APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

February 11, 2002

 

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 McNamara, Alternate David Hennessey

 

ABSENT:                 Peter LaPolice

 

Mr. Kosik informed that Mr. Hennessey would be voting in Mr. LaPolice’s absence. 

 

Case #2216 - ML 7-14-2 - SARGENT, Ross/Dutton Road - Seeking a Variance to Article VII, Section 307-37 to pertmit a three bedroom residence be built within the 50’ wetland setback.

 

Mr. Kosik said that the case had previously been continued pending input from the Conservation Commission and Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Town Health Officer, which still had not been received.

 

Mr. Hennessey suggested continuing the case until Conservation had a chance to review the plan.  Mr. Gleason asked that input from Mr. Zarnowski be received. 

 

Mr. Gleason noted that the Chairman of Conservation, Mr. Bob Yarmo, was present and was aware that the Board of Adjustment requested Conservation’s input.  Mr. Yarmo said that Conservation’s next meeting would be held February 20, 2002 and would review the plan and provide comments at that time. 

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates representing the applicant requested asked if the Board would grant an approval subject to Conservation’s approval.  Mr. Hennessey said that Conservation did not grant approvals, but provided recommendations.  Mr. Zohdi asked if the Board could grant an approval subject to Conservation’s recommendations.  Mr. McNamara  noted that the Board was still waiting for Mr. Zarnowski’s comments.  He said that at the previous meeting the two conditions set were 1) Conservation’s review and comments, and 2) input from Mr. Zarnowski. 

 

Mr. Zohdi discussed the difficulty of waiting for each Board’s meetings.  He noted that he was doing everything he could to have the plan reviewed. 

 

Mr. Zohdi requested a continuance of the plan to the next meeting.  The Board allowed the continuance and would schedule the case on their next agenda. 

 

Case #2218 - ML 3-67-1 - JONCAS, Steven & Mary Ellen/4 Tenney Road - Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII Section 307-74 to permit an accessory dwelling in the residential zone.

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, representing the client informed that they had not received state approval.  He requested that the case be continued to the next meeting. 

 

The Board allowed the continuance and would schedule the case on their next agenda due to the lack of information required.

 

Case #2219 - ML 5-152 - EDWARDS, Joanne & HANLEY, Phyllis/Mammoth & Keyes Hill Road - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit an otherwise conforming lot with less than 200 feet of road frontage on a public street

 

Attorney Philip Currier, who practices law in both Pelham, New Hampshire and Nashua, New Hampshire, represented the applicants.  He informed that the applicants had inherited, and were interested in selling,  the property located on the corner of Keyes Hill and Mammoth Road.  He said the property contained approximately six and a half acres with slightly less than 100’ frontage on Mammoth Road and approximately 260’ of frontage on Keyes Hill Road.  Attorney Currier pointed out that ML 5-150 was owned by the Town (North Pelham Cemetery).  He felt that there would be few opportunities to acquire additional land for the North Pelham Cemetery and informed that his client would be willing to consider giving the Town a portion of ML 5-152 for the cemetery.

 

Attorney Currier discussed the applicants’ proposal.  He said a fully conforming lot would be created with the existing residence and an additional new large lot would be created next to ML 5-151 that would have 50’ frontage.  He said if the large lot was allowed to be created, the applicants would move forward with the transfer and the creation of the lot to be added to the North Pelham Cemetery.  He informed that the new lot would be at least one acre, it would meet all the setback requirements, and would be for residential use. 

 

Attorney Currier believed that the lot met all the requirements under Simplex.  He reviewed the Variance criteria as follows:

 

Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: The new lot will be a residential lot in excess of two acres.  The lot with the existing residence will be a conforming lot regarding frontage, lot size and minimum setbacks.  Two residences on five plus acres will not decrease the value of surrounding residential properties.  We have been unable to uncover any evidence that an abutter to a lot with less than 200’ of frontage has argued that his/her property has been devalued because the abutting lot lacks legal frontage.  The Town Assessor is not aware of any abatements filed on such basis.

 

Item #2.  It is in the public interest: There is an overarching pubic interest.  Applicants’ request for the additional two plus acre lot will enable them to transfer approximately 1 acre to the Town of Pelham to be added to the North Pelham Cemetery.

 

Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land: The present parcel comprises about 6 1/2 acres.  The hardship is in the configuration of the land and the fact that the land directly abuts an existing town cemetery.  This proposal permits the transfer of land to the Town of Pelham and still allows applicants to have two residential lots from the residue.

 

Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done: Substantial justice is achieved for all.  Applicants’ are permitted to have two residential lots out of a parcel approximately 6 1/2 acres in size; the Town of Pelham receives a substantial benefit by adding land to an existing town cemetery; the neighbors are protected since residential use is proposed and the less than 200’ frontage lot is oversized; and more intense development of the parcel with construction of a small road with more lots is avoided.

 

Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: The spirit of the ordinance is honored.  This is not a use variance, since the proposed new lot is for residential use; the new lot will have well over two acres; and the residential character of the neighborhood will not be altered.  There are presently some (how many?) residential lots in Pelham with less than 200’ frontage.

 

 

 

Attorney Currier felt that the Variance requirements as well as the hardship requirements identified in Simplex were met.  He asked that the Board authorize a lot with less than 200’ frontage be created on

ML 5-152.

 

Mr. Kosik asked if the parcel had a plot plan.  Attorney Currier believed the tax map was reasonably accurate and said his clients had not gone through the expense of a subdivision without knowing if the lot would be able to be created.  Mr. Kosik asked what guarantee the Board would have that the property would be given to the Cemetery.  Attorney Currier said there were no guarantees, he still needed to meet with the Selectmen for deeding land and the Planning Board for the subdivision.  He said the guarantee that was offered was that the applicants had a long history in Town and were interested in accomplishing the proposal.  He said they would move ahead with the proposal in good faith.     

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Richard Jensen, Chairman, Pelham Cemetery Trustees was in favor of granting the Variance. 

 

Mr. Bill Wells, 6 Keyes Hill Road, was in favor of the land being given to the Cemetery.  He was concerned with having a house built next to his and pointed out that the driveway would be located next to his driveway. 

 

Ms. Gayle Plouffe, Castle Hill Road, was in favor with expanding the cemetery.  She informed that she owned a gravel lot and noted that there were constraints with the drainage coming down Castle Hill Road.  She said she would be concerned if there were to be multiple house lots approved.

 

Ms. Patrice Lawlor, 507 Mammoth Road, was in favor with the land being given to Town for the cemetery.  She said she was concerned with the number of residences being proposed.

 

Attorney Currier said the applicants were seeking a Variance for a large lot with less than 200’ frontage with only one residence.  He suggested that a condition be placed on the approval.  He said that when the plan went before the Planning Board the drainage issues would be addressed. 

 

Ms. Plouffe wanted consideration to be given to the size of the cemetery and the pipeline.

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the land behind the cemetery was amenable to use for a cemetery.  Mr. Kosik said the land was high and dry.  Attorney Currier said had a soil map and said the bulk of the land was sand and gravel with different slopes, but did not contain wetlands. 

 

Mr. Kosik felt the Board should have a plan before them.  He asked for a detailed description of the applicants’ intent.  Attorney Currier described where he believed the driveway would be placed.

 

Mr. Gleason was unsure which parcel the Variance would be granted for.  Attorney Currier suggested that the Board note in the motion that the Variance would be for ML 1-152 to permit the creation of a conforming lot with an existing residence as well as the creation of a second lot with 50’ frontage.  Mr. Gleason said that the lot would only need a variance if it were subdivided. 

 

Mr. Kosik was unsure what would be voted on since the Board didn’t have a plan to review and there was no commitment for the land.

 

Mr. Hennessey was attracted by the benefit to the Town and consideration of the abutters’ concerns with limiting the number of houses. 

 

 

 

Mr. LaBonte was reluctant to vote on the Variance without knowing the placement of the ingress.  He said that the applicant could withdraw and come back at a later date with a detailed plan.  Mr. Gleason said there could be a stipulation of two lots, with one being conforming and one not with the limitation of one residence per lot.  Mr. Hennessey said the plan would still be subject to the Planning Board’s approval. 

 

Mr. Hennessey suggested a motion, which the Board members agreed upon as follows:

 

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:  

(Hennessey/Gleason) To grant a Variance to create two lots (one conforming, one not conforming), with the non-conforming lot accessed with 50’ frontage onto Keyes Hill Road going to a single house lot, thereby creating two houses on the entire parcel (one house currently exists).

 

(5- 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

(for criteria)

Mr. Kosik - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. LaBonte - Yes

Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Hennessey - Yes

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

May 14, 2001

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:  

(McNamara/LaBonte) To accept the minutes of the May 14, 2001 Board meeting as read.

 

(4 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Kosik abstained.

 

September 10, 2001

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:  

(Gleason/Hennessey) To accept the minutes of the September 10, 2001 Board meeting as read.

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

September 24, 2001

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:  

(Gleason/LaBonte) To accept the minutes of the September 24, 2001 Board meeting as read.

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

January 14, 2002

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:  

(Gleason/McNamara) To accept the minutes of the January 14, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A.L. Willis            

                                                                                                Recording Secretary