APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 9, 2012

 

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

 

The acting Secretary Peter McNamara called roll:

 

PRESENT:

 

 

 

ABSENT:

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

 

Robert Molloy

 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING

 

Case #ZO2011-00029   GAGNE, Ryan  /  197 Marsh Road  -  Map 39 Lot 6-185-1  -  Seeking a Special Exception to Article III, Section 307-76 III to permit a general home occupation of a landscaping business.  (NOTE: This BOA case will be limited to the request for rehearing only.  If the request for rehearing is granted a hearing date will be specified and all abutters will be notified via certified mail.)

 

Mr. Hennessey asked Mr. LaFrance to sit in on the hearing. He then read aloud a letter into the record from the applicant dated February 21, 2012 that requested a rehearing of the Board’s decision to deny the Special Exception request.  It read that the decision to file under special exception was based upon previous cases that had come before the Board for similar uses (case #2008-2418 Boyden Landscaping and #2366 Sousa).  In both cases a special exception was requested to operate a landscaping company in a residential zone. 

 

Following are points brought up during the Gagne case that appear to conflict with the cases noted:   

1) 49% limit – applicant believes they showed a calculation that with a proposed garage, the total gross floor area used by the business would be less than the 49% requirement.  The previous cases had no requirement for a garage and were allowed outside parking and storage subject to it being screened.  Some Board members said the proposed garage would be out of character but the applicant disagreed citing there was a larger structure on a direct abutting lot; 2) requirement for vehicles to be in a garage and screened – the applicant believes that the historical interpretation to be that vehicles need to be either garaged and/or screened from abutting properties.  Previous cases had no requirement for house all of the company’s vehicles in a garage. 3) Number of vehicles – Boyden case had no mention of limiting vehicles or requiring a garage.  The applicant feels there is suitable area to park vehicles for business keeping them screened from Marsh Road and residential abutter. 

 

 In summary, the applicant didn’t feel their application was different from other properties that were approved with the special exception process.  Further, they didn’t feel that the garage should be a requirement of the process, only that the company’s equipment would need to be screened.    

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward.  He stated he had no further testimony as it pertained to the rehearing request for Special Exception. 

 

Ms. Paliy felt the applicant should have filed the application slightly different.  She said if she were given a choice of how to vote she would rather it had been for a variance to which she would vote in the affirmative.  She felt it was possible for the Board to rehear the case.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board had to determine if they made a mistake at the hearing.  Ms. Paliy believed the law had changed since the other cases (referenced) were brought before the Board; when landscaping became a problem under special exception.  Mr. Gowan noted that landscaping and hair dressing businesses were no longer allowed under a minor home occupation; it was still allowed in the general home occupation. 

 

Mr. LaFrance felt the case should be reheard on the basis that the prior applicants that came to the Board to do the same thing with their business were in the same position.  He didn’t see a difference. 

 

Mr. McNamara said given that he voted in the minority on the decision, he didn’t feel there was anything new being presented but there had been some misunderstanding both from the Board’s and applicant’s perspective.  He was inclined to rehear the case but didn’t have a strong feeling either way. 

 

Mr. O’Sullivan noted that he wasn’t present for the hearing and followed up on the site walk.  He didn’t feel strongly that the Board wouldn’t rehear the case. 

 

Mr. Ouellette said he was on the case for Boyden in 2008.  He felt that the applicant’s case should be reheard on the basis that Boyden was an established business and the Board members felt they knew the property well enough that it didn’t change the outlook of the home.  In the applicant’s case, it was a new business being presented.  Mr. Ouellette felt there were similarities between the cases and the applicant’s case should be reheard. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said he felt bad about the case and the appearance that the applicant was being ambushed about the business going into the garage.  He said they had changed from limited home occupation to general and felt the reason it was done was because of the feeling of closer review.  He said the Board looked at the application closer than they had on some of the previous cases.  Mr. Hennessey was comfortable the Board gave a fair hearing, but uncomfortable that the appearance of a fair hearing wasn’t there.  On that basis, he would be willing to have a rehearing.   

 

ROLL CALL:

To rehear the case. 

 

VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Ms. Paliy-Yes; Mr. O’Sullivan-Yes;

Mr. LaFrance-Yes

 

Mr. Hennessey stated that the Board would allow a rehearing.  He said because the Board had previously turned the Special Exception down, the applicant had come back with a Variance request.  He gave the applicant the opportunity to choose which they would like to proceed with; either a Special Exception or a Variance.  Mr. Maynard stated he had spoken to his client and they would like to proceed with the Variance request.  He said if the Variance is granted they would be happy to withdraw any the Special Exception rehearing request. 

 

Mr. Hennessey confirmed the Board was following proper procedure.  If a Variance is granted the Special Exception would be moot.  In the event a Variance was denied, the Board has already voted to rehear the Special Exception.    

 

CONTINUED HEARINGS

 

Case #ZO2011-00030  BOUTWELL, Nathan G.  /  144 Windham Road  -  Map 15 Lot 8-201  -  Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-9, 307-12 and 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit up to 12 buildings for dwelling purposes (each single family dwellings) on one lot where such lot has an overall size of approximately 9.63 acres.  A Variance is also requested to Article VII, Sections 307-39 and 307-40 to permit a street, well(s), utility right-of-way easements, power lines and pipe lines (and related appurtenances) in the buffer portion of land within the Wetland Conservation District

 

Mr. Gowan stated that the case had been withdrawn without prejudice.  Mr. Hennessey said the applicant could come back in, but the Board would not be hearing  the case at this time. 

 

Case #ZO2012-00002   GAGNE, Ryan  /  197 Marsh Road -  Map 39 Lot 6-185-1 –  Seeking a Variance to Articles IV&V, Sections 307-16 & 307-18, Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a landscaping business and storage of landscaping equipment in a residential zone.

 

Mr. McNamara 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. LaFrance remained seated as the fifth member of the Board.

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to review the Variance request.  He stated that the property was located in the Residential Zone at 197 March Road consisting of approximately 1.5 acres.  The contained approximately 200ft. of frontage and was approximately 307ft. deep.  There were some wetlands that exist toward the rear of the property.  The lot contains an existing three-bedroom single family dwelling (approx. 3000SF living space) with a detached garage that exists behind  a screened privacy fence.  Mr. Maynard provided the Board with a summary of the lot.  He said it had commercial uses in the past that included a cabinet shop and auto body shop.  The lot abutted lots that had commercial-type uses.  Aerial photographs were displayed to show the location of the applicant’s property and surrounding lots.  It was noted that there was a landscaping business similar to the applicant’s which was also on a lot approximately the same size.  He noted there was an existing privacy fence that would be extended to add additional screening.

 

Mr. Maynard then reviewed the variance criteria as submitted with the application. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the additional screening was shown on the plot plan provided to the Board.  Mr. Maynard replied that they had indicated some and understood that they would probably have to go to the Planning Board for further discussion.  He showed a photograph of the landscaping company further up Marsh Road that showed approximately fourteen vehicles, not including trucks or trailers associated with the business.  He said in reading the previous cases, there was no ‘cap’ put on the number of pieces of equipment. 

 

Mr. Hennessey read aloud a letter submitted by Joshua Masterson, dated March 12, 2012, that supported the applicant’s request landscaping business. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Eric Giniewicz, 14 Patriot Drive, supported the variance.  He said the applicant had done a good job keeping the noise down and equipment down.  He had no concerns with the business. 

 

Mr. Maynard told the Board that the applicant had gone to lengths to speak with all his neighbors and seek support from them during the process.  He said the use had a commercial appearance being that the property next door was a convenience store, the property to the south was the F&F property.  He said they fit into the character of the neighborhood.  The business is screened either behind the existing landscaping on Marsh Road or the fence off the driveway making it barely visible from the street area. 

 

Mr. Hennessey closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board.  He explained for the public the difference between a Special Exception and a Variance. 

 

Mr. McNamara felt the applicant had demonstrated through testimony and photographs that the area had other similar non-conforming uses in the vicinity.  The site itself was the subject of non-conforming business uses in the past and at the present had the appearance of a business use.  He said the only abutter testimony was from the nearest abutter who was in favor of the Special Exception.  Mr. McNamara believed the applicant had met the Variance criteria based on the submittals and testimony given to the Board.  He felt given adequate screening of the property and vehicles, the substantial justice could be done. 

 

Ms. Paliy said she had reviewed the deed for the property.  She said there were properties all along the area that were commercial.  From what she determined, the subdivision had take place out of a commercial property to a residential property; the residential properties were later built.  Because of the commercial nature of the lots and the amount of vehicles, Ms. Paliy said she previously had a difficult time voting.  She felt all the lots should be the same and in this case granting a variance would be correct because it would change the property to what the surrounding properties were. 

 

Mr. LaFrance understood the hardship; it wasn’t easy to run a business and have a residential home.  He felt in some instances it was better not to run a business out of the home; he didn’t like seeing equipment outside a home.  He said in this instance he agreed with the variance.  He felt the applicant was doing the right thing and kept a clean, well screened business.

 

Mr. Ouellette commented that it was a great location; he had looked at it when it was for sale for the same purpose.  He said the applicant could raise the height limit of the fence as shown on the previous proposed site plan.  He believed the applicant had covered everything. 

 

Mr. O’Sullivan recalled having a concern about the ability to garage, as opposed to screening, vehicles/equipment etc.  Mr. Hennessey said that point was now moot because the Board was dealing with a Variance. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said there had been a number of issues along Mammoth Road; there was a commercial encroachment on the applicant’s property.  His concern was Patriot Drive, which formed a natural boundary, despite the non-conforming uses further down the road.  He believed there was a demarcation of a commercial area on Mammoth and the corner of Marsh and a predominantly residential area behind it.  He was willing to defer to the Planning Board, and felt if the variance were allowed, there would need to be screening to visually separate the uses from the residential area.  Mr. McNamara said the Planning Board would discuss screening when the site plan was proposed.  He believed the applicant was aware of the concern.  It was noted that as a condition for approval that additional screening be recommended. 

 

Mr. McNamara made a motion to recommend that the Planning Board consider additional screening.  Mr. O’Sullivan seconded.  Mr. Ouellette asked if approving the motion would impose a hardship.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board would only be sending a recommendation to the Planning Board.    

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To strongly recommend to the Planning Board that additional screenings be considered for the side of the property fronting Patriot Drive. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said the Board had a lot of discussion regarding the garage during the hearing for the Special Exception; with a Variance there’s no such requirement.  He was fine with the site plan being taken care of by the Planning Board.  Mr. Gowan said in the event the Variance was approved, and applicant decided to build a garage in the future, for the purposes of keeping some of the equipment out of the weather, he would like the ability to interpret that approval as including a garage so they wouldn’t need to come back before the Board.  Mr. Hennessey said in the spirit of the ordinance the Board should look at some guidelines in the special exception clause such as the garage shouldn’t be out of size, in proportion to the house and no more than 49% of the square footage.  Mr. O’Sullivan said there had been a concern that the garage would be inordinately large.  Mr. Hennessey believed the garage should be commensurate with the size of the house.  The Board discussed how to proceed.  Mr. Hennessey was concerned with the extension of a business zone, where none has been approved by the voters.  Through discussion, Mr. Gowan felt the Board made a strong point that in the event the applicant came forward to build a structure (garage) they would be held to the 49% entailed in the special exception rules for a general home occupation. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria;

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria; with motion recommendation to Planning

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

HEARINGS:

 

Case #ZO2012-00004 – MCGOWAN, Brian /  Birch Lane Off  -  Map 36 Lot 10-16 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-12, 307-13B & 307-14 to permit a four bedroom single family house with an accessory apartment to be constructed on a lot with no frontage on a Town accepted road.

 

Mr. McNamara 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. Shayne Gendron and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the requested variance.  He commented that the proposed parcel was landlocked with no road frontage.  Previously, he had come before the Board for Linda Costa and had a variance approved to access lot 36-10-17.  Since then the lot has changed hands and the new owner had acquired the proposed property and would like to build a single family house with an in-law apartment.  The applicant would like to create an easement across lot 10-17 to access lot 36-10-16.  As part of the application the driveway ends up being approximately 900ft. long and was designed with specifications that met the subdivision criteria for a fire truck.  They are proposing a pull-off half way up the driveway along with a cul-de-sac that would be big enough to pull a tractor trailer around. 

 

Mr. Gendron told the Board what was included in their application packet, which included a (previously approved) Dredge and Fill permit.  He said the permit was acted on, the culvert was put in and the driveway had been put through (but not up to subgrade). As part of their application they put together a septic design, with the proper well radius and met with the Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski.  A test pit was done; the soils on the property are excellent.  Mr. Gendron noted that the lot contained approximately 10.59 acre lot and their proposal was for a single family home with an in-law apartment.  The requested variance was for the lack of 200ft.frontage requirement on a Town approved road. 

 

Mr. Hennessey recalled when the Board reviewed the other parcel (lot 10-17) they restricted the driveway width to 20ft.  He questioned if by approving the proposed variance the Board would be amending the previous variance.  Mr. Gowan interpreted the Board’s previous restriction as being 20ft. at the point of the wetlands crossing.  He stated that the Fire Chief, having jurisdiction under NFPA, would have the ultimate authority with regard to driveways, their width and their ability to handle fire apparatus.  He looked at the proposal as being limited to 20ft. at the wetland crossing, but could then be widened.  Mr. Gendron noted that the 30ft. driveway easement would contain the grading and side slopes; it wouldn’t be a 30ft. pavement width. 

 

Mr. Gendron read aloud the Variance criteria as submitted and contained with the application. 

 

Mr. McNamara questioned the status of lot 17 and wanted to know if there was an existing home on the lot.  Mr. Zohdi noted that the owner of lot 17 purchased lot 16.  There were no houses on either lot; the owner would like to keep lot 17 as a separate lot for privacy.  Mr. McNamara commented that one requirement for special exception is that the driveway had to be designed to appear as a single family residence and no new curb cut from the street can be constructed.  He asked the applicant if they felt the requirement was complied with.  Mr. Zohdi said the driveway design was under the jurisdiction of the fire chief; they would comply with whatever the fire chief wanted.  Mr. McNamara commented if a home was built on lot 17, the driveway would no longer be a single family driveway and would be in violation of a special exception, if it were to occur in the future.  Mr. Zohdi stated they would agree that the single family on lot 17 would not have an in-law apartment.  Mr. McNamara believed that was agreed to with the prior special exception. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said his concern was that there would be a road built to Town standards going 900ft. into a 10-acre lot.  He said at the last hearing there were a lot of abutters concerned that having such would open the back land up for development.  He said now the Board was being asked to approve a road into the next lot.  Mr. Zohdi noted if they wanted to build a road to Town specifications they wouldn’t have come to the Zoning Board.  He said the applicant wanted to keep his lot private, which was the purpose for purchasing the additional lot.  The applicant would like to build a single-family home with an in-law apartment and keep the other lot for privacy.  Mr. Hennessey asked if the applicant was specifying that lot 16 would have one structure (with an in-law) on it.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Gowan commented regarding the road.  He said the road was long, but no where near being at Town road specification.  He discussed the E911 rules that specify any driveway servicing more than two dwellings would need to be a named private drive. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Kevin Miller, 4 Birch Lane, was concerned that the Board’s question regarding the additional curb cut into the driveway wasn’t answered.  He understood that the applicant owned lots 16 and 17.  He questioned if the applicant would be constructing a house on lot 17 off the new driveway, which was the original concern when the special exception was granted.  Mr. Hennessey replied that the applicant had invited the Board to stipulate that there be one premises on lot 16; the Board had no ability to do so on the previously approved lot 17.  Mr. Miller told the Board that the lot was decimated; a number of trees had been removed.  He believed the owner was putting a development in. 

 

Ms. Christina Miller, 4 Birch Lane, said during the last meeting, concerning lot 10-17, a path was granted for the conservation land.  She asked if it would be included on lot 10-16.  Mr. Hennessey said the path was referenced to it on the plan.  Mr. McNamara confirmed with the applicant that the conservation easement would extend through the property.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes. 

 

Mr. Gowan stated he had walked the property as a result from the large area being cleared.  He said the applicant expressed that he was creating an open area (within the 10.5 acre parcel) because he didn’t want it the location of the home to be completely wooded.  He understood that the applicant gave testimony for the dwelling unit on lot 10-17 being taken away.  The dwelling unit (in-law apartment) would be limited to the application now before the Board (lot 10-16) if the variance is to be granted.  Mr. Gowan said there had been a lot of discussion with the Conservation Commission during the previous hearings regarding the easement.  He said there was a 15ft. pedestrian easement that connected on the westerly edge of the parcel being discussed.  He noted if the Board approved the variance there was a potential for two single family homes and an in-law dwelling on a total of approximately 17 acres.  He said the land was almost all buildable, and the proposed was minor to the type of subdivision that could happen if a road was built to standards.  He noted to develop the property once the proposed cul-de-sac was put in would be extremely difficult. In reviewing the plan, he didn’t see there to be any plan to subdivide in the future.  He noted that the Board had the ability to place a restriction on development.  Mr. Zohdi commented if there was a plan for additional development of the parcel his client wouldn’t spend the money to build a town driveway.  He said if they wanted to do any other development the applicant would need to come back in front of the Zoning Board as well as go in front of the Planning Board.

 

Mr. McNamara reiterated that the applicant has stipulated that there would be no further subdivision of the property.  He made the following motion:

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) Stipulation that Lot 36-10-16 will have no further subdivision

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Mr. Hennessey commented in the past some folks were confused why the Board would approve this type of variance.  He said the downside for the community in having this large a parcel with the potential for further subdivision, senior housing or other housing, going forward.  He said by stipulating no further subdivision, there was a limitation to the density of the properties in the area.  He believed in balance it was a good deal for the Town.    

 

Mr. McNamara noted that the property appeared to be land-locked with no other feasible means of access to it.  He felt that point demonstrated the hardship requirement. 

 

Mr. McNamara made a motion that any variance approval be conditioned upon the Conservation walking trail easement being extended into the property as shown.  Mr. O’Sullivan seconded the motion.   

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) Any Variance approval is conditioned upon the Conservation walking easement being extended into thee property as shown.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Mr. Hennessey explained to the public that the Board was voting on the Variance for the structure.  He said if approved, the Board would then discuss the Special Exception request for the in-law apartment. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria; with stipulations

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

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

Case #ZO2012-00005 – MCGOWAN, Brian / Birch Lane Off – Map 36 Lot 10-16 – Seeking a Special Exception to Article V & XII, Sections 307-18, Table 2 & 307-74 to permit construction of accessory dwelling unit as part of a new 5.5 bedroom house.

 

The abutter’s list was read previously in Case# ZO2012-00004.

 

Mr. Hennessey explained to the public the difference between a Variance and a Special Exception as it pertains to the Board’s review process. 

 

Mr. Shayne Gendron and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, reviewed the request for Special Exception.  For the Board’s benefit, he reviewed a plan showing the proper radiuses (for well, septic etc), the proposed leach area.  Mr. Gendron noted that Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski had reviewed the plan and the State Department of Environmental Services had approved the plan.  Mr. Gendron then reviewed the proposed floor plan for the house and in-law apartment.  He discussed the requirements for an in-law dwelling, which he believed they met. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the septic met the requirements.  Mr. Gendron answered yes.  Mr. McNamara questioned Mr. Gowan if he had verified the common wall criteria had been met.  Mr. Gowan answered yes.  Mr. McNamara confirmed the size of the accessory unit as being under 750SF.  Mr. Gendron answered yes.  Mr. McNamara wanted to know who would be using the unit.  Mr. Gendron believed the applicant’s mother-in-law would use the unit. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Gowan said he was struggling with the fact that the Board didn’t provide a restriction (during the variance approval) that the in-law for lot 17 would be ‘unapproved’.  He said if that was the Board’s intention to have a restriction regarding the in-law, now might be the time to do so.  Mr. McNamara asked if it would more appropriately be addressed when/if there was an application that came in for an accessory dwelling on that unit.  Mr. Gowan noted that the other lot already had a special exception approval.  Mr. Hennessey believed the only way to restrict it would be for the applicant to surrender their rights under the previously granted Special Exception, and have a stipulation with the current Special Exception request.  He said they couldn’t have both of them.  Mr. Zohdi stated the applicant didn’t have an objection to writing a letter indicating they would not build an in-law on lot 17, but would retain their right to construct a single family home.  Mr. Hennessey believed the Board should make a stipulation for approval that the applicant surrender their rights to an in-law apartment on lot 17 in order to construct an in-law apartment on lot 16.  Mr. Zohdi wanted it understood that the applicant would still retain the right to construct a single-family home on lot 17.  There was a brief discussion how to proceed. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) The applicant has agreed to surrender the parcel’s right on lot 17 to construct an accessory apartment. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes; with stipulation

Mr. McNamara – Yes; with stipulation regarding the in-law apartment on lot 36-10-17

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes

Ms. Paliy – Yes

Mr. LaFrance – Yes

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED

 

 

Case #ZO2012-00006  -  MASON, Cathy & CHATEL, Robert / 36 Kens Way - Map 15 Lot 9-40-3 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12, 307-13B & 307-14 to permit a single family home to be converted to a duplex on a lot with no frontage on a Town accepted road.

 

Mr. McNamara 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. Shayne Gendron and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicants, came forward to discuss the variance request.  Mr. Gendron began by providing the Board with a brief history of the lot, which had been subdivided in the late 1990’s.  He said the applicant’s lot was a pre-existing lot of record with a 50ft. access easement off Ken’s Way (a private road).  The parcel contains 13.759acres with an existing single-family home and attached garage.  The well is located in the rear of the home; the leach and septic is located in the front of the home.  Mr. Gendron explained as part of the application they went through the abutting properties and listed their uses.  The identified uses (per Vision Appraisal used by the Town for assessing purposes) were split up into two categories: 1) two-family use, and 2) single-family with in-law apartment (which is similar to a two-family use).  There were five lots (some abutting) in the area containing 2-family homes, there were six lots (some abutting) with houses containing in-law apartments, one of the direct abutting lot contained a three-family home.  There was another lot that contained a two-family home, although Vision Appraisal had not listed it as such.  Mr. Gendron stated that they were requesting relief to several sections to zoning; however, those relief requests all went back to the 200ft. frontage requirement on a Town approved road. 

 

Mr. Gendron read aloud the Variance criteria as submitted within the application package. 

 

Mr. Hennessey believed part of the issue was that a variance had been granted on the property with stipulations.  Mr. Zohdi said the variance was granted for a single-family home.  He explained that

Mr. St. Onge had received a couple of variances for lots (in the area) to give to his daughters and son-in-laws so they could build there.  He said this was one of the few properties that had to install a cistern.  Currently the applicant’s were requesting to change the property to a duplex.  Mr. Zohdi said they could have requested an in-law apartment, but were instead requesting a duplex for financing purposes; it was easier to receive financing for a duplex versus an in-law apartment.  He stated the structure would stay the same, they wouldn’t have an addition; the garage would be altered to become the second unit.  He reviewed the map of the area and reiterated the locations of the lots containing duplexes and in-law dwellings. 

 

Mr. Hennessey suggested that the Board conduct a site walk.  Mr. LaFrance, who was familiar with the property, said it was well maintained and felt the Board would be impressed with the area.  The Board agreed to conduct a site walk. 

 

A site walk was scheduled for April 14, 2012 at 9am. 

 

The case was date specified to May 14, 2012.

 

Case #ZO2012-00007 -  COOLEY, Ken  / 4 Little Island Park - Map 24 Lot 11-311 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-8(C) & 307-12 – to permit the existing structure to be razed and a second story to be added to make a more suitable floor/living area plan & make more conforming to today’s regulations.

 

Mr. Ouellette told the Board, although he wasn’t friends with the applicant, he knew him from living on the lake.  Mr. Hennessey said there was no conflict.  Mr. Ouellette remained seated.  

 

Mr. McNamara 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. Ken Cooley came forward to discuss the requested variance.  He said their intention was to tear down an existing structure that was falling apart and rebuild another structure using the same footprint.  He then read aloud the variance criteria, as submitted in the application packet. 

 

Mr. McNamara believed the Board should conduct a site walk.

 

Mr. Hennessey asked how tall the proposed house would be including the roof pitch (from grade to roof peak).  Mr. Cooley said the maximum height would be twenty-seven feet. 

 

Ms. Paliy stated she had been to the location and commented that the houses behind the applicant’s home currently had no view.  She said the lot was heavily treed and the existing home sat higher than the others because it had a full foundation where the other homes were seated on the ground.  She said the house directly behind had no view and didn’t feel the proposed structure would block anyone’s view. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked what the height of the existing structure was.  Mr. Cooley didn’t have an exact number, but believed it was approximately 18ft. in height.  Photographs were submitted for review.  Mr. Cooley told the Board that the property sloped.  He said he spoke with the neighbor behind him and they didn’t have a problem with the proposal. 

 

Mr. Gowan felt it might be helpful to note the grade of the lot.  The applicant would be building the proposed home into the hill. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Paulette Bulmer, 27 Spring Street Extension, told the Board that she had resided in her home for forty-five years.  She and her husband expressed their support of the applicant’s proposal and submitted a letter to the Board indicating such. 

 

Mr. Douglas Mann, 2 Little Island Park, said there were a lot of fumes coming from boats and felt having a structure with the height as described would direct those fumes up the boat ramp past his home.  He was concerned with the separation of wells; the proposed well appeared to be approximately 20ft. from his.  He was also concerned with the proposed structure blocking sunlight and his view. 

 

Mr. Ergendino Perrone, 1 Little Island Park, spoke in support of Mr. Mann.  He said Mr. Mann believed building a two-story home would have an adverse effect and block Mr. Mann’s view as well as others.  He said no one objected to a one-story house being built.  He reiterated Mr. Mann’s concerns of the fumes and the view and sunlight being blocked.  He ended by saying the applicant’s proposal wouldn’t have an adverse effect on the applicant, but it would have a direct adverse effect on Mr. Mann.

 

Ms. Paliy asked Mr. Mann how he would be blocked.  Mr. Mann replied that a two-family home would sit a lot higher than his home. 

 

Mr. Mark Pultar, 22 Little Island Park told the Board that the residents had access to the deeded beach (community beach) and wanted to know if the trees would be touched.  He asked if removal would violate the Shore Line Protection Act.  Mr. Hennessey said the Shore Line spoke about the buffer zone.  Mr. Cooley said all the trees would come down except for a large oak in the front of the property.  He commented that Mr. Mann would have a lot more sunlight when the tall pine trees came down.  He believed it would be appreciated because those pines were currently over Mr. Mann’s home. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said the Board would conduct a site walk.  A site walk was scheduled for April 14, 2012 10am.  Mr. Hennessey asked if Mr. Cooley could place a marker showing the height of the proposed structure. 

 

Mr. Pultar told the Board that his dock was located in front of Mr. Cooley’s camp.  He believed there was an underground stream in that location and the beach was muddy/murky. 

 

The case was date specified to the May 14, 2012 meeting.

 

SITE WALK – April 14, 2012

9am - Case #ZO2012-00006  -  MASON, Cathy & CHATEL, Robert / 36 Kens Way - Map 15 Lot 9-40-3

10am - Case #ZO2012-00007 -  COOLEY, Ken  / 4 Little Island Park - Map 24 Lot 11-311

 

DATE SPECIFIED HEARING(S) – May 14, 2012

Case #ZO2012-00006  -  MASON, Cathy & CHATEL, Robert / 36 Kens Way - Map 15 Lot 9-40-3

Case #ZO2012-00007 -  COOLEY, Ken  / 4 Little Island Park - Map 24 Lot 11-311

 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

January 21, 2012 – not reviewed.

February 13, 2012 – not reviewed

 

March 12, 2012

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To approve the March 12, 2012 meeting minutes as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                          Charity A. Landry            

                                                                                          Recording Secretary