BOA 6-8-2009

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

June 8, 2009

The Chairman Robert Mollo= y called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The Secretary Kevin O’Sullivan called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

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

Altern= ate Lance Ouellette

CONTINUED

Case #2422 Applica= nt: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC (AT&T)&= nbsp; c/o Douglas H. Wilkins - Owner: ZOLKOS, Charles & Janice - 1 Bush Hill Road - Map 27 Lot 2-81 – Seeking “Use” Variances to Articles II, III, IV, V, X, XIII –Sect= ions 307-6, 307-7, 307-12, 307-16(A), 307-18, 307-58(B)(3) of the Zoning Ordinan= ce to permit a Personal Wireless Service Facility and Tower use on property situated in the Residential Zone,= not in the Telecommunications Overlay Zone, and with access from a Class VI hig= hway known as Gumpas Hill Road

Attorney Doug Wilkins of = Anderson Krieger, Attorney for AT&T came forward to discuss the variance request= . He stated since the last meeting a= site walk had been conducted (May 30, 2009). As a r= esult of the site walk, one of the applicant’s consultants prepared a map showing the areas in Town where the test balloons were visible. Test balloons were positioned at 1= 10ft, 150ft. and 170ft.; there was a limited area that the balloons were visible. Attorney Wilkins sai= d the Radio Frequency Analysis, done by the Town’s consultant Mark Hutchins, had come back with the conclusion that a 150ft. structure was reasonable and justified by the applicant. A letter of support had also been received by the Pelham Fire Department beca= use the tower would improve public safety by providing space to locate an anten= na and radio equipment. Attorney Wilkins then discussed the Class VI road aspect and commented that the road= was already open and accessible; they would be happy to address any issues with= the Selectmen and the Conservation Commission.=

Mr. McNamara read aloud t= he minutes from the May 30, 2009 site walk. M= r. Molloy noted that he looked at the site and was able to see the balloons.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Paul DeCarolis a= ppearing on behalf of abutter James Fisher, stated they were opposed to the project. He said there was a = case directly on point with respect to cell towers. He discussed the Second Generation Properties case that had been before the Pelham Zoning Board that made its = way to through the appeals process into Federal Court. He said it spoke about a cell tower proposed on Spaulding Hill= Road. In that case Attorney DeCarolis fe= lt the court made it clear that the TCA didn’t provide a completely non-discretionary right of the cell phone tower companies to come in and put cell towers; zoning boards are still allowed to consider their standard variance criteria as well as the impact on the area in the neighborhood. He said the Board should also cons= ider the existing availability of towers and coverage, the extent of the coverage gaps and just how extensive and severe it was. He said the applicant was correct,= the Board couldn’t effectively prohibit cell towers (under the Second Generation case) but if there were minor gaps, the court in Second Generati= on said that gaps (dead zones) were expected.= He mentioned that he resided in one of the areas designated as no service, but found in his area on Bush Hill Road the cell phones worked fine. Attorney DeCarolis read a portion = of the Second Generation case which indicated that four of the six carriers experi= enced a gap in coverage along Route 128. The court also cited Simplex and pointed out considering the variance criteria, there were other uses. They went on to say that there was considerable un-rebutted evidence that Second Generation’s land was well suited for developing housing = and that if they were granted a variance the inhabitants of (the aptly named) S= cenic View Drive would look out over the top of a cell tower, moreover the proper= ty was located in a section of Town that was prized for its spectacular views = of the countryside.   Photos= of the north shore of Gumpas Pond look= ing south were shown to Attorney Wilkins and provided to the Board for review.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Attorney DeCarolis stated= that the area of Hinds Lane, Spaulding Hill Road and Gumpas Hill Road were some = of the most pristine portions of Town.

Mr. Hennessey discussed t= he Second Generation case. He said the question was not if the view would be spoiled, or unspoiled. The is= sue was that the expert witness and evidence provided to show that cell towers = did not impact the value of properties was bad data, which was what the court upheld. Mr. Hennessey asked Attorney DeCarolis if he was questioning the testimony that had been provid= ed to the Board regarding cell towers effects on property values. Attorney DeCarolis said they didn’t have an expert opinion to rebut the information. He said the Board could consider t= he extent of the gap. He stated = that the Second Generation case spoke of it.&nb= sp; He said if there were no cell tower service or if there were signifi= cant gaps, they would be obligated to provide cell phone service. He said the Board could draw on it= s own experience.

Mr. Hennessey said the Board’s expert indicated that the gap was substantial. He read a portion of the review le= tter from Mark Hutchins (dated June 8, 2009) aloud. H= e said during the Second Generation hearing, the Board used their expertise, but in the present case the Board heard from their expert that there was a substan= tial gap in coverage. He asked Att= orney DeCarolis if he felt the Board was entitled to substitute their own personal opinion for their expert’s opinion.&= nbsp; Attorney DeCarolis believed the Board could reasonably disagree. He said they knew there was a gap,= but didn’t feel they needed an expert testimony to draw the conclusion of what the level of ‘substantial’ was. He agreed if there was a substanti= al gap, the TCA might provide some relief.&nb= sp; He asked the Board to consider the hardship needs/criteria and if it= was reasonably necessary in this area and whether or not other reasonable uses = were available. He also wanted consideration given to the impact on surrounding properties. In light of the Second Generation = case, he asked the Board to consider the character of the neighborhood and the commercial use that the tower would install in that rural part of Town.

Mr. Bill Cook, 25 Hinds Lane discussed how his tax= es on his 5000Sf lot increased. He = said he was able to see the test balloons and believed the tower would affect the value of his property. He not= ed there were other towers that were visible from Gumpas Pond and questioned w= hy they couldn’t be used. = He said people wanted to keep their view.&nbs= p; Mr. Cook was in opposition to the proposed tower.

Mr. O’Sullivan stat= ed that he resided in the gap area and noted there was inadequate coverage in that = part of Town, which was a definite issue.

Mr. Hennessey stated that= he sat on the Board during the Second Generation case. He believed it was cited so much b= ecause it was the only case in which a local zoning board got the court’s approval to turn down a cell tower site.&n= bsp; He was unsure if the points used to turn that case down were applica= ble in the present case. He sympa= thized with the taxes, but the record doesn’t show an effect on property value. He said with cell towe= rs being located throughout the White Mountains and put up over the past six years, they have become ubiquitous/common and didn’t affect values. M= r. Hennessey said over 25% of the residents in Town no longer owned a land line and the lack of the wireless was affecting values far more than the view of= a tower. He noted that the Boar= d had also received an opinion from the Fire Chief that there were safety issues because of not having coverage. He sympathized with the testimony, but didn’t feel that he could vote against the proposal under the federal rules and the Town zoning. He felt it would be a good thing f= or the Town.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re were only spots for three co-locators on the tower. Attorney Wilkins said ultimately, = there were as many spots as could be sold. He said they were happy to go with more than three, it depended upon what the other carriers wanted to do. Mr. O’Sullivan asked if one spot would be used by their organization, or it they planned on using more than one location on the tower. Attorney Wilkins belie= ved they showed using one location. There was potential for other carriers to put equipment on the tower= .

Mr. McNamara stated that = he had Verizon and didn’t experience the gap in coverage that the applicant = or the expert described. He said= when they did the site walk, it was noted that the nearest abutter was quite a w= ays away. He asked how wide the t= ower and equipment would be at 150ft. – 170ft. Mr. Wilkins didn’t know offh= and and reviewed his information.

Mr. McNamara sympathized = with the abutters, but stated that the Board didn’t have any evidence that the tower would have a negative effect. In terms of public interest and benefit to the Town, Mr. McNamara fe= lt there was a clear benefit both to residents and emergency providers.

Mr. Molloy read aloud the= letter submitted by Fire Chief James Midgley, dated June 8, 2009, which expressed his supp= ort for the proposed cell tower.

Mr. Gowan noted as a mono= pole structure, they occasionally are seen with flags on the top. He said if the Board wanted to hav= e a flag on top, the tower may need to be increased in height so as to not interrupt the rays emitted from the tower.= Ms. Paliy discussed a tower she sees that is decorated to look like a tree. She didn’t want t= o see that happen in this case. Mr. O’Sullivan discussed flag etiquette and noted if a flag was going to = be on the tower it would need to be light at night. Attorney Wilkins noted if the towe= r was going to be used as a flag pole, the antennas would have to be located with= in the tower, which would increase the width of the diameter. Mr. Hennessey felt having a flag w= ould make the tower more attention drawing than the tower itself.

Mr. Hennessey discussed t= he access question. He felt havi= ng a truck access the site would open the area up for additional ATV and snowmob= ile traffic. He questioned if blo= cking the access should be discussed by the Zoning Board, Selectmen or Planning Board. Mr. McNamara said that= topic was brought up during the site walk and one of the abutters indicated that there was currently traffic there and a gate would limit that ability. He believed that was an issue for = the Selectmen. Mr. Gowan said the access could not be gated off permanently because people that owned propert= y on the road had access. Mr. O’Sullivan said there was a significant amount of trails in the area = and didn’t feel anything would significantly change the traffic in the ar= ea because of the other access points.

Mr. McNamara said he assu= med the Fire Department would want access to the site. Mr. Gowan said the Fire Department wanted the same reasonable access for the proposed site as was granted for = the Rocky Hill Road site. Mr. McNamara said he was speaking in regard to an emergency response. Mr. Gowan didn’t feel the Fi= re Department would be concerned with putting a fire out.

Attorney Wilkins was unab= le to find the information regarding the diameter of the tower or equipment. Mr. Kearney said in reviewing the plan, the diameter appeared to be 9ft.-10ft. at the base.

Mr. Gowan told the Board = that he had been involved with putting together the Cell Tower Ordinance. At the time it was drafted, he was concerned that cell towers weren’t restricted anywhere in Town. He said they also didn’t spe= cify the fall zones. In this case = (and the Rocky Hill case), he didn’t feel property values would be affected because although the towers were visible, the super tower structure would o= nly be viewed by the owner of the property.&nb= sp;

The Board discussed how t= hey would proceed. The “Use” variance was for the location of the structure; the “Area” variance was for the frontage.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

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

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

VOTE:

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

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

“USE” VARIANCE GRANTED

-------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

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

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

VOTE:

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

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

“AREA” VARIANCE GRANTED

HEARING

Case #2424 CAMIRE,= Kenneth & Tammy – Off Chagnon Lane – Map 35 Lot 6-105 (51, 52, 53, = 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 & 63) – Seeking and “Area” Variance to Article II, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a dupl= ex on a lot with 50ft. of frontage on a class V road where 200ft. is required. =

Mr. O’Sullivan read= the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis c= ame forward to present the variance request.&n= bsp; He began by providing a brief history of the site. He stated the original subdivision (approved approximately forty years ago – plan #1666) consisted of several lots. When the Planni= ng Board approved #1666 the lots in question were not part of the subdivision,= but they were shown on the plan. = It was indicated that any additional lots shown on the plan would need subsequent Planning Board approval. Atto= rney DeCarolis stated that the Planning Board went on to approve plan #2252 in 1962. In that case two of the= twelve lots off Chagnon lane (lot 63 & lot 55); lot 55 was withdrawn from the current agenda and was not before the Board. Attorney DeCarolis stated that the proposal was to consolidate several of the lots abutting lot 63 in order to create one lot. The dry land created would have 110,129SF. He noted that Edward Herbert Associates drew the plan and Gove Environmental conducted a soil study. He sa= id pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, single family as well as duplex lots were allowed on the property. He n= oted if the variance was granted, he wasn’t aware of any other variance th= at would be necessary. Attorney DeCarolis noted that there was an existing trail shown on the plan that was used to service the property in back owned by Russell Leonard; it was their intention to continue to provide for that access to the Leonard property. He said they may have to move the = trail toward the east, but still within the area shown as the 50ft. wide right-of-way. There was enoug= h area to have two driveways, one to service the lot, the other to service the Leo= nard property. Attorney DeCarolis = said for a practical matter, they proposed to move the house further to the sout= h, shifting it toward the center of the dry land. Once the lots were consolidated, t= hey would have (approximately 50ft.) frontage on Chagnon Lane. They would need to go to the Plann= ing Board for the consolidation and subdivision of the property.

Attorney DeCarolis then r= eviewed the variance criteria (see below for submitted criteria) When reviewing the criteria Attorn= ey DeCarolis cited the Malachy-Glen case:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed use is for a duplex home which is permitted in the zoning district. The variance request does not conf= lict with the zoning ordinance’s basic zoning objectives. <= /p>

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 is unique in its surroundings as it was created as part of = the Chagnon Farms subdivision, yet the roadway as shown on the plans was not constructed, although Chagnon Lane and the subdivision were. The proposed use is allowed under = the zoning ordinance and therefore presumed to be reasonable. The other special condition is that there are significant wetlands on the remaining lots as shown on the roadwa= y as originally laid out that prohibit the construction of the through road with significant wetland filling. =

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 construction of a Class V roadway = will involve wetland disturbance and filling and would cost approximately $200.00 per lineal foot. It would also require that the Town maintain the roadway which would essentially be priva= tely used.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The proposed use is allowed and all other setback requirements will be met.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: The proposed use will mini= mize the disturbance to the wetlands, state approved septic systems will be installed and there will be no threat to public health, safety or welfare. =

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The proposed use will be consistent with the uses in the neighborhood as the use will be limited to residential.

Attorney DeCarolis provid= ed the Board with an opinion of value from Realtor Gail Nickerson who opined that there would be no diminution of surrounding property. He understood that the septic syst= em would be subject to state approval and was not aware of any waivers that wo= uld be needed. He understood that= a lot of the neighbors were concerned because of the proximity of the marshes and Beaver Brook and that some portions of Chagnon Lane were prone to flooding= . He said the law states that the post-development runoff cannot exceed the pre-development runoff. In speaking with Mr. Gowan, the co= ncern was raised about the increase in pavement.= Attorney DeCarolis said they would like to have some pavement in the area of the home, but the portion of the driveway shown on the right-of-way= is proposed to be crushed gravel.

In closing, Attorney DeCa= rolis asked the Board for approval of a variance. He said in light of the withdrawal= of lot 55, there was a slight amendment needed to be done to the plan. He said they would consolidate nin= e lots on the original plan #1666. T= he variance request would be to consolidate lots 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 & 63 in order to cr= eate one lot for duplex purposes. =

Mr. Gowan said early last= year Attorney DeCarolis contacted him regarding the lots and he in turn contacted Town Counsel (Attorney John Ratigan) for an opinion. He didn’t believe the opinio= n was germane to read into the record at this time because Attorney DeCarolis wasn’t taking issue with the status of the original subdivision (which was essentially ‘dead’). Attorney DeCarolis said the ten lots shown on plan #1666 had never received Planning Board approval. He said they would need to go to the Planning Board to consolidate t= he lots. He stated that Attorney Ratigan’s opinion was that the subdivision of lots 63 and 55 was null= and void because there was no substantial improvement to the property. For purposes of this application, Attorney DeCarolis said it was not an issue; they were going to consolidate= lot 63 with the eight other lots closest to it. Mr. Gowan said the applicant had a= sked that he write a formal letter of Administrative Decision regarding lot 55, which he would do to and in turn would give them the right to appeal the decision. He said although it wasn’t relevant tonight, because of the consolidation of the lots it = was as if it was one parcel of property.

Mr. Hennessey asked if un= derstood that the testimony given was by granting the variance the Board would be substituting a potential road for a driveway and therefore saving the Town money for potential upkeep of the road.&nb= sp; Attorney DeCarolis answered yes.&nb= sp; Mr. Hennessey asked if the owner of the backlot (the one with the right-of-way) still retain the right to make it into a road. Attorney DeCarolis stated that they would give Mr. Leonard an easement so he would have access to his property. He believed his int= ention was to perhaps come to the Board, with a similar-type proposal, if they wan= ted to build a home. He said it w= ould be a shame to see a Class V road access Mr. Leonard’s property becaus= e it would interfere with the character of the area; he didn’t believe Mr. Leonard was asking to do so. = Mr. Hennessey said by granting the variance for frontage, the Board was not precluding the potential for the owner to come to the Board and make the right-of-way into a road. Att= orney DeCarolis said Mr. Leonard didn’t own a 50ft. right-of-way to his property; they would be conveying an easement. He said if the road was ever built according to plan, many of the lots were completely in the flood zone.

Mr. McNamara wanted clari= fication of the plan. He asked if the = lots were laid out but never approved by the Planning Board. Attorney DeCarolis said that was correct, other than lot 63 and lot 55.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara confirmed that the property had remained in its current state for over forty years without anything happening to it. Attorney DeCarolis said there had = been minor improvements and summarized what had been done. Mr. McNamara found it curious in a= ll that time no one had tried to anything with the property; he suspected there was a good reason for it. Att= orney DeCarolis said the property had been owned by his father in-law who owned a= lot of different property in Town. He stated the now owned lot 55 and the applicant’s Tammy & Ken Camire and Jody Nesky DeCarolis owned the other lots. The lots were deeded in August, 20= 08 and on record May, 2009. He noted= that George Nesky had acquired the property in the 1970’s.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Paul Leonard, 1 Leonard Drive wanted to go on record to say that the right-of-way had been traveled by his family for over forty years; his grandfather owned the land in behind the developments. He said in earl= ier conversations with Attorney DeCarolis they had mentioned the prospect of putting in a dual driveway off of Chagnon Lane. This would maintain the current right-of-way to access the back land= and at the same time allow the applicant access to their duplex. Mr. Leonard felt it would be worth= while for the Board to look at the property to see the right-of-way as it current= ly existed and where the gate and existing land was located. With reference to moving the road = to the east, Mr. Leonard said if the road was moved in that direction, it would be= in the swamp. He said from the L= eonard family perspective, they wanted to maintain their existing right-of-way/rig= ht to pass and the 50-foot channel way into their property. They respected the Camire’s = and DeCarolis’ choice to develop their property, but didn’t want it= to hinder the access into their piece of land.

Mr. Kearney questioned if= there was a right-of-way for the Leonard’s. Attorney DeCarolis said there was = an existing trail used as the access to their property. He said there was essentially a dr= iveway from Chagnon Lane, through the applicant’s property approximately 600ft-700ft.long, to t= he Leonard property. He said the driveway currently meandered through the easement, he envisioned it remaini= ng within the easement, but moving it toward the east. It would not be put into wetlands = or anything of the like.

Mr. Mike Trowbridge, 19 Chagnon Lane believed he was one of the neighbors that would be most affected and theref= ore strongly objected to the proposal. He said the word ‘flood zone’ was an understatement. He said the land had been in his f= amily for over forty-five years. He= said he did not have a water issue, but saw issues all the time by how his neigh= bors had been impacted. He believe= d any changes would have a negative effect on the residents of the area. He also commented that his private= yard would be severely impacted. M= r. Trowbridge believed the water issues alone should be enough to stop the proposal. He didn’t wan= t to find out if a mistake was made after-the-fact. He said currently the right-of-way= was very well controlled and taken care of and he didn’t want it to change. He said in the past t= here had been problems with people accessing the area. Mr. Trowbridge was concerned with = the development having a negative impact on his property value. He discussed the character of the neighborhood, which consisted of single family homes. He asked that the Board take every= thing into consideration and stop the proposal.&= nbsp;

Attorney DeCarolis asked = Mr. Trowbridge if he would prefer to have a Class V road (with 44ft. of pavemen= t) or a private driveway. Mr. Trowbridge recalled when his parents purchased the property there had been a discussion regarding a proposed road. He said if he was limited to the two choices, he would probably choo= se the road, but didn’t feel one would ever be put in based on how the f= lood zone and wetlands were situated. Mr. Molloy confirmed with Mr. Trowbridge that he would rather have a road. Mr. Trowbridge felt the development would have all sorts of problems and would also be an eyesore. =

Ms. Janice Fornier, 9 Chagnon Lane had resided in her home for forty-two years.&n= bsp; She said her deed indicated that there was a proposed road that was shaped like a horseshoe and come out between her property and her neighbors. She provided the B= oard with a brief history of the land. She said a man named Michael Rush was denied development of the land because he was unable = to put the road in adequately, which made her always assume that it would remain w= etland and be unbuildable. Ms. Forni= er said there was swamp as the lot was entered and during the months of August through November parts of the road is impassable by car. She felt with the family homes tha= t had been in the neighborhood for all those years, the development would be a hardship. She hadn’t se= en one duplex in Town that she would be happy to have next to her because they weren’t well kept. She = asked if they could find out why Michael Rush was denied. Ms. Fornier explained that the wat= er table in the area had made them miserable.   She discussed the continuous= flooding in the area and believed if a cellar hole was dug on the proposed property = that it would fill with water.

Attorney DeCarolis submit= ted for the record approvals given to Mr. Rush for lot 55 in 1972 for: 1) water pollution/ water control; 2) culvert; and 3) construction. Mr. Gowan said the information had been submitted to him, which he forwarded to Town Counsel. He said they didn’t feel that the information added any weight to the argument that lot 55 was buildable. He said= it was a permit issued in the early 1970’s (which expired two weeks after being issued) at a time when wetlands could be filled. Attorney DeCarolis said he was only showing the Board the approvals he was aware of that Mr. Rush obtained. He was not aware that he was denied subdivision approval for the lots. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara asked if the= recent designation of prime wetland had any impact. Mr. Gowan was unsure; it would hav= e to be determined. He said if fre= sh engineering was done, he felt the prime wetland designation could be releva= nt because it was clearly defined in a specific area.=

Mr. Frank Riley, 25 Chagnon Lane believed if a road was put in the wetland would be pushed into his neighbor’s = yard and then push into his yard. = He said the brook was behind his land and half of his land was not good becaus= e it was under water. He discussed= the water problems that occurred during the flooding in recent years.

Attorney DeCarolis stated= that they were not proposing to divert water, or fill any wetland. He said they would be staying stri= ctly in the uplands.

Mr. Kearney asked for the= length of the proposed driveway. Att= orney DeCarolis said it was approximately 250ft. and would have crushed stone. Mr. Kearney asked if there was a c= rushed stone driveway currently in the right-of-way. Attorney DeCarolis said it was cur= rently a dirt road. Mr. Kearney aske= d if the Leonard’s would add crushed stone. Attorney DeCarolis was unsure, but believed they would keep basically what was there now. Mr. Kearney asked if there was any= fill required to go from Chagnon to the proposed house. Attorney DeCarolis said they could= use what was there now, but would want to grade it off to make it level. He pointed out that they would hav= e to go to the Planning Board in light of the lot consolidation at which point a= ll the drainage issues would be reviewed.&nbs= p; Mr. Kearney asked if there would be a pad in the house location. Attorney DeCarolis said they would= like to see the area of the house paved in order to keep it neat, which would be worked into the drainage calculations so as to not burden the wetlands. They would keep the pavement down = to a minimum. Mr. Kearney asked fo= r an approximate footprint size for the house.&= nbsp; Attorney DeCarolis stated they hadn’t gotten that far at this point. He said it would proba= bly be three to four bedrooms and would agree to not more than four bedrooms per u= nit.

Mr. Shawn Murphy, 4 Chagnon Lane was opposed to having a duplex in the subdivision because he felt it would add = to the problems currently had. He pointed out that the lots had not been surveyed since 1972 so it was unknown where the wetlands actually were located.&= nbsp; He was concerned if the request was approved that more development w= ould occur. Mr. Murphy asked what = the proposed value of the lot was. Mr. Molloy said it had not been brought up.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney DeCarolis said he provide= d the Board with an opinion that stated there would not be diminution of property value.

Mr. Trowbridge believed t= hat most of his neighbors objected to the situation and questioned if they would hav= e to step forward individually and voice their opinions. Mr. Molloy stated that the Board o= ffered the public the chance to be heard and it was their right to do so. He said if they chose to not be he= ard, they didn’t have to. Mr. McNamara commented that if someone didn’t want to come forward, they could submit their opinion in writing.&nbs= p;

Mr. Hennessey wanted the spectators to understand when the Board reviewed proposals it wasn’t = just based upon the objections. He stated that the Board had to review the rules and regulations imposed by the state ant the Town’s zoning. He urged the public to attend the site walk. Mr. O’Sullivan reiterated th= at the Board appreciated the comments of the abutters. He said their job was to do what w= as best for the Town as well as the applicant.

Mr. Joe Fornier, 9 Chagnon Lane stated that almost everyone in the low lying area had sump pumps and floodi= ng problems. He said during the = last flood his sump pump ran 96 hours continuously. As a result of the high water tabl= e, they had no leach field. He f= elt the number of residents present spoke volumes.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d what the control/gate consisted of. Attorney DeCarolis said there was a swing gate on his property to wh= ich Mr. Leonard had a key. Mr. O’Sullivan asked if they intended to keep it the same in the future.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney DeCarolis said it probably wouldn’t on the portion of the driveway that serviced the lot, if approved. He said Mr. Leonard= would be free to gate it to his property.

Mr. Ronald Drew, 34 Leonard Drive wanted to know if the culvert draining to the rear of his property would be moved. He showed the location= of the culvert to Attorney DeCarolis. Attorney DeCarolis was not aware that changes would be made to it. Mr. Drew was concerned about the c= ulvert backing up and going into people’s property.

Mr. Leonard came back before the Board to be clear that they were not looki= ng to change their status quo of the right-of-way that they had enjoyed and be= en entitled to for the past forty years. Attorney DeCarolis said that was their proposal as well. He discussed the issue with the ga= te and people accessing the property in the past.= He said the gate was put up to stop that traffic.

The Board scheduled a sit= e walk for June 13, 200= 9 beginning at 8:30am on Chagnon Lane. Mr. Gowan was asked by the Board to invite the Conservation Commission.

The case was date specifi= ed to the July 13, 200= 9 meeting located at the Media Center within Pelham Elementary S= chool.

Case #2425 DECAROLIS, Paul – Off Chagnon Lane – Map = 35 Lot 6-105 (55) – Seeking an “Area” Variance to Article II, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a single family on a lot with 50ft. of frontage on a class V road where 200ft. is required.

The applicant, Paul DeCar= olis told the Board that the case would not go forward.

Mr. Molloy informed the p= ublic that Case was being withdrawn.

SITE WALK – June 13, 2009 8:30am<= /st1:time>

Case #2424 CAMIRE, Kenneth & Tammy –= ; Off Chagnon Lane – Map 35 Lot 6-105 (51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, = 62 & 63) – Seeking and “Area” Variance to Article II, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a duplex on a lot with 50ft. of frontage on a class V road where 200ft. is required.

DATE SPECIFIED CASE(S) – July 13, 2009

Case #2424 CAMIRE, Kenneth & Tammy –= ; Off Chagnon Lane – Map 35 Lot 6-105 (51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, = 62 & 63) – Seeking and “Area” Variance to Article II, Section 307-12 to permit the construction of a duplex on a lot with 50ft. of frontage on a class V road where 200ft. is required.

MINUTES

May 11, = 2009

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To approve the Ma= y 11, 2009 meeting minutes as amended. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

May 30, = 2009 – Site walk

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sulli= van) To approve the Ma= y 30, 2009 site walk minutes as written.=

VOTE:

(3-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Molloy = and Mr. Hennessey abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(O’Sullivan/Henne= ssey) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:47 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