BOA20050913

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

September 12, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Svetla= na Paliy, called the roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Cindy Ronning, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

Alternate Robert Molloy=

Mr. McNamara introduced a= nd welcomed Planning Director Jeff Gowan.&nbs= p;

Case #2318 – MARTINAGE, Patrick Joseph – 348 Gage Hi= ll Road / ML 17/13-60 – Seeking a Vari= ance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 307-14 to permit a single fami= ly home to be built on an undersized lot of record.

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t a letter had been received from the applicant’s attorney David Groff requesting that the matter be withdrawn.&n= bsp; The applicant may file a new application when they have additional information.

Case #2323 – GARCIA, Don – 30 Hillcrest Lane /= ML 42/10-131 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Sect= ion 307-14 to permit the construction of a dwelling with associated septic and = well without the appropriate frontage on a public way.

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the case had been continued at the request of the applicant.

The case was date specifi= ed to the October 13,= 2005 meeting.

Case #2326 – O’GRADY, Patrick & Donna – 71 Holstein Drive / ML 14/4-137-10 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41 (B) to permit a 14ft.x22ft. in-ground pool within 10ft. of the 50ft. WCD setback in the Residential Zon= e.

Mr. McNamara said the cas= e had been heard at the last meeting and was continued to the present meeting with the expectation that a site walk would be performed. He said a site walk (in conjunctio= n with the Conservation Commission) had been done. He read aloud a letter dated August 29, 2005= submitted by the Conservation Commission. In summary the Conservation Commission decided to support the installation of = the pool in the previously cleared wetland buffer area with the following conditions: 1) north boundary of the property (currently in a natural uncut vegetative state) remain undisturbed – area to be protected as an add= itional Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) (no-cut/no-disturbance ar= ea) - protection of the area will include a new deed/site plan documenting the additional protection area; 2) WCD signs to be installed at the new buffer = area (to the north) and at the remaining buffer to the west; and 3) pool backwash filter system function does not discharge onto grade.

Mr. Hennessey felt the co= nditions placed by the Conservation Commission were not only for the homeowner, but added to the protection of the stream in the best interest of the Town.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Hennessey questioned = the mechanics of the deed restriction and wanted to know how to ensure it would= be recorded. Mr. Gowan said it w= ould be for the applicant’s attorney to supply an updated deed. The WCD signs could be supplied at= a nominal fee ($2 ea.) which would need to be posted at 50-foot intervals. Mr. Gowan said a modified plot plan= would also need to be submitted. The applicant was informed that there was a 21-day waiting period be= fore anything could done to the property and at that point a building permit wou= ld need to be granted.

Mr. Ronning was appointed= to vote for the evening’s proceedings.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) The conditions, as outlined in the August 29, 2005 letter from the Conservation Commi= ssion, be incorporated as conditions for the variance.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The applicant, Mr. O̵= 7;Grady said he wanted to construct a retaining wall prior to the pool being instal= led and wanted to know if he could do so prior to the pool being installed. Mr. Gowan said the retaining wall = could be installed if it was less than 4-feet tall and outside the WCD. Mr. O’Grady said the WCD lin= e was crooked, and he wanted to square it off for the fence (he would leave 35-feet). Mr. Gowan suggested= that Mr. O’Grady meet with him at the Planning Department to review the pl= an.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria – per stipulations.

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

Ms. Ronning – Yes= to all criteria

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

VARIANCE GRANTED

Case #2327 – TOUPIN, Michael – 24 Pulpit Rock Road /= ML 41/6-141 – Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article X= II, Section 307-74 and a Variance concerning Article V, Section 307-18 to permi= t an accessory dwelling in the Industrial Zone.=

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

The applicant, Mr. Michae= l Toupin and a general contractor Mr. David Burns met with the Board to discuss the case. Mr. Toupin, not being t= he owner of the property, submitted a signed ‘Authorization to Act as Agent’ form to the Board.

Mr. Burns reviewed the ca= se: 1) Special Exception to permit an accessory dwelling on the property; and 2) Variance to permit an accessory dwelling in an Industrial Zone.

Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Roland Soucy (who was seated with the public) informed = that the applicant didn’t need a variance for the in-law apartment in the Industrial Zone. He said it w= as residential long before it was re-zoned industrial; it had not ceased to ex= ist for more than twelve months. = Mr. McNamara confirmed that the residence was an existing non-conforming use in= the Industrial zone. Mr. Gowan ag= reed with this. Mr. McNamara said = the Board would only address the Special Exception.

Mr. Burns explained the r= easons for requesting the in-law apartment, which was due to personal situations.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the in-law apartment met a= ll the Town requirements set forth. = There was a question regarding the dimensional calculations of the accessory unit. Mr. Soucy said he norma= lly has the opportunity to review plan, but this case had not. He discussed how dimensions were calculated. There was further discussion regarding the dimensional calculations, which didn’t appea= r to properly calculate. Mr. Henne= ssey said he would be willing to grant with a stipulation as long as the Building Inspector’s office was satisfied.&nb= sp;

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To grant the Special Exception subject to the verification by the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector that the dimensional requirements (750SF) are met.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Burns said he would s= eek the architect’s input regarding the square footage.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED

Case #2328 – FARRIS, Joseph – 13 Jones Road /= ML 39/1-72 – Seeking an Appeal from an Administrative Decision= of the Building Inspector for a bonded dealer’s license in the Residenti= al Zone. Article V, Section 307-= 18.

There was no one present = to represent the case. An abutte= r, Mr. David Parece of 17 Jones R= oad informed the Board that the applicant was present at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Parece believed = the applicant left the meeting when informed that Mr. Parece would speak against the applicant.

The Board moved the case = to the end of the meeting. See below= for additional action.

HEARINGS

Case #2329 – POULIN, Linda – 6 Meadow Lane /= ML 42/10-230 – Seeking an Appeal from an Administrative Decisi= on of the Building Inspector’s opinion that there are two dwellings on o= ne lot. Article III, Section 307= -9

Ms. Linda Poulin, the app= licant, explained that the garage was built some time ago by her ex-husband. Her brother was recently married a= nd resided with her. Ms. Poulin = explained that the garage had been fixed up and some of her personal items moved in so she would have space to be alone. Mr. Don Goyette (Ms. Poulin’s brother) of 6 Meadow Lane, said the garage was existing and had been made into a sort of game room. He said no one resided in the gara= ge, everyone still lived in the house. He described the garage for the Board, which contained three rooms p= lus a storage room. He said there= was a standing shower, sink and a toilet. There was no bed or sleeper couch in the garage. The rooms and footage of the garag= e was reviewed. It was noted that t= here was propane heat in the garage.

Mr. Hennessey asked if th= ere were any cabinets. Mr. Goyette ans= wered yes. Mr. Hennessey asked if t= here was a sink. Mr. Goyette said = there was a sink only in the bathroom. Mr. Hennessey asked if there was a stove. Mr. Goyette answered yes (a kitchen stove). Mr. Hennessey asked i= f any permits were pulled at the time the garage was rebuilt. Mr. Goyette said he wasn’t a= ware he needed to because they weren’t rebuilding, they were just cleaning= the garage up. Ms. Poulin noted t= hat when the existing building was built, it had a permit.

There was no public input= .

Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Roland Soucy explained that this case came about through the Assessing Department who was reassessing properties. It was then brought to the building department and Mr. Soucy reviewed the property. Mr. Soucy said when he visited the= site he spoke to a person living in the house regarding the garage; it was obvio= us that work had been done to the garage because it had a new addition and the grass hadn’t grown over the trenching from the garage to the septic.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said he spoke with Ms. Poulin briefly, but didn’t go into the garage. He said from what he saw it looked= like a living unit. He said there = were never any permits taken out for the addition on the garage. He said under Zoning 307-9 only one living unit is allowed per lot. He said there may be something to do to bring the garage into compliance such = as remove the kitchen stove, sink etc. however at this point, it is a living unit (whether or not someone w= as sleeping there). Ms. Poulin s= aid she didn’t live in the garage, it was a place for her to be by hersel= f.

Mr. Hennessey was concern= ed that significant improvements were done to the garage without a building permit. Mr. Soucy said the applicant would need to get permits after-the-fact for whatever work was done. Mr. Hennessey understood people had the right to protect their privacy, but felt the applicant would= be better served by allowing the Code Enforcement Officer to go in and review the wiring/plumbing and footings on the foundation. Mr. Soucy also noted that there we= re other issues that should be reviewed, such as the septic. Mr. McNamara said two residences w= ere not allowed on one lot. He sa= id with a bathroom, sink and a stove, it is a living unit and the Board can’t ignore that fact. Mr. Goyette said they came before the Board to find out what was needed for the= m to conform.

Mr. O’Sullivan beli= eved that by going through the process what would remain was a place the applica= nt could feel safer. The structu= re would go through the inspection process.&n= bsp; In doing so, the applicant and their neighbors could get along, and = know that the structure was safe and used in an appropriate manner.

Mr. Hennessey asked to ma= ke a motion to continue the case, subject to permits being pulled and the Buildi= ng Inspector reviewing the interior of the building. Mr. Soucy suggested he have the opportunity to inspect prior to a decision being made.

Ms. Paliy asked that the = building dimensions be clarified.

Ms. Poulin asked how the electrical inspection would occur since the walls were already constructed. Mr. Soucy said he would have the Electric and Plumbing Inspectors review.

The case was continued to= the October 13, 2005 meeting. The applicant will w= ork with the inspectors to determine a time to inspect.

Case #2330 – PLOOF, Roger – 50 C&D Windham Road<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> /= ML 15/8-208 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article V, Section 307-18 to permit a multi-family (3 units) with the required acreage in the residential zone. =

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the application had been withdrawn and understood that it would be re-submitted= at a later date (not yet determined). <= /span>

CONTINUED…

There was still no one pr= esent to represent the case. Mr. Gowan= said the Board could either continue to the next meeting, or deny the case. Mr. Hennessey said on the basis of= the letter submitted by the applicant, there didn’t seem to be anything to turn over the action by the Town. The applicant had essentially acknowledged that motorcycles would be wholesaled in a residential district and that the Town Agent was correct. It was not clear what was being appealed.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To uphold the decision of the Town (Administrative Decision).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Gowan said the applic= ant would be sent a letter indicating the Board’s decision.

APPEAL DENIED – Decision of the Code Enforcement Officer was upheld.

MINUTES

August = 8, 2005

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To approve the Aug= ust 8, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

CONTINUED CASE(S) –October 13, 2005

Case #2323 – GARCIA= , Don – 30 Hillcrest Lane / ML 42/10-131 – Seeking a Var= iance concerning Article III, Section 307-14 to permit the construction of a dwel= ling with associated septic and well without the appropriate frontage on a public way.

Case #2329 – POULIN= , Linda – 6 Meadow Lane /= ML 42/10-230 – Seeking an Appeal from an Administrative Decisi= on of the Building Inspector’s opinion that there are two dwellings on o= ne lot. Article III, Section 307= -9

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:30 pm.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfully submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Charity A.L. Willis &n= bsp;

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Recording Secretary