APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

February 12, 2001

 

The acting Chairman, Edmond Gleason, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:45 pm.

 

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

 

PRESENT:

Edmund Gleason, George LaBonte, Jr., Peter McNamara, Peter LaPolice, Alternate David Hennessey, Alternate Carolyn Carter

 

ABSENT:

Walter Kosik, Alternate Jim Bundock

 

The Chairman announced that Mr. Hennessey would be voting for Mr. Kosik in his absence.

 

The Chairman read aloud a portion of the Simplex Decision.All of which is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT #1.

 

CASE #2193 - ML 11-97-1/Erik Fehmel/5 Campbell Road - Seeking a Variance concerning Article III Section 307-12 Table 1 and Section 307-14 to permit a house lot with less than 200 feet of frontage resulting in 30 feet

 

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

 

Attorney Paul DeCarolis presented the case.He said the Fehmels presently own approximately three and a half acres on the west side of Campbell Drive.He said they had reached an agreement with one of their neighbors (Mr. Dallaire) to do a land swap.He said they would swap Mr. Dallaireís land along the front of Campbell Drive to give the clients a total of 230í of frontage along Campbell Drive.He said in return, they would deed to Mr. Dallaire the equivalent amount of land.Mr. DeCarolis said the purpose of the land dedication to Mr. Dallaire would be to provide access to the rear of Mr. Fehmelís property.

 

Mr. DeCarolis read the following criteria aloud: He noted that criteria number 3 changed due to the Simplex decision.

 

Item #1.There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: The property is presently zoned residential and the proposed use is to maintain the residential status.The total lot size is 3 1/2 acres and the new lot will be nearly 2 1/2 acres in size.This will not effect residential property values.

 

Item #2.It is in the public interest: The property presently has sufficient frontage and lot size to accommodate a two family dwelling.There is sufficient need for additional residential living space.

 

Item #3.There is significant hardship to the land: Previously read, but would now fall under the Simplex hardship: Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the abutter to acquire an additional thirty feet of property in order to provide access to the proposed lot.There is no other land available in order to add to the property.The unique configuration of the land prohibits proper use of the property.

 

Item #4.There is substantial justice to be done: The zoning ordinance allows for a two family dwelling to be constructed on the property.The proposed use of the property is a less intense use than what is presently allowed under the ordinance.Other than frontage, all other conditions of the zoning ordinance will be satisfied.

 

Item #5.This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: All other conditions of the Pelham Zoning Ordinance will be met.The proposed lot will have twice the required land area required for a single family lot size and the residential character of the property will be maintained.

 

Mr. DeCarolis summarized and said that substantial justice and the spirit and intent of the ordinance would be satisfied.He said that because they had over two and a half acres of dry land they could potentially have a duplex, but the applicant was proposing that they would maintain a two bedroom dwelling along Campbell Drive and they would stipulate a maximum of three-bedrooms on the rear lot.He said the Board could stipulate restrictions under the variance, which his client would agree to.He said they could also create a class 5 road, but they would not be creating the road, so substantial justice would be done.He noted that each dwelling would have individual septic and wells.

 

Mr. DeCarolis felt this case was ideal under the Simplex hardship.He asked the Board to grant the Variance with the three-bedroom stipulation.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Jack Durand an abutter had no objection to the requested.

 

Mr. LaBonte asked if a plan was already in place.Mr. Erik Fehmel said they still needed to go before the Planning Board.Mr. LaBonte wanted to know why he would restrict himself to a three bedroom home.Mr. Fehmel felt that three bedrooms would be adequate.

 

Mr. Hennessey asked if the proposed lot fell within the expansion of the WCD.Mr. DeCarolis said they were relying on Maynard & Paquette who delineated the wetland.He noted that they still needed to appear before the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Gleason wanted to clarify that the land was being subdivided for himself, not to sell.Mr. Fehmel answered yes.Mr. Gleason confirmed that there would be nothing more than three bedrooms.Mr. Fehmel answered yes.

 

Mr. McNamara asked how long the driveway would be to access the second parcel.Mr. Fehmel said approximately 200í.Mr. McNamara asked if any wetlands would need to be crossed.Mr. Fehmel answered no.

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant had a written agreement from the abutter to sell the portion of land.Mr. Fehmel said they had proposed a verbal land swap agreement and if the Variance was granted then they would have a written agreement drafted.Mr. DeCarolis said Mr. Dallaire would have to consent and sign the Planning Board application and plan, but he couldnít transfer any interest in property until the Planning Board approved the plan.

 

There was a brief discussion as to whether the applicant had to own the property being swapped before the Variance could be granted since there was no documented evidence that the land would be transferred.

 

Mr. Gleason asked the Board to discuss wording so there would be a consensus of opinion.Mr. Hennessey didnít feel that a vote could be taken without input or evidence from the owner of the land.Mr. Gleason disagreed because if the land swap didnít occur, the Variance wouldnít be in affect.

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant had previous discussions with Mr. Dallaire.Mr. Fehmel answered yes.Mr. Gleason asked if there would be any payment for land.Mr. Fehmel answered no, that it would be an even swap of land.Mr. DeCarolis said if the variance wasnít granted the deal would be off, therefore they didnít want to create a lot of legal work.

 

Mr. Hennessey said there was a legal case of Welsh vs. City of Nashua in which the unnecessary hardship was to the owner, not the option holder.

 

Mr. George Dallaire, 83 Dutton Road clarified that the land would be swapped.He said he had viewed the plan and did not have a problem with it.

 

Mr. Hennessey said that the application had come in almost simultaneously with the new WCD ordinance.He wanted to make sure that the Variance would be granted under the current zoning.There was a brief discussion in which Mr. DeCarolis informed that that his understanding was if the Variance was granted it would be based on the current proposed zoning.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Gleason - Yes (Contingent on land swap as documented by Maynard and Paquette plan dated January 15, 2001 and a copy of the certified recorded deed also be part of the file)

Mr. LaBonte - Yes (Contingent on land swap as documented by Maynard and Paquette plan dated January 15, 2001 and a copy of the certified recorded deed also be part of the file)

Mr. LaPolice - Yes (Contingent on land swap as documented by Maynard and Paquette plan dated January 15, 2001 and a copy of the certified recorded deed also be part of the file)

Mr. McNamara - Yes (Contingent on land swap as documented by Maynard and Paquette plan dated January 15, 2001 and a copy of the certified recorded deed also be part of the file)

Mr. Hennessey - Yes (Contingent on land swap as documented by Maynard and Paquette plan dated January 15, 2001 and a copy of the certified recorded deed also be part of the file and the plan to follow zoning in effect today 2/12/01).

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

December 11, 2000

 

MOTION:

 

 

(LaBonte/Carter) To accept the minutes of the December 11, 2000 Board meeting as read.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Hennessey informed that a motion made two meetings ago to have a workshop meeting with the Town Counsel and the Planning Director had not yet been addressed.He felt because it was old business it should be brought up again and said he would like to have a workshop.Mr. Gleason was in favor of having such a meeting.He said he spoke with Selectmen McDevitt who also felt it was a good idea.Mr. Gleason said he would speak with the Chairman and try to set a meeting up with Town Counsel.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(Gleason/LaBonte) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:35 pm.

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Charity A.L. Willis††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Recording Secretary