APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

November 14, 2011

 

 

The Chairman David Hennessey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

 

The Secretary Robert Molloy called roll:

 

PRESENT:

 

 

 

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Robert Molloy, Peter McNamara, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

 

Alternate Lance Ouellette

 

 

CONTINUED

 

Case #ZO2011-00026  MESSINEO, Augustine & Joyce  /  Washington Street – Map 14 Lot 4-118-1  -  Seeking a Variance to Article III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-14, 307-39 & 307-41 to permit a new house to be constructed on a lot with 175 feet of frontage on a class V town road rather than 200 feet, to permit a portion of the house to be constructed within the WCD* and to permit the leach bed to be constructed 10 feet from the Wetland Conservation District rather than 25 feet.  *(A use not specifically permitted under section 307-39a and not allowed under section 307-41).

 

Mr. Hennessey informed that a site walk had been conducted.  Mr. Gowan noted that a letter had been received (and distributed to the Board and the applicant) from the Conservation Commission.  

 

Mr. Wes Aspinwall, Mr. Shayne Gendron and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates came forward to discuss the requested variance.  Mr. Gendron discussed their meeting with the Conservation Commission.  He handed out a new plot plan showing the changes made since that meeting. 

 

Mr. McNamara saw that the Conservation Commission made several recommendations and questioned if the applicant had discussed/agreed to them.  Mr. Gendron outlined the items the commission asked them to address.  The commission asked what could be done to make the plan better.  The applicant was able to pull the house forward a bit, still maintaining the zoning setbacks, providing slightly more to the edge of wet in the rear.  A note was added to the plan indicating that the whole house would have gutters that ran into down spouts.  Those down spouts would run into a mini catch basin below grade.  A shallow swale was added to the back property providing a little more flood storage to the lot.  Mr. Gendron ended by saying they had also done a full drainage study, which was available for the Board. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said he would like copies of the drainage study.  Mr. Gendron distributed copies of the study to the Board.  Ms. Paliy questioned what the difference was between the existing and what the applicant was proposing.  Mr. Zohdi replied that during the site walk the Conservation Commission was concerned about the rate of runoff pre- and post-development.  He said they ran the formula based on 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year methods.  In every case, the post development rate of run off was less than pre-development.  Mr. Zohdi explained that the site was a filled area that didn’t provide anything to reduce the runoff.  He said once the site is developed, the site would be loamed/seeded thereby reducing the rate of runoff.  He briefly ran through the determined calculations.  He said they had gone along with the commission’s recommendation and believed they had done everything they possibly could do.

 

Mr. McNamara recalled there being a question/discussion at the site walk regarding the size of the pipe on the side of the property where the water flowed in.  He asked if that area had been properly cleaned out.  Mr. Zohdi said he couldn’t comment about the Town cleaning their culverts. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said it was obvious that the filled in space was an ‘island’.  His concern was the stream swale surrounding that island (on three sides) at one point flowed directly across the parcel.  He asked if the applicant would object to a ‘no cut’ area on the other side of the swale.  Mr. Zohdi said they had no objection to having a no-cut/no-disturbance stipulation.  Mr. Gowan said usually, as a condition of approval, he would require the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) signs to be erected along the WCD.  If the variance for the case is granted, he suggested that the Board establish a new line for the WCD signs to be erected and showed the area he referred to.  Mr. Aspinwall said it seemed logical to post the signs in the location of the silt fence.  This would allow the owner to have pretty good use of their land.  There was a brief discussion regarding the location in question.

 

Attorney Bill Mason, appearing on behalf of the applicant, came forward to provide comment.  He reviewed the Conservation Commission’s recommendations and believed them to be consistent with the discussion at the site walk.  He told the Board that he would work with Mr. Gowan regarding the language and location for a no-cut/no-disturbance zone.  He said that language could either be on the plan, or a separate document.  Mr. Gowan said a new plot plan indicating a note of where the parcel should be staked for the no-cut WCD line would be helpful.  Mr. Hennessey suggested having a condition that stipulated appropriate silt fencing as determined by applicant and Planning Director, with the Board as arbitrator.  Attorney Mason felt that would be fine.  He said historically applicants performed due diligence to ensure there were no problems with the Town (after construction).  He said the applicant would comply with what the Town requested for a silt fence. 

 

There was no public input.

 

The Board discussed the requested variances and made the following motions:

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To accept the recommendations from the Conservation Commission, per the (revised) plan provided to the Board. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Paliy) The no-cut zone to be determined between the applicant and the Planning Department. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria; with conditions.

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria; with conditions as contained in the motions.

Mr. Molloy – Yes to all criteria; with stated approved motions.

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

 

VARIANCES GRANTED

 

 

 

HEARING(S)

 

Case #ZO2011-00027   YANISH, Marie  /  22 Lawrence Corner Road – Map 1 Lot 5-114  - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit a new addition to the house with 180.7 feet of frontage not the required 200 feet.

 

Mr. Molloy read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had difficulty with notification.

 

The applicants, Ms. Marie Yanish and Mr. Steve Alborghetti, came forward and explained that she would like to put an addition on their home.  The distance between the neighbor’s driveway (frontage) and theirs is 180ft., which falls 20ft. short of the Town’s required 200ft. 

 

Mr. Hennessey understood the request to be a further expansion of a non-conforming use.  Ms. Yanish explained that the development done on Lawrence Corner Road had the road curve across their property cutting 20ft. from it.  She said it shouldn’t have been approved.  She noted that the 200ft. (frontage) compliance was previously in place.  Mr. Alborghetti told the Board that they hadn’t been notified their property would be reduced from 200ft. to 180ft.  When they purchased the property the frontage was approximately 230ft. 

 

Mr. Gowan discussed the background of the applicant’s lot.  He said when the subdivision came through in 2004, Lawrence Corner Road was laid out in a different path (conforming to today’s standards).  The applicant’s lot had previously been a conforming lot.  He said the new configuration was approved by the Planning Board and recorded.  When the applicant came in for a building permit for an expansion the Planning Department reviewed the file and was surprised that the lot configuration was approved (as shown) because it didn’t meet the 200ft. zoning requirement.  Mr. Gowan said the applicants were aware of the project going on and discussion with the developer about reconfiguring the driveway; however they didn’t realize there would be a frontage issue.  He said it was situation that fell through the cracks.  He advised the applicants to request a variance for the lack of frontage. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said one purpose of the Zoning Board was to correct errors.  He said they operated under state statute as a ‘relief valve’; this was a clear example of one. 

 

Ms. Yanish reviewed the variance criteria as submitted with the applicant. 

 

There was no public input.

 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Case #ZO2011-00028   JOZOKOS, Jonathan  /  2 Albert Street  -  Map 34 Lot 6-266  -  Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7 & 307-8.C to permit a single story shed that meets all setbacks and codes to be detached from the primary residence.

 

Mr. Molloy read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had difficulty with notification.

 

Mr. Jonathan Jozokos came forward to discuss the requested variance.  He said he lived on what was considered to be a non-conforming lot because of its size (just over 10,000SF).  The lot dated from 1954, prior to zoning requiring a minimum of one acre.  Mr. Jozokos would like to add an outbuilding/shed for extended use of the non-conforming lot.  He said he was able to meet all other setbacks and codes for required construction.  The shed would be approximately 12ft.x16ft.  He then reviewed the variance criteria as submitted with the application.  A tax map and aerial photo were displayed.  Mr. Jozokos stated he had walked his lot with some of the neighbors to show them where the shed would be located.  He also invited them to attend the meeting. 

 

Mr. Molloy asked how tall the shed would be.  Mr. Jozokos said the height would be approximately 12ft. 

 

Based on the aerial photo, Mr. McNamara questioned if the shed would be located in a treed area.  Mr. Jozokos said he would only be removing two small maples; the existing trees were close to the property line.  Mr. McNamara said it appears that the trees would protect other lots from viewing the shed.  Mr. Jozokos said that was correct. 

 

There was no public input.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

MOTION:

(Molloy/McNamara) To approve the September 12, 2011 meeting minutes as written. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

MOTION:

(Molloy/O’Sullivan) To approve the September 19, 2011 joint meeting minutes (ZBA portion) as written. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

----------------------------------------------------

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To approve the October 13, 2011 meeting minutes as written. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

----------------------------------------------------

 

MOTION:

(Molloy/McNamara) To approve the November 5, 2011 site walk minutes as written. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Review of By-Laws

 

Mr. Hennessey provided the Board members with a copy of the Rules and Procedures and By-Laws.  He didn’t expect to conclude the discussion at this time, noting that public input would be accepted at the next meeting.    

 

The Board did a preliminary review of the documents.  Mr. Hennessey asked the Board to further review the documents for discussion at the next scheduled meeting.  Mr. Gowan noted that there was an offer by Town Counsel to meet with the land use boards (gratis).  He said that meeting typically occurred in December.  This meeting could be used to answer specific questions, however those questions should be provided in advance.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15pm.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                          Charity A. Landry Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary