BOA20050411

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 11, 2005

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

The Secretary, Mr. David Hennessey, called the roll:

PRESENT:

=

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, David Hen= nessey, Jeff Gowan (arrived after the meeting commenced), Svetlana (Beloritsky) Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Robert Molloy, Alternate Cindy Ronning (departed the meeting before conclusion)

None.

Mr. McNamara informed that Ms. Ronning would vote in M= r. Gowan’s absence until he arrived.&nb= sp;

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Ronning)= To nominate Mr. Peter McNamara as Chairman.

=

VOTE:

(4-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. McNamara abstained.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Ronning)= To nominate Mr. Jeff Gowan as Vice Chairman.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Ronning)= To nominate Ms. Svetlana Paliy as Secretary.

=

VOTE:

(4-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Paliy abstained.

REMAND

Case #2286= – BIBEAU, David – 36 Atwood Road / ML 29/7-41 – S= eeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit the construc= tion of a 30ft.x40ft. garage partly within the 50ft. wetland buffer.<= /u>

Ms. Paliy read the list of abutters aloud. There were = no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Neither the applicant, nor their representative was pr= esent. Mr. McNamara said the Board would revisit the case later in the meeting.

See below for further action.

CONTINUED<= o:p>

Case #2309= – BOGUSH, Edward – 40 Burns Road / ML 28/2-6 – Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-76 (III) to permit a sawmill business in the residential zone.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had discussed the case dur= ing the past two meetings and had also conducted a site walk.

Attorney George Basbanes, appearing for Mr. Edward Bog= ush and Mr. Albert Trepanier understood that a site walk had been done and recognized that the Board may want to impose some reasonable conditions to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Mr. Hennessey said during the site walk he viewed a wo= rk site that was very close to lot lines and in places within 50ft. of wetlands. He said he saw large piles of logs, limited equipment, some automobiles (that were to be removed). He felt it was clea= rly too close to a wetland that appeared to be within the wetland setback. He said if the operation was shut = down based upon an expansion of a non-conforming use he was concerned what would happen to the log piles. He s= aid beyond the purview of the Board, the site appeared to be an attractive nuisance. Attorney Basbanes s= aid Mr. Trepanier informed him that the Department of Environmental Quality reviewed the site and had no problems.&nbs= p; He pointed out Mr. Trepanier was willing to install a fence and the = log piles could be lowered. Mr. Hennessey said there was clearly a petroleum slick on the site, which distu= rbed him especially due to MBtE . Attorney Basbanes said it was unknown where it came from, but inform= ed that some automobiles were in the process of removal.

Mr. McNamara said the Board also discussed with Mr. Trepanier (during the site walk) the fact that the operation was close to t= he lot line and if it were pulled in it would provide a buffer for sight and noise. He said it was mention= ed that some of the automobiles would be removed and the site would be ‘= cleaned’ up. Attorney Basbanes said it= was largely done, there was a little more to be done, and would be done. Mr. McNamara asked if the applican= t had an objection to imposing conditions on the application and requiring site p= lan review by the Planning Board (a draft of the plan regarding the business and where things were located). Attorney Basbanes respected that the Board could impose reasonable conditions. It was noted that= Mr. Trepanier and Mr. Bogush showed the lot line to the Board during the site walk. Mr. Hennessey said oper= ations were being conducted within the 50ft. setback of the Wetland Conservation District which was separate from the lot line; the operation would need to = be pulled in regardless. Mr. Tre= panier said the only thing near the wetlands was a white truck. Mr. Hennessey pointed out that the setback was 50ft. from the wetlands. Attorney Basbanes understood that the Board wanted assurance that operations were not conducted within 50ft. of the wetlands, or the lot line= s, which he felt was legitimate. Mr. McNamara said the Board also wanted agreement that the lot would continue t= o be cleaned up (of cars, junk materials viewed during site walk) and removed wi= thin a reasonable amount of time. =

Mr. O’Sullivan clarified that logs were trucked = in, in a raw state and processed into something else. Attorney Basbanes answered yes. He noted there were no retail sale= s in the area; the logs were sold in a wholesale basis.

PUBLIC INPUT &nb= sp;

Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove of 20 Pond View Road, noted that a let= ter dated April 5, 20= 05 had been signed by a number of abutters and submitted to the Board for review. She outlined the cont= ents of the letter which reviewed the criteria which they felt the applicant did= not meet. In summary: 1) as a home occupation, the area was being leased to another person and not run by the homeowner; 2) the leaser was not a resident of the site; 3) there had been times when more than three non-residents had worked on the site; 4) operati= ons visible to abutters on Burns Road and Pond View Road; 5) noise from heavy/l= oud equipment will be a significant impact to neighborhood; 6) logs will be delivered to site, which is not customarily associated to the residential a= rea; 7) traffic concerns entering/exiting site; 8) public safety issue by logging trucks blocking off road (to emergency vehicles); 9) environmental concerns with potential damage to wetlands. Ms. Hillsgrove ended by thanking the Board for their efforts.

Ms. Stacy Schuler, 34 Pond View Road, said it was appa= rent to the abutters that the logs were brought in, being cut for firewood and t= hen left the site; the logs were not being processed by the sawmill (that was grandfathered). She said it didn’t appear to be an expansion of Mr. Bogush’s business, but rather a separate business being run on the site in a location not contusive for the environment, or the residents in the area. Ms. Schuler wanted to know what the Board would be voting on. Mr. McNamara said Mr. Bogush’s business was not looked at because it was = grandfathered and clearly separate/distinct from Mr. Trepanier’s operation. He said there was also a question = if the operation was agricultural; the answer was not clear, arguments could be ma= de on both sides of the issue. H= e said if it was considered agricultural, there was a lot of leeway afforded the property owner as to what could/could not go on; if it is not considered agricultural, the Board clearly had jurisdiction. Mr. McNamara said at the time of t= he site walk there were discussions regarding the operation being close to the abutters. Ms. Schuler was in agreement with Ms. Hillsgrove’s testimony that the applicant did not = meet the criteria to receive the home occupation permit.

Mr. Gowan arrived.

Attorney Basbanes said this was not a ‘leaseR= 17; situation, but rather a partnership between Mr. Bogush and Mr. Trepanier. Through his examination of the sta= te statutes, Attorney Basbanes felt the operation was clearly agricultural. He said he didn’t follow the testimony that the operation would interfere with emergency vehicles. He said the applicant was willing = to enter into reasonable conditions. He reiterated that there was a partnership, not a lease situation. Mr. McNamara said the operation was separate from Mr. Bogush’s operation (in terms of location on the site). Attorney Basbanes said= it was adjacent to Mr. Bogush’s land, which had been used in the past for agriculture. Mr. McNamara said assuming there was a partnership, it could also be assumed that Mr. Trepani= er was paying Mr. Bogush consideration for use of the property. Attorney Basbanes said the partner= ship was paying. Mr. McNamara conf= irmed that Mr. Trepanier was not a resident.&nbs= p; Attorney Basbanes answered yes.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara questioned if there was a contradiction if the Board re= gulated the operation as a home occupation. Attorney Basbanes didn’t feel there was a contradiction because under Town zoning, an additional employee is allowed. He said occasionally there would be other part-time help.

With regard to the parcel in question, Mr. Hennessey a= sked if Mr. Bogush ever farmed the land, or use it for agricultural purposes. Attorney Basbanes answered yes; it= was a tree farm, 1600 trees had been planted.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked if there were animals on the farm. Attorney Basbanes believed there m= ay be animals on the adjacent farm.

Mr. O’Sullivan questioned what the typical hours= of operation were for the business. He also wanted to know if the business cycled up and down seasonably. Attorney Basbanes said the busines= s had to be run during daylight; they would comply with reasonable hours of opera= tion requirements.

Ms. Hillsgrove wanted the Board to know that Mr. Trepa= nier informed her and Mr. Anderson (as stated in her letter of April 5, 2005) that he leased = the property as part of the agreement. She said Mr. Trepanier restated this fact during the site walk to wh= ich a number of the abutters heard.

Attorney Basbanes showed the Board a copy of the partn= ership agreement between Mr. Bogush and Mr. Trepanier. The agreement was dated January, 2005.

Mr. Hennessey said the Board received a copy of a lett= er sent to the Planning Director from Donahue, Tucker et.al. regarding cord wo= od business use as permitted as agriculture use. He read a portion of the letter al= oud; in summary the opinion that it is not an agriculture use if it is not being done by the owner. On the oth= er hand, if there is a partnership, it was somewhat being done by the owner, s= o it was a close call. He discusse= d what actions the Board could take and advocated that the Board issue a special exception (including Planning Board site review) with conditions. Mr. Gowan agreed with Mr. Hennesse= y, however declined to comment further having not been present for the entire discussion. Ms. Paliy and Ms. Ronning had no comments.

Attorney Basbanes cited a portion of RSA 21:34 (b) (statute which d= efines farming and agriculture), which he felt applied to the case and showed that= it was clearly an agricultural operation.&nbs= p; Mr. Hennessey reviewed a letter from Attorney John Rattigan of Donah= ue, Tucker et al, which also discussed the state statute and didn’t feel = it should be used in the case when source materials are not grown on the prope= rty and instead trucked onto the property for a manufacturing. Mr. Hennessey suggested not further debating the definition of ‘agriculture’ and instead discuss a special exception with reasonable conditions. Attorney Basbanes agreed. There was a consensus of the Board= to move the discussion regarding a special exception and discuss conditions th= at would be attached to an approval.

Mr. McNamara reviewed a draft list of conditions as fo= llows: 1) restrict hours of operation; 2) limit size of wood pile and timeframe for removal; 3) pull site back from WCD and/or property boundary; 4) number of delivery trucks; Mr. Hennessey added: 5) time limit continued clean up of m= otor vehicles and storage trailer; 6) site plan for Planning Board. It was noted that one of the requirements for a General Home Occupation was site plan review by the Plan= ning Board, who could also impose restrictions.= Attorney Basbanes was concerned with the costs of having a site plan drafted and questioned what the Planning Board could do.

Ms. Paliy was upset that the site had to get to a cert= ain point and come before the Board before being cleaned up. Attorney Basbanes said the site was being cleaned up because it was being looked at and they wanted to make an appropriate presentation.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Ronning) To grant the Special Exception w= ith the following conditions: 1) site defined for purposes of the Planning Bo= ard site plan as well as installation of fences securing the defined work space; 2) hours of operation 8am – dusk everyday; 3) within thirty days of Special Exception approval - diminish the piles of wood to not more than 10feet in height; 4) defined work area on site plan presented to Planning Board, which shouldn’t be closer than 50feet to the boundary or WCD, which ever is closest; 5) wood deliveries restricted to Monday – Saturday, 8am – dusk; 6) site thoroughly cleaned up of motor vehicl= es and machinery (unused, disused, abandoned) within thirty days of Special Exception being issued; 7) site plan review by the Planning Board.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED<= /b>

Case #2286= – BIBEAU, David – 36 Atwood Road / ML 29/7-41 – S= eeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit the construc= tion of a 30ft.x40ft. garage partly within the 50ft. wetland buffer.<= /u>

See above for previous action.

Mr. McNamara revisited the case; there was still no representation for the applicant or the case. He sai= d the Board would table the case until the next meeting on May 9, 2005.

Mr. Hennessey said he had some questions, such as: 1) how the garage was erected with an = appeal pending. He wanted to know wh= y the shed had not been removed, per the approval; 2) why in the middle of spring flooding were the trucks sitting outside on the gravel, and not in the shed= as they were supposed to be.

The case was date specified to the May 9, 2005 meeting. =

Ms. Ronning left the meeting.

Case #2310= – FONTAINE, Beniot & Dolores – 14 & 18 Mercury Lane/ ML 3/5-37-1 & 2 Seeking an Appeal from an Administrative Decision of the Building Inspector for a minor home occupation in the residential zone. Section 307-76<= /p>

Ms. Paliy read the list of abutters aloud. There were = no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Attorney David Groff, representing the applicants Beni= ot & Dolores Fontaine, met with the Board to discuss the case. He said they were present at the l= ast meeting, the question at that time was regarding the wording of the Subdivi= sion Regulations in affect at the end of 1984; the Board wanted a copy of the regulations that were in affect prior to that date. He said he provided the Planning Department with copies of his sets prior to the last meeting and had since confirmed that they indeed had these copies. Attorney Groff said the only quest= ion was if a site review was required for Mr. Fontaine’s operation becaus= e he had been in operation prior to the time site review was required by either = the subdivision regulations or by the zoning ordinance. He explained that the Code Enforce= ment Officer Roland Soucy wrote a violation letter to Mr. Fontaine informing tha= t a home occupation special exception was needed because under the current code anyone operating outside the confines of their house cannot have a minor ho= me occupation (nothing can be visible). He informed that Mr. Fontaine stored materials (masonry items) outsi= de, however they cannot be seen from neighboring properties, which was testifie= d to at the last meeting by the abutter across the street. Attorney Groff reiterated their fe= eling that site review was not needed because the business was existing prior to = the changes in the zoning ordinance that required such.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had been provided with the following: 1) excerpt of the Zoning Ordinance from December 5, 1973; 2) two= page document Article IIIa – Residential Districts - labeled 1976 – believed to be zoning; 3) three pages of the Town of Pelham New Hampshire – Site Development Regulations revised edition dated October 1, 1984;= 4) two page copy of the Zoning Regulations in effect in 1987 – Article I= II District Regulations; and 5) three/four page Site Development Regulations d= ated 1980 . He said how the Board = votes hinges upon if the Board finds that Mr. Fontaine’s business did not h= ave to comply with zoning or site plan regulations because it was founded and w= as going on prior to the effective provisions of either.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the testimony from the last meet= ing which stated Mr. Fontaine established his business in 1984. Attorney Groff answered no; it was= in 1983 when Mr. Fontaine first purchased the property; copies of the deeds we= re provided to the Board. The fi= rst deed was dated Ju= ne 3, 1983 which Mr. Groff informed that Mr. Fontaine purchased the property, went in = and started using the property for his business. Attorney Groff said there was a tr= ade name established (Pinex) in 1984 or 1985 shortly after Mr. Fontaine purchas= ed the property and started using it; he doesn’t use the name anymore. Mr. McNamara reviewed the informat= ion provided to the Board beginning with the 1976 zoning (Article III a – Residential Districts) – the listing (for types of businesses allowed) suggested = to Mr. McNamara they were true office businesses, as opposed to land use businesses. Attorney Groff sa= id historically there were a number of home occupations that were used for var= ious trades (i.e. plumber, electrician, masons). Mr. McNamara asked what materials = were stored on site. Attorney Grof= f said mostly bricks and wood were stored on the site. He wanted the Board to be clear th= at the Code Enforcement Officer had already made the determination (in his letter) that Mr. Fontaine’s business was a home occupation. He said the only question was if s= ite review was needed; they were claiming it was not needed because it was a pre-existing business prior to the requirement for site review. Mr. McNamara believed the Code Enforcement Officer was talking about home occupation in a generic sense. In as much as Mr. Fontaine lives o= n the property and is conducting a business at home. Attorney Groff read a portion of M= r. Soucy’s letter dated Jan= uary 13, 2005 which states under the current Zoning Ordinance, home occupations for contractors was allowed.&n= bsp; They were saying they didn’t want to have to get a Special Exception and go to the Planning Board because it was expensive to get a si= te plan.

Mr. Gowan asked if there had been any major expansion = of the amount of storage material during the period of time that was before the co= de was established and enforced and the present. Attorney Groff said there was a violation notice issued in 1985 or 1986 from Mr. John Tucker the former Enforcement Officer. At that = time Mr. Fontaine spoke with Mr. Tucker about what he was doing and thought that= was the end of it. There was a Selectmen appointed to investigate, however there is no indication in the f= ile of what ever happened. Now a = period of time goes by and a new violation notice was issued and apparently trigge= red by a helicopter flying over and taking an aerial photograph. His client informed him that items= were being taken off the site.

Mr. Hennessey reviewed the Site Regulations dated October 1, 1984= , which required a site plan review. = Attorney Groff believed Planning Director Will D’Andrea discussed this point at the last meeting, which was the reason he provided the Board with a copy of= Mr. Fontaine’s deed which showed when the property was purchased and went into the operation in 1983 ( a year and a half before the regulation went i= nto affect). He said the deed was= dated June 3, 1983; the property was purchased because it was at the end of the road and Mr. Fontai= ne wouldn’t bother anybody. Mr. Hennessey questioned the testimony given at the last hearing that indicated= the contracting business had been in business in 1984; the certificate of Trade Name is dated Jul= y 5, 1985. Attorney Groff said after Mr. Font= aine went into the site he registered a Trade Name (Pinex), a copy of which was provided to the Board. He sai= d Mr. Fontaine went into operation when the property was purchased. Mr. Hennessey believed it was clea= r that it was a home occupation.

Mr. McNamara said the Board also received the Site Development Regulations from 1980 and proceeded to read a portion (Article = III, section a – Scope of Regulations) of which aloud. He then read a portion of Section C – Mixed Uses. Mr. Henne= ssey didn’t see any requirement for a site plan. Mr. McNamara said the Board had to= make a determination. Mr. Hennessey appreciated the point was fine and easily debatable. He suggested perhaps the site plan review process may not be as harmful, or expensive as the applicant may believe. He felt the purpose = of the ordinance was clear; to develop a time line so it can be established that t= here could be no further non-conforming use.&nb= sp; He didn’t see the need for a stereoscopic plan. Mr. McNamara believed the Planning= Board had required in recent past some specific plans; there were no guarantees o= nce that purview was entered. Mr. Hennessey understood the purpose of the regulations, but said the applicant= had been conducting the business since 1984, which is the year the regulations changed. He said he wanted to uphold the Code Enforcement Officer, but found the case difficult. Mr. McNamara said particularly sin= ce testimony was given that the property was purchased in 1983 and testimony f= rom the applicant that the business was started in 1984. The Board had nothing on the recor= d to rebut these facts. Town Counc= il had indicated that there are home businesses that include non-traditional things that were not listed in the regulations.&n= bsp; Mr. Hennessey said he didn’t see anything pre-dating 1984 that specified the requirement to do a site plan.

Ms. Paliy discussed the situation and felt the Town sh= ould have done due diligence ten years ago.&nbs= p; She said the Town was aware of this and it should have been done bef= ore a person can’t keep being brought back.

Mr. O’Sullivan asked if any of the materials sto= red on the property were toxic or hazardous in nature. Attorney Groff said the materials = were all brick and wood and staging.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan said given the lack of public interest, he a= greed with Attorney Groff’s position that this was grandfathered (for lack = of a better term); whether or not it needs to go before the Planning Board for s= ite plan review doesn’t seem to be indicated. He further discussed the case and = felt it didn’t belong in front of the Board, although it was a useful exer= cise to go through the analysis.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Gowan) To overturn the Administrative Dec= ision of the Building Inspector in this case, on the basis that it is unclear a= s to whether there is a requirement for a site plan.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

<= /u>

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OVERTURNED

Case #2311= – NYMAN, Wayne & Patricia – 51 Simpson Mill Road/ ML 9/9-7 – Seeking an Appeal from an Administrative Decision of the Building Inspector= for a minor home occupation in the residential zone. Section 307-76<= /p>

Attorney David Groff informed the Board that he had a = letter dated April 4, 20= 05 that a re-determination had been made that there was not a violation. The Appeal was withdrawn.

HEARING(S)=

Case #2315= – DUQUETTE, Dennis & CARROLL, Christopher – 124 Old Gage Hill Road North / ML17/12-245 – Seeking a Vari= ance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the subdivision of lot 17/12-245 to create (1) lot with 143.84 feet of frontage, a land transfer o= f a small triangular piece with 4.97 feet of frontage and an area of 244 square feet needed to resolve a boundary line dispute which came up during the mar= king of the lot lines, and a second lot with 69.65 feet of frontage shown as lot 17/12-245-1 on the accompanying plan. Also to permit construction of a new house on lot 17/12-245-1.<= /o:p>

Mr. Hennessey asked for a point of order. He said the Board had heard the ca= se before and the land was smaller than it was when the Board turned it down.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said the Board approv= ed it unanimously.

Ms. Paliy read the list of abutters aloud. There were = no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herbert Associates, representing = the applicants met with the Board to discuss the case. He said this was a case that had b= een before the Board in October 17, 2002 by Attorney Bill Mason. He believed there were three reaso= ns why they had to come back to the Board: 1) they did the survey and there were a number of differences from the original plan presented to the Board; 2) aft= er the survey and went to the Planning Board and when staked out on the ground there came to be a dispute between the abutters (westerly line of Mr. & Mrs. Pierga and the easterly line of lot 12-245 dated November, 2004).

He further discussed the lot line dispute and said it = was agreeable to both sides to add the triangle piece (244SF) to the abutter’s lot.

Mr. Aspinwall read the Variance criteria aloud that was submitted to the Board:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: A single family home already exists on= one of the proposed lots and a new home will be built on the second lot. <= /o:p>

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It represents an appropria= te and reasonable use of the property which will be a benefit to the Town.

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

a) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with the reasonable use of the propert= y, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that= : The frontage is already separated by an existing dwelling but the lot is large enough to satisfy the density requirement and other zoning requirements.

b) that no fair and substan= tial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: The 200 feet of road frontage is not necessary to insure adequate spacing between the dwellings.

c) the variance would not i= njure the public or private rights of others since: All other subdivision requirements can be met.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The proposed use is consistent with ot= her uses permitted in the area.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: All other health, building, zoning and safety issues will be met.

Mr. Aspinwall said they would still need to go before = the Planning Board. He said one o= f the issues was that it was well over a year from the original approval. In summary, the applicant was gran= ted a variance, then went before the Planning Board who granted a subdivision approval with conditions. In = the course of fulfilling the conditions, a problem with the boundary was discov= ered, which the applicant has now addressed in the current proposal. There are some minor variations in frontage from the previous application.&nb= sp;

Mr. Hennessey said note #9 on the plan indicated that = the applicant agreed, in 2002, if the plan was approved (for variance) there wo= uld be no further subdivision of the lots.&nbs= p; He asked if the applicant would stipulate to that again. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes.

Mr. O’Sullivan asked if there was a dwelling on = lot 12-243-1. Mr. Dennis Duquette indicated that lot 12-243-1 was the yard of lot 12-243.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Gowan) As a condition of approval for the Variance: To stipulate, per the note on the plan from the 2002 hearing, t= here will be no further subdivision of the lots.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria – with condition no further subdivision.

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria – su= bject to condition.

Mr. Gowan – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

VARIANCE GRAN= TED

MINUTES

February 14, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/O’Sullivan) To approve the February 14, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

=

VOTE:

(4-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Gowan abstained.

<= /u>

March 14, 2005=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gowan/Hennessey) To approve the March 14, 2005 meeting mi= nutes as written.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

CONTINUED = CASE(S) – May 9, 20= 05

Case #2286 – BIBEAU, David – 36 Atwood Roa= d /&= nbsp; ML 29/7-41 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit the construction of a 30ft.x40ft. garage partly within = the 50ft. wetland buffer.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gowan/O’Sullivan) To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 pm.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Respectfully submitted,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary