BOA20061012.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

October 12, 2006

The Chairman, Mr. Peter M= cNamara called the meeting to order at approximately 7:32 pm.

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Kevin O’Sullivan (arrived after the meeting commen= ced), Robert Molloy

Svetlana Paliy, Alterna= te Bob Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

Mr. McNamara announced th= at on Thursday October 19, 2006= from 4pm-8pm at S= t. Patrick’s Church a place making workshop would be held. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation would be embarking on a transportation study to alleviate congestion through the To= wn Center; local and regional citizen involvement was desired to develop a transportation solution.

At this point in the meet= ing Mr. McNamara, Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Molloy were present. Mr. McNamara informed that applica= nts had the right to have their case heard before a full Board; because there w= ere only three Board members present, the applicant could either choose to proc= eed or they had could withdraw their request and have their case continued to t= he next scheduled meeting. He in= formed further in order to prevail a unanimous vote of the Board would be needed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

CONTINUED

Case #2351 COOKE, Judy – Surrey Lane ML 16/13-125-15 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the subdivision o= f an 11.3 acre parcel into two (2) parcels.&nbs= p; One (1) containing 6.216 acres with 113.51 feet of frontage where 200 feet is required.

Mr. McNamara asked what t= he applicant chose to do.

Attorney William Mason, representing the applicant, said they would like their case continued to the next meeting to have a full Board hear such.

The case was continued to= the November 13, 2006 meeting.

HEARINGS

Case #2355 JESIONE= K, Cynthia - 4 Regis Drive ML 24/12-142 – Seeking an Equitable Waiver concerning Article III, Section 307-12 (E) to permit an existing garage & shed that is within the 15-foot side setback

Ms. Cynthia Jesionek said= she would like to move forward. M= r. McNamara reiterated that a unanimous vote would be needed. He said if the criteria were met, = the Board would have to grant the Equitable Waiver. The applicant’s abutter Ms. = Marie Baribeau wanted to know if there would be an opportunity to appeal. Ms. McNamara explained the appeal process. Mr. Hennessey said an appeal couldn’t be because there were only three Board members; it wo= uld have to be on another basis. = Ms. Jesionek said she wanted to proceed.

Mr. McNamara read the lis= t of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Hennessey informed he= had spoken to Mr. O’Sullivan who was on his way to the meeting. Mr. McNamara suggested taking a re= cess in order to allow Mr. O’Sullivan an opportunity to arrive.

Mr. O’Sullivan arri= ved.

Ms. Jesionek proceeded to= discuss her request with the Board. S= he said when the house was built in 1975 they relied on the stakes that were already on the property (a copy of the plot plan for the septic system was = provided). This winter, her neighbors (the Baribeaus) surveyed their lot. At this point, Ms. Jesionek had a mortgage plot plan done which showed where t= he garage and shed were located. She was trying to sell her house and wanted to have the situation rectified bef= ore she had a buyer. She said wit= h the survey she didn’t believe there were any diminished values with the s= hed, however, demolishing the garage or shed would be of substantial cost and wo= uld diminish value.

Mr. McNamara asked how cl= ose the shed was to the line. Ms. Bar= ibeau said part was 8-feet, part was 6-feet.&nbs= p;

Mr. Hennessey asked if a = survey plan had been submitted. Ms. Jesionek said the drawing came from the approval for construction. Mr. Hennessey confirmed that the s= tructure was closer than shown on the drawing. Ms. Jesionek answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked when they found out about the footage. Ms. Jesionek said they found out w= hen the Baribeaus surveyed. She h= ad a package containing the subdivision plan (to show the lot line in question) = as well as photos showing the garage and lot line stakes. Mr. Hennessey asked to see the mor= tgage survey plan. He confirmed the= re was no engineer stamp on the plan.

Mr. Hennessey said the pr= oblem was the Board didn’t have a stamped plan showing where the property l= ine was located.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Marie Baribeau, the applicant’s neighbor, said they recently had a survey done and had all the information. She had no objection to Ms. Jesionek seeking the variance, but wanted guarantees from = the Town that there wouldn’t an issue when she went to sell their property. She wanted proper documentation filed with the Town that everything was approved and legalized. Mr. Hennessey said= the Board should reference a plan when granting a variance.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= portion of NH-RSA Section 674-33,a,c&= amp;d Equitable Waiver of dimensional requirement. He confirmed with Ms. Jesionek and= Ms. Baribeau that they were in agreement regarding the approximate location of = the lot line and the structure. M= s. Jesionek answered yes. He then noted that the Board didn’t have absolute proof by way of an engineer survey. Mr. Hennessey said he= would like to reference a survey in the motion.&= nbsp; He said if it wasn’t a nuisance the Board had to grant an approval. He said the Board wasn’t approving anything except what was there. He said the Board wasn’t giv= ing permission to add to the land. Ms. Baribeau was concerned with her property being adversely affected. Mr. McNamara said the Board had to= make its findings based on what was in front of them. He confirmed that they didn’= t have a problem with the placement of the shed.&= nbsp; Ms. Baribeau said she didn’t have a problem with the shed while they were there. Mr. McNamara= asked if the shed was visible from her property.= Ms. Baribeau answered yes. She wanted to know if an equitable waiver would be an issue for a buyer. Mr. McNamara said at that point, a= buyer couldn’t do anything about it because of the equitable waiver. Ms. Baribeau wanted to know if it = would affect her selling her home without spending money. Mr. McNamara said there would be a written record of the approval. Ms. Baribeau asked if the Town, banks and everyone would agree. Mr. McNamara answered yes because = the structure was not on her property. <= /span>In this case it would only affect Ms. Jesionek’s deed. Mr. McNamara said there was nothing wrong since the property owner requested an Equitable Waiver and by law, if= the criteria are met, the Board must approve it. He said if the Board approved such= , Ms. Baribeau should request a copy of the approval from the Planning Department.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the location of the shed. Mr. McNamara suggested that Ms. Baribeau provide the Planning Depart= ment with a copy of the survey she recently had done showing the location of the structure as not being on her property.&nb= sp; He said the Planning Department could make a copy of the plan for the file.

Mr. Hennessey informed Ms. Jesionek when she sold her house; she needed to alert her buyer. Ms. Jesionek understood.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To grant the Equitable Waiver subject to verification by the Planning Direct= or that the (structure) property is 8-feet and 6-feet off the lot line.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

EQUITABLE WAIVER APPROVED

DATE SPECIFIED CASES – November 13, 2006

Case #2351 COOKE, Judy &#= 8211; Surrey Lane= ML 16/13-125-15 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the subdivision o= f an 11.3 acre parcel into two (2) parcels.&nbs= p; One (1) containing 6.216 acres with 113.51 feet of frontage where 200 feet is required.

MINUTES

July 15, 2= 006 – Site Walk

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To a= pprove the meeting minutes as written.<= u>

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Septembe= r 23, 2006

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To a= pprove the meeting minutes as written.<= u>

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Septembe= r 11, 2006 – deferred to the next meeting= .

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:12 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