APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

June 10, 2002

 

The Chairman, Peter LaPolice, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

 

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

 

PRESENT:

 

 

ABSENT:

Peter LaPolice, Edmund Gleason, Peter McNamara, George LaBonte, Jr., Walter Kosik, Alternate David Hennessey

 

None.

 

HEARINGS

 

Case #2229 - ML 11-287 - CASEY, Deborah & Randy/20 Woekel Circle - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 Table 1 to permit the construction of an 8x 6 deck within the side setback on an undersized lot.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. Mr. LaBonte then read the corresponding Article aloud.

 

Mr. Randy Casey, Woekel Circle explained the request. He said he would like to add a small deck, change a window into a door and create an additional access to the home. He said the deck would be connected to a lower deck. He had no plans to enclose the deck. Mr. Casey said that the house was currently 5 or 6 from the property line and the deck would not encroach further upon the property line.

 

Mr. Casey read the following criteria aloud:

 

Item #1. There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: The proposed use would add appeal, convenience and safety without adversely affecting surrounding property values.

 

Item #2. It is in the public interest: The proposed use (deck with stairs) would add one more emergency exit.

 

Item #3. Denial of the Variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because:

a)The zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that: The current lot size is very under-sized thus many setbacks can not be applied.

 

b) no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because:

 

c) The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others since:

 

Item #4. There is substantial justice to be done: It wold allow two bedrooms upstairs to have a second exit in case of emergency.

 

Item #5. This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance: Most homes add decks with stairs for easy access to outdoor living areas.

 

Mr. Gleason discussed the setbacks with Mr. Casey and was informed that the Variance request was solely for the deck setback.

 

Mr. Hennessey informed that the Shoreline Protection Act permitted the use being requested. He said that if the deck were proposed to be 12, the application would need to go to the state.

 

Mr. Kosik asked if the deck was essentially a landing. Mr. Casey said he would barely be able to fit a chair on the proposed deck. He said it was mainly being used for accessing the house.

 

Mr. LaPolice asked the age of the existing deck. Mr. Casey did not know, but guessed that it was constructed in the 1970s.

 

Mr. McNamara pointed out that to qualify for a Variance, all five criteria must be answered, including #3 b & c. Mr. Casey said that the response given for #3a also applied to criteria #3 b & c. He reiterated that the deck would be within 6 of the setback, unlike the house that was within 5 of the setback.

 

There was no public input. No motion was made, the Board proceeded to vote as follows:

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. LaPolice - Yes

Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes

Mr. LaBonte - Yes

Mr. Kosik - Yes

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Case#2230 - ML 13-83-6 - JACKSON, Jennifer & Traver/28 Beacon Hill Road - Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-74 to permit an accessory dwelling within the first floor addition with a 24 x 30 cellar foundation attached to the existing dwelling.

 

Mr. LaBonte read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. Mr. LaBonte then read the corresponding Article aloud.

 

Mr. Steve Height, Herbert Associates met with the Board representing Ms. Jackson and her father, Mr. Fitzgerald. He explained that the applicant would like to add an in-law apartment for Mr. Fitzgerald. He said that the house was existing and the septic had been upgraded to accommodate the use. He showed the Board the layout of the addition, which was proposed to be under 500SF and would meet all the setbacks.

 

Mr. Gleason confirmed that the total living area of the in-law apartment would be 720, with 120 currently existing. Mr. Height said that the hallway would also be removed, so that the total living space would be less than 500SF. Mr. Gleason asked if the septic system had been updated. Mr. Height said that the septic system had been redesigned and submitted to the state to show the additional 225 gallons per day. He said that the computers were down at the state, so they were unable to find out if it had been approved, but he did not anticipate any problems. Mr. Gleason asked if the intention was to put a new septic system in. Mr. Height said a new system would be rebuilt.

 

Mr. LaPolice asked how many bedrooms the system would handle if the Variance were granted. Mr. Height said the system was considered to be a five-bedroom design. He explained that the existing house was 3-bedrooms and they would be adding an additional 225 gallons per day. He said generally systems were designed to handle 150 gallons per day. Mr. McNamara asked if there were any prior problems with the septic. Mr. Height said there had been no problems.

 

Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant would have a problem if the approval from the Board was subject to the state approving the septic system. Mr. Height did not have a problem with having a conditional approval.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Hennessey wanted to clarify the living space and asked if hallways were excluded from the living space calculation. Mr. Gleason read the ordinance and noted that it excluded entryways and did reference hallways. Mr. Hennessey did not have a problem with a hallway being part of the entryway. He simply wanted to maintain consistency. The Board discussed their past practice regarding the calculation of living space. Mr. LaPolice will pursue a definitive answer regarding living space calculations.

 

During the ballot vote there was an addition discussion regarding the number of bedrooms the proposed septic system could handle. Mr. Height confirmed that the size of the septic itself would be able to accommodate up to five bedrooms, but that it would be designed to handle 3-bedrooms plus an in-law apartment. Mr. Gleason asked for confirmation that the septic would handle a total of four and a half bedrooms, to which Mr. Height said it would.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. LaPolice - Yes - contingent upon state approval of the septic system for four and a half bedrooms.

Mr. McNamara - Yes - contingent upon state approval of septic design

Mr. Gleason - Yes - subject to receipt of final approval and filing of state approval of septic system plan

Mr. LaBonte - Yes - approved upon receipt of state approval of septic design.

Mr. Kosik - Yes - no permit shall be issued until all criteria are met for a special exception for an in-law apartment.

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Kosik said in the past, the Board would not entertain granting approvals without having everything received. He said he had informed the Planning Department that if the applicants did not have everything, they should request a continuance. Mr. Kosik said that he had watched a call-in public access program where a caller commented that it was easy to have something passed from the Board of Adjustment. He noted that the Board followed the five criteria and if they were met, an application would be granted automatically. He noted that in the state of New Hampshire, 75% of all applications to Board of Adjustments were passed. He said the Board was not used to hold down development.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

May 13, 2002

 

MOTION:

 

 

VOTE:

(Gleason/McNamara) To accept the minutes of the May 13, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Charity A.L. Willis

Recording Secretary