APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

June 11, 2012

 

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

 

The Vice Chairwoman Ms. Paliy called roll:

 

PRESENT:

 

 

ABSENT:

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

 

Robert Molloy, Kevin O’Sullivan

 

Mr. LaFrance and Mr. Ouellette were appointed to be voting members.

 

HEARING(S)

 

Case #ZO2012-00011  MAMMOTH CONVENIENCE 203-205  Mammoth Road  /  Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-8 (C) to permit a 12ftx20ft wooden shed; this is an expansion of a non-conforming use.

 

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

 

Being a direct abutter to the applicant, Ms. Paliy stepped down from the Board.  Mr. Hennessey explained to the applicant that with four sitting Board members they would need three votes in the affirmative to have their variance granted.  He said in these situations, it had been the practice of the Board to give the applicant the choice to continue their hearing to the next meeting where they may have a full quorum to hear the case. 

 

The applicants, Mr. Rushi Patel and Mr. Prakash Patel, told the Board they would like to proceed with their hearing.  Mr. R. Patel said they would like a permit to build a 12ft.x20ft. wooden shed that would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. 

 

Mr. Hennessey understood that the existing building was in a single-family zone and non-conforming under current zoning.  Because the applicant was requesting to build a shed it would be an expansion of the non-conforming use.  He noted if the applicant was located in a commercial zone, they wouldn’t be in front of the Board. 

 

Mr. R. Patel read aloud the variance criteria as submitted with the application. 

 

Mr. Gowan told the Board that he sent the applicants to the Board because the record for the property showed it had received a variance a number of years ago.  After being vacant, the property was acquired by the applicant who finished the store and put it into operation and appeared to be well run.  It was noted that the property was kept very neat.  Mr. Gowan believed the applicant intended to build the shed on the right side corner of the existing building next to the parking lot.  When constructed it would be sided in a similar fashion to the store itself. 

 

Mr. McNamara saw that the first variance granted had a condition that there be no storage trailers.  He asked Mr. Gowan if he had made a decision that the proposed shed didn’t fit under the condition.  Mr. Gowan said a shed is a commonly used structure to house the type of equipment the applicant was proposing.  In his opinion, a trailer would not.  He said a difference type of variance would need to be requested to place a trailer on a residential property. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Ouellette questioned if a variance would have been needed if the structure were 10ft.x10ft. (under 100SF)  Mr. Gowan answered yes.  He said anything that was associated with the business, as opposed to a residential use would be an expansion of a non-conforming use.  It’s a commercial use on a property within a residential zone.  The only distinction in the zoning was that a shed (or other structure) would have to meet the setback requirements no matter what size.  In this case the shed met the setback. Mr. Ouellette asked if the shed would have electricity.  Mr. R. Patel answered no.

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Ouellette – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(4-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

Ms. Paliy returned to the Board.

 

Case #ZO2012-00012  ZAWASZKI, Henry & Charlotte  -  4 Woekel Circle  /  Map 31 Lot 11-295 – seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-8 (C), 307-12 & 307-14 – to permit construction of a year round single family dwelling on a lot where conformity to the zoning ordinance is required; where a non-conforming use will be extended; where dimensional requirements for lot size and frontage are required; and where 200 feet frontage on a public right of way is required in the Residential district. 

 

Ms. Paliy 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. Hennessey told the Board and public that the only connection he had with the applicant was that he sold his house to them eighteen years ago.  He didn’t feel there was a conflict.  There was no objection either by the Board or the public for Mr. Hennessey to remain seated for the hearing. 

 

The applicant, Mr. Henry Zawaszki and his representative Mr. Robert Balquist of Meisner Brem, came forward to discuss the requested variance.  He said the applicant would like to remove a seasonal cottage and replace it with a year-round single-family dwelling requiring relief from four of the ordinances (conformity, dimensional, frontage, frontage on public right-of-way).  A site plan was displayed as included in the application packet.  He read aloud the variance criteria as contained in the application. 

 

Ms. Paliy received clarification of the plan numbering and existing house location.    

 

Mr. McNamara asked for the height of the existing building.  Mr. Balquist said the existing structure was one story with a peaked roof.  It was approximately 12ft.-15ft. in height.  The applicant was proposing a two-story building with a loft in the peak.  The specific height was unknown.  Mr. McNamara asked for the square footage of the existing building.  The existing footprint (had some jogs to it) and was approximately 793SF.  Mr. Balquist said the proposed house was approximately 1200SF.  Mr. McNamara asked if the lake view for lot 11-3-94 or anyone nearby would be blocked by the proposed house.  Mr. Balquist didn’t believe so.  He said the property across the street was undeveloped and the road curved directly in front of the house. 

 

Mr. Ouellette knew the property well.  He further described the property to the Board saying that the seasonal cottage had the roadway directly behind it; there was no home located there.  Offset, behind the applicant’s property to the left was a wooded lot an a couple smaller lots. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Greg Saccardo, 8 Woekel Circle, who was in attendance at the request of abutter Margaret Suby, 6 Woekel Circle, didn’t have an objection to the plan. 

 

Mr. Charles Mahaleris, 2 Woekel Circle was in favor of the proposal. 

 

The Board discussed if they would conduct a site walk.  There was a brief discussion of the area and the houses contained in the neighborhood.  An artistic rendering was shown to the Board, however it didn’t contain the actual height of the proposed building.  Mr. Zawaszki clarified that the living space would be 1800SF.  The Board discussed the fact that they usually placed height restrictions on structures.  They asked the applicant what height restriction they would be amenable to.  The Board wanted to know if the applicant would object to a 24ft. height restriction. 

 

Mr. McNamara made a motion to add a 24ft. height restriction for the proposed home.  Ms. Paliy seconded the motion.  Mr. LaFrance was concerned that the applicant would lock the height at 24ft. and later find out it was higher.  In doing a rough calculation, Mr. Ouellette came up with a proposed height of approximately 28ft.  The Board decided to conduct a site walk given the uncertainty of the height for the proposed building.  Mr. McNamara commented that there were a lot of positives with the proposal, however, the Board wanted to be certain regarding the height.  Mr. Hennessey said if the height was greater than 24ft. he would like to see the proposed height marked and how the structure would sit on the location.  Mr. Zawaszki noted to the Board that the height had to be greater than he would like due to the septic system being installed.  Mr. Hennessey understood.  The applicant was not opposed to the Board conducting a site walk. 

 

A site walk was scheduled for June 16, 2012 at 9am. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/LaFrance) To conduct a site walk June 16, 2012 at 9am. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Paliy) To approve the May 14, 2012 meeting minutes as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(LaFrance/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:53 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                          Charity A. Landry            

                                                                                          Recording Secretary