Kosiba) - Hobbs Road - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot with no street frontage

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. John Kosiba, Harrisville, Rhode Island, appeared before the Board and read the following criteria aloud:

 

Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: planning to build a 2300 square foot colonial home.

 

Item #2.  It is in the public interest: add to the taxes being paid on the property.

 

Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land: would not be able to build a house if the Variance was not granted. 

 

Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done: 12 acres off deeded right of way would be third house.

 

Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: would meet all other requirements.

 

Mr. Kosiba said that Mr. Cahill was his friend who offered to sell the 12-acre lot with the intention of building a house for his wife and him.  He said there were no reasonable plans to subdivide. 

 

Mr. Kosik asked about Cutters Way.  Mr. Gleason said that there were other families using the road, which was not paved.  Mr. Kosiba informed that there were underground utilities that he would be able to feed off of.  Mr. Kosik asked how many houses were located on Cutters Way.  Mr. Kosiba said that there were currently two lots accessed through the passage.  Mr. Kosik asked the width of Cutters Way.  Mr. Kosiba said the Planning Director said it was large enough and had a turn-around for fire apparatus. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Robert Pace, 31 Kens Way (pka Cutters Way) said there were underlying issues with the property.  He informed that there had been a small building which burned down approximately 10 years ago and asked that it be reviewed by the state before any building took place.  He wanted to make sure that any contaminants or hazardous waste be removed so there would be problems later.  He said there was debris and junk currently on the property.  He ended by saying he maintained the road during the winter and felt it may be made more suitable before any additional persons accessed.  Mr. Kosik wanted to know how many people currently used the road.  Mr. Pace said that there would be three if the applicant built a home. 

 

Mr. Gleason clarified that Cutters Passage was now called Kens Way. 

 

Mr. LaBonte confirmed that the other two lots in the area had also been granted Variances.  Mr. Pace answered yes.  Mr. LaBonte said the proposed Variance was no different than the ones granted previously.  Mr. Pace agreed.  Mr. LaBonte asked if Concord had been contacted.  Mr. Pace said no, because it wasn’t his property, but wanted resolve before any building took place. 

 

Mr. Kosiba said he understood the concern and informed that the junk cars had already been removed.  He informed that the land had not been touched in over 20 years.  He said there was a portion of a tin shack that would be removed professionally. 

 

Mr. Kosik asked if the parcel would be land-locked if access couldn’t be obtained through Cutters Passage.  Mr. Kosiba answered yes.  He discussed the swampland in the area and said the proposed house location had been changed accordingly.  Mr. Kosik asked if the applicant had discussed maintenance with Mr. Pace.  Mr. Kosiba answered no, but said he didn’t have a problem compensating Mr. Pace or finding the means to do so himself. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked if Golden Brook was the source of the proposed water.  Mr. Pace answered yes.  Mr. Gleason confirmed that the building area was limited.  Mr. Kosik asked if the applicant had an approved septic system.  Mr. Kosiba said he hadn’t gone through the state yet. 

 

The Board discussed the following concerns: 1) previously approved Variances; 2) safety; 3) private roads and issues with plowing; 4) not passing Simplex criteria; 5) potential contamination on site; 6) emergency equipment access; 7) possible future subdivision. 

 

Mr. LaBonte asked if there was a deeded easement.  Mr. Kosiba said it was attached to the application. 

 

Mr. Hennessey wanted to know what the width of the road was.  Mr. Pace said it was possibly 16’. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik - Yes - waiver from applicant of liability for access as found in RSA 674:41,1:c,III

Mr. Gleason - No - does not meet criteria #3c & 5

Mr. LaBonte - Yes - parcel of 12 acres shall only have one residential home

Mr. McNamara - No - has not met hardship required specifically #1 & #2 of Simplex use; granting Variance would be contrary to public interest and use would be contrary to spirit of ordinance; owners had knowledge that lot was not conforming

Mr. Hennessey - No - does no meet criteria #2, #3, #4 or #5

 

VARIANCE DENIED

 

Case #2205 - ML 8-136 - HOUSING INITIATIVES OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION - 25 Windham Road (Pelham Terrace) - Seeking a Variance to Article IX, Section 307-51 to permit an additional 24 units to be added to Pelham Terrace, a 24 unit senior housing complex for a total of 48 units to be built on the 18 acre site.  The ordinance allows 40 units on one site

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Ms. Cynthia Taylor, President, Housing Initiative of New England Corporation, said they currently own the 24-unit housing at Pelham Terrace and the reason for appearing before the Board was they had a large waiting list and would like to continue helping the seniors in the community.  She said part of their request was to expand and bring in an additional 24-units as well as bring in public water since they had recently had difficulty with their well system.  She said they were exploring bringing in water either from the rear of their property or from Nashua Road.  Ms. Taylor said they had reviewed the possibility of subdividing but didn’t feel they could meet the five-acre of dry land requirement.  She said she had spoken with the Planning Director, who recommended the Variance for the eight units.  She said they could meet the bulk and density requirements. 

 

Ms. Taylor summarized the criteria as follows:

 

Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: discussed the proposed with the abutters and didn’t feel there would be any decrease in value.

 

Item #2.  It is in the public interest: the water main extension.  Mr. Kosik asked where they currently got their water.  Ms. Taylor said they had one well on site with holding tanks.

 

Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land: lack of water on site.

 

Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done: providing public water for domestic use.

 

Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: own 18-acres and would protect the remaining 9-acres in the rear.

 

Mr. Kosik wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that if they chose to only have 40 units they wouldn’t have to apply for Variance.  Ms. Taylor answered yes and said that if they were going to do an addition, they could justify economically adding the additional units to bring in the water line. 

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, showed the plan and conceptual drawing and discussed the high and dry acreage.  He felt that if the water were brought in from Nashua Road it would benefit the Town.  He said the extra eight units would help them budget for bringing the water in. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked how many senior-housing complexes there were in Town.  Mr. Zohdi said there were three.  Mr. Kosik said this complex was the only affordable complex in Town. There was a brief discussion regarding the types of complexes in Town.  Mr. Hennessey pointed out that the Town had voted down increased density.  Mr. Zohdi said they were not requesting increased density.  He said they had 18 acres, but would rather not subdivide.  Mr. Hennessey discussed Simplex criteria #1 and wanted to know if it interfered with the reasonable use of property.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes. 

 

Mr. Gleason was concerned with granting a Variance and setting a precedent based on monetary reasons.  Mr. Zohdi said that a public benefit would be to have access to waterline brought down from Nashua Road.  Mr. Kosik felt the public would benefit from affordable housing.  Mr. Zohdi felt open space was justification for the Variance based on the fact that with five acres the applicant could have 40-units and they were only asking for 48-units on 18 acres. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked how much high and dry land was on the parcel.  Mr. Zohdi said after he walked the site with Ms. Taylor and a soil scientist they estimate 8 1/2 to 9 acres.  Mr. Hennessey asked if the applicant subdivided if the complex would have to be separated.  Ms. Taylor answered yes and informed that if the complex were not attached it would effect their subsidizing.  Mr. Hennessey confirmed that two complexes would not be in the best interest of the Town.  Ms. Taylor felt that the retention of open space was in the interest of the Town. 

 

Mr. McNamara felt building affordable housing was in the interest of the Town, but had a problem with granting a Variance based primarily on economic reasons.  He was unsure if the second part of the hardship criteria was being met. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked if the Planning Board or Planning Director had commented.  Ms. Taylor felt that there was hardship with not having an adequate water supply for a multiple unit elderly complex.  Mr. Hennessey asked if state community well standards had to be met.  Ms. Taylor answered yes.  She felt that they had a hardship and would be benefiting the community. 

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant would oppose an approval stipulation of adding public water.  Ms. Taylor was not opposed.  Mr. Zohdi said they had met with Pennichuck Water Company who has assured that they would be able to supply the site with water. 

 

MOTION:

(Gleason/Hennessey) Any Variance granted by the Board of Adjustment shall be subject to the provision that the owner will bring Pennichuck water to the existing site and anticipated site. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Kosik wanted to note that the Town would benefit from the water, affordable housing and natural expansion.  He also wanted to note that the parcel was 18 acres.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. LaBonte - Yes

Mr. McNamara - No - does not meet criteria #1 & #2 of hardship requirement

Mr. Hennessey - Yes - hardship, shows benefit to Town for water, affordable housing and open space

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Case #2206 - ML 12-234 - CROTEAU, Raymond and Sharon - Ledge Road - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling on a lot  smaller than the necessary two acres (1.736 acres)

 

Mr. LaBonte read aloud the list of abutters.  There were no persons present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, presented the plan to the Board.  He said that Mr. Croteau owned a 1.736 acre parcel and would like to build a duplex for his two sons.  He said the frontage and setback requirements were met as well as state and Town regulations except that their lot size was short by 2/10 of an acre. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Raymond Croteau, 102 Gage Hill Road, said that the land had been acquired in 1978 from his wife’s family, which had owned it since the 1800’s.  He said his son worked for him and they would like residents to make their residence close. 

 

Ms. Sharon Croteau, 102 Gage Hill Road, said that a fence would be built and didn’t see a problem with the children residing in the area.  She said she would like to keep the land in the family since it had been in the family for so long.

 

Mr. Gleason asked if it were possible to gain extra acreage from the abutting lots.  Mr. Croteau said that he and his brother owned the abutting lots and there was no extra land for trade-off. 

 

Mr. Hennessey discussed zoning restrictions and reviewed the plan.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t feel that a shortage of 2/10 of an acre changed the intent of zoning.  The Board discussed the mixed useages in the neighborhood.  Mr. Kosik informed that the neighborhood contained numerous non-conforming lots, as well as commercial businesses.  He said that there were other duplexes in the area as well.  Mr. Zohdi confirmed the area was a mixed-use area.  Mr. Hennessey didn’t like granting Variances based on lot size alone.  Mr. Gleason reiterated that the neighborhood was mixed and noted that the parcel would be land-locked considering the composition of the area.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Kosik - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. LaBonte - Yes

Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Hennessey - Yes - mixed use in area #1of hardship has been met

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

MOTION:

(Gleason/LaBonte) To defer the Discussion of Simplex and Minutes Review to the next posted meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

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

 

VOTE:                   (5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:20 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A.L. Willis            

                                                                                                Recording Secretary