BOA20070312.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

March 12, 2007

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

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Kevin O’Sullivan, Robert Molloy, Alternate Bob Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

Svetlana Paliy

Mr. Haverty was appointed= to vote in Ms. Paliy’s absence.

HEARINGS

Case #2364 TRAYNOR, Michael & Mary 14 Woekel Circle Map 31 L= ot 11-290 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-7.7, 307-8C & 307-12E to permit the construction of an addition to be on an existing house on a lot less than one (1) acre with 45.50 feet of frontage = on a Town road, 6.8 feet to the northerly lot line rather than 15 feet and 11.6 = feet on the southerly lot line rather than 15 feet.

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the Board heard the case at the last meeting.&= nbsp; The Planning Department received a letter (dated February 23, 2007) from the applicant’s representative informing that they realized they should h= ave requested relief from three additional sections of zoning. The applicant requested to withdra= w Case #2364 and take the issue up with Case #2368.

The Board allowed the app= licant to withdraw their case.

Case #2368 TRAYNOR, Michael & Mary 14 Woekel Circle   Map 31 Lot 11-290 - Seeking a Variance concerning Ar= ticle III, Section 307.7, 307.12, 307.13 & 30714 to permit the construction o= f an addition to be4 on an existing house on a lot less than one (1) acre with 4= 5.50 feet of frontage on a Town road, 6.8 feet to the northerly lot line rather = than 15 feet and 11.6 feet on the southerly lot line rather than 15 feet

Mr. Hennessey read the li= st 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. McNamara informed tha= t the Board conducted a site walk on the property at which the applicant and abut= ters were present.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates presented the Variance request.= He said the case was very much the same case as previously presented= to Board with the only difference was the sections to zoning cited.

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the plan was exactly the same as previously presented and discussed during the = site walk. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes.

Mr. Aspinwall then review= ed the plans posted for the Board.   He said the plan had been reviewed/approved by Town Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski; the approved had been sent to the state. It was the applicant’s inten= t to proceed as soon as he could. = It was explained that a new well would be installed and the existing would be abandoned. A new septic system would also be built close to the street and in excess of 100-feet from Litt= le Island Pond. Mr. Aspinwall sa= id the house was currently a year-round house.&nb= sp; The applicants owned a home in Massachusetts and would move to Woekel C= ircle which they had owned since 1988. He explained that the applicant was proposing to add a two-car garage and move= one of the bedrooms from the house to above the garage to add a living area abo= ve such. He said there would be = some improvements to the existing house to meet current codes. Mr. Gospodarek discussed the propo= sed addition, dimensions and setbacks. <= /span>

Mr. Gospodarek then read = the variance criteria aloud as submitted: In summary the applicant was requesting a variance to permit an addition to be constructed on an existing house on a lot less than one (1) acre with 45.50 feet of frontage on a Town road, 6.8 feet to the northerly lot line rather = than 15 feet and 11.6 feet to the southerly lot line rather than 15 feet. <= /o:p>

Mr. Gospodarek then revie= wed the variance criteria as follows:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed addition will be in the public interest because it will increase the value = of the property and the taxes being paid.&nbs= p; Also it will allow for inside storage of cars and will cause no interference with the publics use of Little Island Pond.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The lot does no have adequate width to allow for the addition with = the required setbacks, frontage and areas.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = The owner cannot buy any additional or frontage land to meet zoning requirements.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The owner will meet all other zoning, building, and health requirements includi= ng installing a new septic system.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: The proposed building and = use is similar to other lots in the area and will allow the owners to have a more functional and comfortable house.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The proposed addition will add value to the lot and the neighborhood and will a= llow for a more indoor storage and a more attractive property.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Richard Radcliffe, 15= ,17 & 19 Woekel Circle who had resided there for approximately 41 years disapproved of the proposal. He said the proposed would take his view away and he was paying lake view taxes. He submitted photographs to the Bo= ard showing the property. He was = also concerned that the construction would alter his drainage. He explained that the road pitch h= ad been altered and a drain was added in front of his house which was problema= tic because it backed up. Mr. Rad= cliffe reiterated that he wouldn’t have a view if the applicant was allowed = to construct a second floor. He = said his sister owned the island (in the pond) and he looked after it that would change if the propose was allowed. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara said there wasn’t a question, and the applicant didn’t deny, that Mr. Radcliffe’s view would be affected in large measure if the addition w= as allowed. He said during the s= ite walk the height was discussed and asked for further explanation what the he= ight would by and why it was necessary.

Mr. Gospodarek said the i= ntention was to have a living room on the second floor level. The roof was flatter than an 8/12 roof. Mr. McNamara questioned= how high the cottage was. Mr. Gospodarek said the ridge line over 16-feet from the ground level; the prop= osed addition would be 26-feet from the driveway to the peak of the roof. He said it wasn’t practical = to move the building closer to the street and it also couldn’t be kept at one level lengthened out because it would leave no driveway or parking area= and it would leave them with no septic area.&n= bsp; He said he would be interested in viewing the photographs submitted = by Mr. Radcliffe, because he didn’t get the sense that there was a full = view due to the location of the existing building. He said they agreed that the view = would be changed, but didn’t believe it would be a detrimental change. He felt because the property was waterfront a number of people would be interested in it.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the applicant was arguing that the abutter’s property value would not dec= line if the proposed addition was built. Mr. Gospodarek said they wrote (when answering the criteria) that the proposed addition would add value to the lot and neighborhood in general. He said the way he viewed was if t= he houses in an area were well designed and built, it added to the neighborhoo= d. He said the value issue was being = near the lake and access to the lake; beyond that, he said he wasn’t an appraiser, but if it was a serious issue to the Board members they could ge= t a professional opinion regarding such. Mr. Hennessey said they alluded to the fact that a garage was necessary. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d it was very desirable and made it more comfortable to the owner and neighborhood. Mr. Hennessey confirmed that there was no ecological, scientific or engineering reason why cars couldn’t be parked on the septic system. Mr. Gospodarek answered no; they c= ould be parked on the septic system. He said in this instance, the top of the leach bed was designed approximately 1-foot above the driveway designed. Mr. Hennessey asked what the peak of the building would be from the = road grade. Mr. Gospodarek reviewe= d the plan and said the finished size on the garage side would be 26-feet (becaus= e of the work proposed to be done to the driveway side) from the finished floor = of the garage up to the peak.

Mr. Radcliffe compared th= e size the proposed addition to the interior of Sherburne Hall. He was concerned about trees being removed for construction because they currently act as a buffer.

Mr. McNamara said he knew= that the height had been a concern in terms of diminution of property values. Mr. Hennessey said during the site= walk there were buildings in the vicinity that were higher than the proposed. He felt the value of the property = made it necessary for them to have a garage; it would be almost detrimental not = to have a garage. He then noted = that the Board had an old opinion by a Supreme Court Justice on lake front on Li= ttle Island Pond stating that no one had a constitutional right to a garage. Mr. McNamara believed the opinion = was specific to that particular case. Mr. Hennessey felt the value across the street would be affected, but also felt the values all along the lake were being equally protected by allowing an upgrade to a totally inadequate septic system. He felt having a property value of $300,000 without a garage was harmful.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said given the size of the lot and the nature of the lo= ts in the area, without a garage there would be things (i.e. vehicles, equipme= nt) left on the lot. He also note= d that the proposed use was accepted in the area.=

The Board discussed the e= xisting conditions compared to the proposed along with the area variance criteria.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There appeared to be evidence on property values that ‘cut’ both ways. Based on a case previously in front= of the Board regarding the rights of a property owner across the street, Mr. McNamara said if an abutting owner had some sort of encumbrance/easement on= the land for their view right it would make the proposed an easy proposition. Mr. Hennessey noted that the past = case was a substantially larger lot and the addition was able to be configured i= n a different manner leaving the abutter with more a view. He said in this case, the addition= there was no other location to build the addition because of the size of the lot.= He said lot lines and side line re= strictions were in place to allow ‘breathing room’ between properties. He felt the percent of the lot bei= ng built compared to the size was one of the highest percent in Town. He said it was a dense use for the lot. Mr. Molloy pointed out t= hat it was a dense neighborhood. Mr. McNamara pointed out that because of the configuration, the age and size the applicant was forced to build up. He said it was not the ideal solution.

Mr. Gowan felt the Board = could grant variances with conditions. He felt through the discussion, it could conceivably result in a condition that might be a reasonable condition. Mr. Hennessey noted that the Board had imposed height restrictions; but the pro= blem he had with that was based on what was being presented, the only way lower = the height of the building would be to do away with the garage. He also noted if the garage weren’t built the amount of parking would limited and he questioned i= f that wouldn’t be more detrimental.

Mr. Gowan also felt that = any opportunity to improve septic around the pond, the Board should weigh heavi= ly.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – 1) Yes; 2) a-Yes, b-No; 3) Yes; = 4) Yes; 5) No

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; 1) Yes; 2) Yes; 3) Yes; 4) Yes; 5) No

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. Haverty – Yes= to all criteria

(<= st1:date Year=3D"2000" Day=3D"2" Month=3D"3" w:st=3D"on">3-2-0) The mot= ion carried.

VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2366 SOUSA, = Jose & Lucy 66 Old Gage Hill R= oad South Map 22 Lot 8-20-18 R= 11; Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-76 (III) to permit the operation on a landscaping business in the residential zone.

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the Board heard the case and reviewed the conditions at the last meeting.

He said there was also a = site walk conducted. He asked the applicant if anything had changed in the application (or any aspect) since = the site walk.

The applicants, Lucy and = Jose Sousa, were present for the meeting. Ms. Sousa told Mr. McNamara nothing had changed. Mr. McNamara confirm= ed that a fence would be constructed and questioned its height. Mr. Sousa said the fence would be = 6-feet high. Ms. Sousa explained whe= re the fence would be located (starting back from the road to not inhibit sight distance). Mr. Sousa said the= fence would run approximately 75ft.-80ft. Mr. McNamara reiterated that one of the conditions for Special Excep= tion was that storage of vehicles/equipment had to be completely screened. Ms. Sousa further explained where = the fence would be located. Mr. G= owan explained that the fence could not go right up to the road and would need to stop before the Town’s right-of-way.=

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at there would be no storage of materials on the property, which would be included a= s a condition for approval. He al= so understood that the applicant would need to go before the Planning Board fo= r a Site Plan review. Mr. Gowan answered yes due to the General Home Occupation application. Mr. McNamara outlined the items the Planning Board would review. = He then noted that the applicant would be limited to two commercial vehicles s= tored on the property. Ms. Sousa understood; they only had two vehicles.&nb= sp;

Mr. McNamara also note th= at there should be a concrete pad under the vehicle storage. Ms. Sousa said that was included in their plan at present they’ve used gravel. They would have most of the equipm= ent on a trailer for most of the year and have considered using an enclosed trailer for the storage. Mr. McNamara questioned if the current zoning question (March 2007 ballot Article #3) re= garding truck trailers/storage pods would affect the applicant. Mr. Gowan said it would unless if = was for temporary use (limited time period).&n= bsp; Ms. Sousa said it would be great because they could get it off the ground.

Mr. Molloy questioned how= many trailers were allowed. Mr. McNamara sa= id two commercial vehicles were allowed on the property. Mr. Gowan clarified that a trailer= was not considered a vehicle (in that they are not powered). He said equipment relating to the business must be screened from view.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Thomas Mullin, 72 Old Gage Hill Road said his concern was the storage of chemicals, grass clippings and mulch. He said he would bring drainage is= sues up with the Planning Board. M= r. McNamara understood there would be no storage of chemicals, mulch, fertiliz= er or anything of that nature. H= e said the only thing on site was equipment. He said it would be a condition of an approval either by the Board or Planning Board (through site plan review); if there was a change the applic= ant would have to come back in and seek permission. Mr. Mullin said he and Mr. Sousa s= poke prior to the meeting and Mr. Sousa agreed to build a fence and re-work the stone wall (near the front of the property). He said other than that he was all set.

Mr. Pat Gendron represent= ing his mother Lucille of 55 Old Gage Hill Road (directly across the street) said h= is mother had two concerns, the first being runoff due to the fact that she ha= d a shallow well. He said the oth= er concern was the puddle in the road (on the left going toward Pelham center). He felt something sh= ould be done because it was running on the property and flooding the lawn. Mr. McNamara suggested bringing the issue up with the Planning Board. Mr. Gendron said his father previously owned the property and there = was never water there. Mr. Hennes= sey questioned if the road had lost its crown.= Mr. Gendron answered no. There had been work down the road.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara suggested that Mr. Gendron attend the Planning Board meeting. He said the abutters= would be notified. Mr. Gendron disc= ussed the problems/accidents at the location which he felt was due to the water on the road.

Mr. Hennessey said during= the site walk he had suggested that the applicant have a concrete pad for the equipment. He suggested also = having a moat around the pad to collect anything.= Mr. McNamara believed the Planning Board would require something.

The Board reviewed the co= nditions for approval: 1) concrete pad with a moat around it; 2) follow restrictions already in the Ordinance; 3) = no storage of chemicals, fertilizer, mulch, loam or pesticides; and 4) constru= ct fence as described.

Ms. Sousa said if they we= re to grow any larger they would look into outsourcing.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Haverty) To = accept the following conditions as part of the Special Exception: 1) concrete pad underneath the equipment with a moat/swale (collection device) around it;= 2) follow restrictions already in the Ordinance; 3) no storage of chemicals, fertili= zer, mulch, loam or pesticides; and 4) construct fence as described which would fully enclose the area where the equipment are being stored.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Haverty) To = approve the Special Exception (with conditions).

VOTE:

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

Ms. Sousa discussed the w= ater conditions and said they were there prior to them moving in. She discussed the area Mr. Gendron= was concerned about, but felt the accidents were due more to speeding. She also noted if there was anythi= ng that needed to be done on their property to help with the water condition she and her husband would allow it. <= /p>

SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED

Case 2367 MENDES, David 45 Irene Drive Map 34 Lot 6-206-4 – Seeking= a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-74 to permit an acces= sory dwelling unit in the Residential Zone

Mr. Hennessey read the li= st 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. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the Special Exception request. He posted a copy of the septic design which had been approved (for 5.5 bedroom= s). He said the proposed in-law apartm= ent conformed to the Town’s building codes. He said the owner/builder had peop= le that would like to purchase the lot and have the unit for in-laws.

Mr. Gowan informed the Bo= ard that he and the Building Inspector had reviewed the proposed plan, calculated the footage and found it met the 750SF (maximum requirement). He said the exterior footprint was 750SF. He also noted that the common wall, entrance and other requirements had been met.

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the septic system had been approved. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes; the number was on the plan.   Mr. McNamara asked what the current square footage of the home was.&nb= sp; Mr. Aspinwall answered no; he said it was a reasonably large home. Mr. Gowan believed the footprint h= ome with the proposed addition was 3000SF.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed purchaser knew that the unit was non-rental. Mr. Aspinwall believed they did; he hadn’t spoken with the purchaser, but believed the owner was aware of that fact. Mr. Gowan said he = had a conversation with the owner (Mr. David Mendes) and made sure he understood = that the unit was an in-law unit. = At that time Mr. Mendes conveyed to Mr. Gowan he understood the restriction and would convey such to the buyer so in the event the family member was no lon= ger living in the space the house would simply be a bigger home.

Mr. Molloy questioned why= the apartment had a proposed separate well.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek said (in subdivision regulations) recently subdivided lots there was a requirement that the well radius fit within the lot and 15-foot setback lines. He bel= ieved when the subdivision was approved, the radius was to be within the boundary line; however, with an additional use of 1.5 the radius would have to be 100-feet. He said with a sepa= rate well, the theoretical flow coming out of each well would be under the volum= e in which the state would require a larger radius. He said having two wells rendered a situation that met the Subdivision Regulations. To better understand, Mr. McNamara= said if the unit was approved, as proposed, the Board would not be approving a non-conforming lot that didn’t comply with the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. Gowan confi= rmed that there was one septic on the property and a design to enlarge it. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Haverty informed the = Board that he was not an abutter, but lived approximately 7 or 8 houses from the proposed. He questioned if it= put him in any type of position (to step down). Mr. Hennessey said knowledge of a neighborhood enhanced the Board, and was not grounds for disqualification.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said it was okay, as = long as Mr. Haverty didn’t have anything to gain from an approval or denial and didn’t have a prior relationship with the owner or buyer. There was no objection by the Boar= d to have Mr. Haverty continue to sit on the Board.

Mr. O’Sullivan ques= tioned if a second well on a property fed into the same storage system within the = home as it would if there were only one. Mr. Gospodarek said the intent would be to have a separate system for the in-law apartment. Mr. Gown noted in the event that the people occupying the home move or there was no longer an in-law situation, there would be a back-up well for the home. He said certain aspects of the in-= law apartment would have to be removed in the event it no longer served as an in-law apartment. Mr. McNamar= a said the Ordinance (for Special Exception) referenced the specific information a= nd felt the owner and prospective buyer should be aware of the information.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Colleen Mireault, 41 Irene Drive questioned how close the proposed addition would come to her boundary. Ms. Aspinwall said on the septic p= lan there was a dimension listed showing the addition as being 25.22-feet from = the center of the stone wall. Ms. Mireau= lt wanted to know if having a second well would affect the pressure of her wel= l, which currently wasn’t very good.&nb= sp; Mr. Aspinwall didn’t believe the proposed would have any affec= t on the abutters. He discussed me= asures that could be taken to change water pressure. He didn’t believe that the n= umber of gallon per minute would be affected.&nb= sp; Ms. Mireault asked where the well would be located. Mr. Aspinwall showed the location = of the existing well and the proposed. Mr. McNamara noted that the art of drawing water was an inexact science; he suggested that Ms. Mireault document her current water pressure. Mr. Gowan said they should establi= sh the gallons per minutes. Mr. O’Sullivan suggested that Ms. Mireault have their water tested.

Mr. James Creer, 68 Irene Drive, informed the Board that the information contained on the Town website was very helpf= ul and answered some of the questions he had.= He thanked the Board.

MOTION:

(O’Sullivan/Henne= ssey) To approve the Special Exception. <= u>

VOTE:

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

SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED

MINUTES

February 1= 2, 2007

MOTION:

(Haverty/O’Sulliv= an) To approve the meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(O’Sullivan/Mollo= y) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:15 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