BOA20060313

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

March 13, 2006

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

The Secretary, Ms. Svetlana Paliy, called the roll:

PRESENT:

=

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, David Hen= nessey, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Robert Molloy, Planning Director Jeff Gowan (who was present in the audience)

Alternate Cindy Ronning



Mr. McNamara informed tha= t Mr. Molloy would be voting.

He asked if anyone was in= terested in volunteering for the Board, they should contact either the Selectmen or = the Planning Department.

HEARINGS

Case #2340 LEMIEUX, Andre – 35 Irene Drive = / ML 40/6-185-37 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41 (b) to permit keeping an existing building permit approved for a swimming pool & deck in it̵= 7;s present location and be able to maintain the existing lawn within the 50ft.= WCD area.

Mr. McNamara noted that t= he case was heard at the last meeting and the Board deferred judgment until a site = walk could be conducted. He said a= site walk was conducted; at the meeting there was an agreement regarding certain parameters. The applicant, Mr. Andre Lemieux met with the Board to discuss his application. He said the engineering firm came = out to re-do the plan and were able to put the proposed Wetland Conservation Distr= ict (‘WCD’) line on the plan per the discussion at the site walk. The plan was submitted to the Boar= d. Mr. McNamara asked if the deed wou= ld be updated. Mr. Lemieux said a r= evised deed could be drawn up as long as the Board indicated (in writing) what they wanted.

Mr. Hennessey said at the= site walk, there was agreement that moving the shed would cause more damage to t= he WCD, than moving the WCD line. Based on his recollection, the revised plan showed what was discussed at the site walk so there was little damage to the WCD and the back lot was protected.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Hennessey said despite the fac= t that he was still concerned with people encroaching the WCD after they purchase = homes; he saw no reason to punish an innocent homeowner in this case.

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t a letter dated Feb= ruary 28, 2006 from the Conservation Commission that basically reiterated what was discussed and agreed to during the site walk.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To grant a variance subject to the revised plan submitted and revise the dee= d to reference the new plan (numbers). Also subject to the new Wetland Conservation District being marked with appropriate markings and signs for the ‘no-cut’ zone and= the rear part of the lot (beyond the new WCD line) being a no-cut/no-fertilization zone (and be required to revert).

VOTE:

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

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria – with conditions as contained in the motion.

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

VOTE:

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

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

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

‘AREA’ VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2341 K &= K EQUIPMENT – Pulpit Rock Road / ML 41/6-138 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit develop= ment of a lot that was created prior to current area requirements which the Town= is considering undersized.

Mr. McNamara said the app= licant had requested the case to be date specified to the April 10, 2006. Abutters will be re-notified.

The case was date specifi= ed to the April 10, 20= 06 meeting.

HEARINGS

Case #2342 DEUTCHM= AN, John & Kathleen – 32 Leonard Drive /= ML 35/6-91 – Seeking an Equitable Waiver concerning Article II= I, Section 307-12(A) to permit an existing house that is within the required 30-foot left setback on a corner lot.

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.

Attorney David Groff, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the requested Equitable Waiver. He said the= case was one of two things, either a pre-existing non-conforming use (that was present for over forty-eight years) or it’s a case for an equitable waiver. He said a small secti= on from one end of the house protrudes into the Chagnon Lane side of the 30-foot setback. He noted that accord= ing to the Town’s records, the house was built in 1958 and according to the subdivision plan, the subdivision was approved approximately four years aft= er that. Attorney Groff said an equitable waiver was being requested because he was unable to find out when Chagnon Lane was put in and didn’t want there to be a problem in the event the applicant wanted to refinance, or sell their house.

Mr. McNamara read aloud R= SA 674:33 (A) relative to Equitable Waivers.&= nbsp; Attorney Groff felt the applicant qualified under the statute. Mr. McNamara asked how many feet (= into the setback) the violation was. Mr. Deutchman said the garage was approximately four feet into the setback.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To g= rant an Equitable Waiver (to ML 35/6-91).

VOTE:

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

EQUITABLE WAIVER GRANTED

Case #2343 SPENCER, Allen – 1 Coburn Avenue / ML 41/10-309 – Seeking an Equitable Waiver concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permi= t an existing two family dwelling on a lot under the required 2-acre lot size. <= o:p>

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.

Mr. Allen Spencer said he= owned a two-family home and wanted to have all paperwork ‘squared’. The house was built in either 1952= , or 1955 (prior to zoning); he purchased the home in 1993. The Town tax records show the home= as being a two-family home. Mr. Spencer had never received notification from the Town that he was in violation. He said it was sol= d to him as a two-family home. The= lot was just over an acre.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Delores Grigas, 4 Coburn Avenue said she had lived across the street from the house in question for over 25 years and it had always been a two-family dwelling.

Mr. Spencer said his neig= hbor, Leo Goyette also said the house had been a two-family dwelling for at least twenty-seven years.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To grant Equitable Waiver (to ML 41/10-309).

VOTE:

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

EQUITABLE WAIVER GRANTED

DATE SPECIFIED HEARINGS – April 10, 2006

Case #2341 K & K EQUIPMENT – Pulpit= Rock Road / ML 41/6-138 – Seeking a Vari= ance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit development of a lot that = was created prior to current area requirements which the Town is considering undersized.

MINUTES

February 1= 3, 2006

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To approve the Fe= bruary 13, 2006 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

February 2= 5, 2006 (site walk)

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Paliy) To ap= prove the February 2= 5, 2006 (site walk) meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 7:56 pm.

           &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;         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