April 9, 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, Jr., Peter LaPolice, Peter McNamara, Alternate David Hennessey


ABSENT:                 None.




The motion was made and seconded to re-elect Walter Kosik as Chairman.


The vote was unanimous (5 - 0 - 0), Walter Kosik will be Chairman.


The motion was made and seconded to re-elect Edmond Gleason as Vice Chairman.


The vote was unanimous (5 - 0 - 0), Edmond Gleason will be Vice Chairman.


The motion was made and seconded to re-elect George LaBonte, Jr. as Clerk.


The vote was unanimous (5 - 0 - 0) George LaBonte, Jr. will be Clerk.


Continuation of Case #2195 - ML 11-29-5/Susan & Daniel Caffrey - 11 Spring Street - 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. Daniel and Susan Caffrey of 11 Spring Street appeared before the Board to present their case.


Mr. Kosik said a letter had been received from Clay Mitchell, Planning Director stating that they had filed most of the information, but there was an error with the plan submitted.  Mr. Caffrey said they had discussed the access to the dwelling unit with Mr. Mitchell.  He said that they had also spoken with their builder who informed it was simply an oversight. 


Mr. Kosik said they didn’t have a doorway between their bedroom and living room, which would need to be noted on the plan.  Mr. Gleason asked if the Caffrey’s could make a notation on the plan. 


Mr. Mitchell confirmed that the Caffrey's had spoken with the Building Inspector and they would ensure access between the existing house and the accessory dwelling.  Mrs. Caffrey said the access would be between the bathroom of the existing house and the accessory unit. 


Mr. Gleason wanted to confirm that the square footage of the accessory unit was approximately 497 square feet and under the maximum of 500 square feet.  Mr. Caffrey answered yes.  Mr. Gleason also had the Caffrey’s point out the front of the house and confirmed that the access to the unit would be in the back. 


Mr. Kosik informed that the letter from Mr. Mitchell stated that the criteria had been met. 


There was no public input. 


There was a brief discussion regarding ensuring there was a copy of the corrected plan contained in the file.  Mr. Kosik added his copy of the corrected plan to the file.


BALLOT VOTE:                Mr. Kosik - Yes, has met the criteria for Special Exception

                                                Mr. Gleason - Yes, subject to inclusion of doors as depicted on sketch.

                                                Mr. LaBonte - Yes

                                                Mr. LaPolice - Yes

                                                Mr. McNamara - Yes


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




Case #2198 - ML 7-71/ROWBOTHAM/Ralph & Gail - 24 Currier Road - Seeking an Equitable Waiver to 307-12, in accordance with RSA 674:33a & 674:33a,II


Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters aloud. 


Mr. Ralph Rowbotham, 468 Pelham Road appeared before the Board to present his case.  He informed that the house was built in 1978.  He said he had purchased the house in 1995 in the same condition.  He said the road had not changed either.  Mr. Rowbotham said when they were trying to sell the property, he was informed of the setback and believed there had been an oversight for sometime. 


No public input.


Mr. Gleason wanted to confirm that there had been no written violations during his time of ownership. 

Mr. Rowbotham answered no. 


BALLOT VOTE:                Mr. Kosik - Yes

                                                Mr. Gleason - Yes

                                                Mr. LaBonte - Yes

                                                Mr. LaPolice - Yes

                                                Mr. McNamara - Yes


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






Mr. Clay Mitchell, Planning Director met with the Board to answer general questions.


Mr. Gleason asked if the hardship criteria form in the Planning Department would be changed to reflect the new criteria.  He then asked if criteria three could be explained. Mr. Mitchell said the new criteria would be added to the handouts in the Planning Department, and would also include an explanation.  Mr. Mitchell offered an explanation of the criteria and said the state wanted boards to relax the criteria.  The Board discussed the criteria and the difficulties with the current wording.  Mr. Kosik asked if the application would need to be changed to meet the criteria.  Mr. Mitchell said the questions would remain the same, but the advisory language would need to be updated. 


Mr. Gleason asked if it would be difficult for the Board to apply hardship.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes.  He believed there would be new use permits, one for variance and one for setbacks. 


Mr. LaPolice felt the Simplex case was too general.  He gave a brief explanation of how the Simplex case came about.  Mr. Gleason was concerned that people who had been denied due to hardship would be returning to the Board with their cases. 


Mr. Hennessey wanted to know if it would be hard to deny variances in areas where other variances had been granted.  He discussed upzoning and wanted to know if a prevailing situation would be taken in consideration for hardships and made difficult to turn variances down.  Mr. Mitchell said there were variables and based on Superior Court it was possible to upzone and it would be difficult to turn variances down.  The Board discussed in what instances a variance would be difficult to turn down.  There was also a brief discussion regarding non-conforming lots of records and if decision would be able to be upheld.  Mr. Mitchell suggested voting on each criteria separately and said he would revise the voting slips for the Board. 


Mr. Hennessey brought up the issue of changing properties from seasonal to year-round.  Mr. Mitchell said conversions usually depended on the way the ordinance was worded and recommended if there was no ordinance in place one should be drafted. 


Mr. Kosik discussed lots of record and asked if setbacks were abided by, if a permit could be issued.  Mr. Mitchell said he would, based on the way the ordinance currently read.  The Board discussed the problems with small lots.  The Board then discussed accessory dwelling units and if they should be permitted after the sale.  Mr. Kosik asked if there was a law regarding affordable housing.  Mr. Mitchell said there was a case that stated a town needed to accommodate and said the Town had a number of accessory dwellings, which were a benefit to the Town. 


Mr. Kosik said there was list of permitted uses and asked if it the Town should have a list of prohibited list.  Mr. Mitchell he said one sentence could solve the problem: ‘every use not herein permitted is prohibited’. 

Mr. Mitchell suggested a flexible use development permit would help the ‘prohibited’ issue.  He suggested having mixed-use zoning, if not detrimental to zoning.  There was a brief discussion regarding granting zoning versus re-zoning.  Mr. Mitchell said he could craft an ordinance to protect certain areas.  He said the ordinance could be specific with the type of businesses and the looks of the buildings. 


There was a discussion regarding the types of conditions the Board was allowed to impose, how they would be met and at what point they would be enforced.  Mr. Mitchell felt the Board was able to list conditions as long as they were reasonable related to the variance.  He reiterated that he would revised the voting slips to have separate listings so that conditions could be included. 


Mr. Hennessey discussed variances for frontages that were approved based on Planning Board approval and wanted to know if it were allowed to seek input from other Town boards.  Mr. Mitchell said the question was difficult, but the Zoning Board was an appeals board when sitting on a variance and there needed to be something appealed.  He discussed the process the Town currently used, which was okay, but as long as the zoning administrator was the one denying the application.  He said the legal way would be to have the subdivision reviewed by Planning and then to Zoning.  The Board further discussed jurisdiction issues.


The Board then discussed the procedure, which constituted a denial of an application.  Mr. Kosik believed the inspector should be present during the Board’s hearing of the related case. 


Mr. Mitchell reiterated that he would revise the applications and create new voting ballots. 


Mr. Gleason said that the By-Laws stated that the clerk would date and initial applications and wanted to know if the Board’s clerk was to be the one to do so.   Mr. Mitchell said by having the Planning Department date and initial was substantial compliance.





February 12, 2001


MOTION:                (Gleason/McNamara) To accept the minutes from the February 12, 2001 Board meeting                                      as read.


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


March 12, 2001


MOTION:                (Gleason/LaBonte) To accept the minutes from the March 12, 2001 Board meeting as                                                 read.


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




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


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


The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 pm.


                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                                Charity A.L. Willis            

                                                                                                Recording Secretary