APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

September 10, 2012

 

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

 

The acting Secretary Kevin O’Sullivan called roll:

 

PRESENT:

 

 

ABSENT:

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

 

Robert Molloy, Alternate Lance Ouellette

 

Mr. LaFrance was appointed to vote. 

 

CONTINUED HEARING(S)

 

Case ZO2012-00013 – KEANE FAMILY TRUST -  63 South Shore Drive -  Map 31 Lot 11-259 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-8 & 307-45 to permit an existing screen home near the pond and an existing shed to be razed and the square footage added to the existing home to allow alteration of the existing structure (on the same foundation).

 

Mr. Hennessey discussed the history of the case and noted that the Board had conducted a site walk August 18, 2012.  He read aloud minutes from that site walk. 

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, had nothing to add to the site walk minutes. 

 

Mr. Paliy wasn’t aware that she had any conflicts with the case, but wanted the applicant to know that it could exist and asked the applicant to inform her if there was.  She explained her husband did a lot of work in the area, but personally she didn’t have any knowledge of the address.  Mr. Hennessey asked the public if they were aware of any conflicts (or monetary benefits) with Ms. Paliy remaining seated as a voting member.  No one came forward to voice any conflicts or objections; Mr. Hennessey saw no reason for Ms. Paliy to recuse herself.     

 

Mr. Maynard said the application was straight forward.  He felt all issues had been covered during the last meeting.  He summarized the applicant’s request.  

 

Mr. Hennessey said during the last hearing the Board read the abutter’s list aloud and asked for public input; the Board left the public hearing portion open and continued it to the present meeting.  He invited members of the public to come forward if they wanted the Board to hear testimony. 

 

There was no public input.  Mr. Maynard pointed out that letter of support were previously submitted from both direct abutters to the property.  Mr. Hennessey closed public input and brought the discussion back to the Board. 

 

Mr. McNamara discussed the variance criteria.  He said the area/lot had a unique set of circumstances; the lot configuration made it so there was virtually no other way for the applicant’s proposal to be done.  In addition, the lot behind the lot in question was not developed and wouldn’t be in the foreseeable future.  He felt this point and given the consent of the two abutting property owners, addressed the hardship criteria.  He reiterated his opinion that the lot contained a set of circumstances that were particularly unique. 

 

Mr. Hennessey commented in the past the Board had imposed height restrictions for properties in the area.  He said there was a lot of discussion during the site walk about the height; the Board could either impose a restriction, or accept the testimony given at the last meeting and at the site walk.  Mr. Maynard said from the discussion at the site walk, the height was shown as being less than thirty feet. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) The height of the building is to be no greater than 30ft.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Mr. Gowan understood that Mr. Maynard had indicated a self-restriction of taking off the screen porch and shed.  He asked if those items should be ensconced in the Board’s decision.  Mr. Hennessey said that stipulation was included in the application.  Mr. Maynard stated that what he included in his presentation would be represented on the Shore Land application.  Mr. Gowan said to make the record clear, he would make reference to the ridge height not exceeding 30ft. and wording that kept with the Shore Land permit regarding the testimony about the screen porch.  Mr. Hennessey believed the Shore Land Permit was part of the application in front of the Board.  Mr. Maynard noted that the Board of Adjustment was more restrictive than the state.  He agreed to the Board adding an approval stipulation that a Shore Land Permit would have to be obtained from the state. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) As a stipulation for approval, a Shore Land Permit must be obtained from the state.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria – with stipulations

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

Case ZO2012-00014 -  FRIENDS OF MOECKEL POND – 12 Moeckel Road  -  Map 5 Lot 9-149 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-12, 307-13 & 307-14 to permit the subdivision of Map 5 Lot 9-149 into 3 parcels of land.

 

Mr. Hennessey read aloud the minutes from the site walk. 

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, stated this portion of the application was to divide the properties so the Friends of Moeckel Pond could move forward with any design or permitting of a design for a dam.  He knew there were concerns at the previous meeting about the design of the dam.  He stated a proposed dam would have a passive spillway.  He read aloud an e-mail from Charles Corolis dated August 14, 2012 to Norm Young (Friends of Moeckel Pond) that stipulated the type of designs that would be acceptable.  It stated no manual operations would be allowed; the dam had to function on its own.  Also, a low level outlet would be needed. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said Mr. Maynard had made clear that the request in front of the Board was not necessarily about the dam, but rather it was about the subdivision of the land.  The dam would be the culmination of the whole process.  Mr. Maynard said they had met with the Pelham Planning Board to start discussions.  At that hearing, there were concerns raised about the dam.  His client had agreed when it came time for the actual design of the dam, they were more than willing to speak to the Planning Board and Selectmen and incorporate the Town into their dam management plan filed with the state annually.  As part of that management plan anytime the water level has to be lowered for maintenance, a notification process could be outlined. He reiterated that the full design would be a passive spillway. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Mike Sherman, 103 Old Bridge Street came forward to discuss the application as it pertained to the variance criteria.  He questioned how the Board knew that the variance would not be contrary to the public’s interest.  He wanted to know what would happen (and what people could do) after the fact if the dam was built and it caused a problem to the Town. He said dams were being removed throughout the country because of the findings that they were a hazard with flooding issues.  Mr. Sherman said he received a letter from FEMA indicating that his house was now located in a hazardous flood area; it never was in the past.  The change was due to the activities in the water shed and Town over the last forty years.  He commented that the Board members weren’t engineers and again questioned how the Board could give him and his neighbor’s assurances that a variance wouldn’t be contrary to their interest. Mr. Sherman wanted to know where his protection was if the variance was granted and the dam was built. 

 

Mr. Maynard explained to the Board that a dam had been on the property for approximately two hundred years.  The state had come in and deemed the dam not satisfactory.  At that time, if the property owner had the funds, the dam would have been fixed and there wouldn’t be a discussion.  He was surprised that the Town wasn’t thankful that the association was trying to put the dam back up.  Moeckel Pond provided assets to the Town.  It was reported (from VHB Engineering Firm) that removal of the dam had increased velocity flows through the channel; this increase has resulted in scouring and the production of excess sediments.  Over time, the channel will lose its connection with the flood plain and have little to no interaction with adjacent wetlands, uplands and terraces further restricting the capacity of the wetland and channel to attenuate 2/5/10-year floods.  VHB became involved through a grant review (functions and analysis of the dam) that the Friends of Moeckel Pond were going through.  In summary, without a dam in place, water is free flowing down stream without flood attenuation.  Because of the volume of flows there is a substantial amount of scouring that was sending a substantial amount of sediment downstream into Pelham.  That sediment will fill in flood storage areas and create diversions of flow for where the water was currently going downstream.  Mr. Maynard said no one wanted to own the dam, but the Friends of Moeckel Pond came together to create a district and were actively seeking funding.  He reiterated that they were more than willing to speak to Pelham about the design when it came to that stage. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked that a copy of the letter from VHB be submitted for the file. 

 

Mr. Gowan said it seemed that the applicant had offered if a dam design was forthcoming, they would be happy to go to the Planning Board.  He was familiar with the property and understood that the applicant would also need to meet with the Windham Planning Board for a special permit to their WWPD (similar to Pelham’s Wetland Conservation District).  In his view that would automatically deem the project as being of regional impact; Windham was of that same opinion and up to them to make that determination in conjunction with the Rockingham Planning Commission. Mr. Gowan said he had spoken up and informed them that the projection would be one of regional impact.  He asked Mr. Maynard if there was anything that would require zoning relief in Pelham for a dam to be built in Windham.  Mr. Maynard answered no.  Mr. Gowan said if the Board was inclined to grant a variance, he suggested they consider not encumbering it with conditions, which was more appropriately under the Planning Board’s purview.  The Planning Board could conceivably condition a subdivision approval upon any forthcoming dam.  Mr. Gowan said the case in front of the Zoning Board was a subdivision of land with its hardship criteria attached. 

 

Mr. Hennessey didn’t see a role for the Zoning Board to condition a variance upon making the project of regional impact.  Mr. McNamara agreed that the Board couldn’t compel it to happen because it wasn’t their purview.  Mr. Maynard noted when he met with the Windham Planning Board, they approved the subdivision portion in Windham.  They had him add to the plan that the Rockingham Planning Commission had been notified of the subdivision and any work relating to the dam shall also be noticed to the Rockingham commission.  He had no objection to adding a note indicating that Pelham and the Nashua Planning Commission would also be notified.   This plan would be recorded at the Registry.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board couldn’t compel the applicant to make that note.  The applicant, through Mr. Maynard, has offered to make the notation on the plan. 

 

There was no additional testimony offered by the public.  Mr. Hennessey closed the public portion of the hearing. 

 

Mr. McNamara said he respected Mr. Sherman’s opinion and spoke to comments.  He felt the concern was a little premature.  He said there was a two year window for fund raising to apply for the construction of a dam, and then there was a five year period to act on a permit.  He said the Board had a letter from Mr. Corolis who indicated that the dam could not be manipulated in any way.  The only way it could be lowered was for repair or typical maintenance (barring an emergency).  He felt the Friends of Moeckel Pond had tried to be cooperative in including the Town even though the Zoning Board couldn’t compel them to do so.  Mr. McNamara felt the variance criteria had been met. 

 

Mr. Hennessey felt Mr. Sherman made good points that the Board wasn’t engineers.  He noted that a dam had been in that location for two hundred years.  He said flooding downstream may have been exacerbated by the lack of a dam being in place.  He said it seemed preferable to have oversight by the state rather than having no oversight.  He said siltation could cause natural damming on the site of abandoned dams.  He agreed that the Town needed to be aware and involved with the conversation. 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

HEARING(S)

 

Case #ZO2012 – 00016  GRASSO ONE FAMILY TRUST -  16 Woekel Circle  /  Map 31 Lot 11-289 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-8 & 307-14 (Table 1) to permit an existing structure to be razed to allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling with a different roofline and an increase in volume (including a proposed attached garage).

 

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. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to review the variance request.  He said the property contained approximately 7600SF and approximately 55ft. of frontage on Woekel Circle and approximately 4200feet of frontage along Little Island Pond.  The property has an existing structure.  In 2007 a Clean Solutions septic was permitted and subsequently installed in 2010.  The property shares a well with an abutter to the north.  Mr. Maynard discussed the proposal and described the condition and location of the existing structure and shed.  The applicant was seeking to raze the existing structure and construct a new two-story (approx. 25ft. in height to the ridge off the first floor) structure.  The houses on each side are approximately 30ft. and 40ft. in height to the ridge.  The existing septic system will remain and serve the new structure.  The proposed house will have a footprint of approximately 30ft.x40ft. with an attached 24ft.x24ft. garage.    

 

Mr. Maynard read the variance criteria into the record.  He had approximately seven letters of support some from direct abutters and some from those on the abutter’s list.  Mr. Hennessey accepted the abutter’s letters of support for the record.

 

Mr. Maynard stated that at Shore Line permit would be required as part of the redevelopment of the lot.  He believed the Zoning Board was a harder aspect than the state, so they decided to meet with the Zoning Board first.

 

Mr. McNamara asked for the footage of the existing home.  Mr. Maynard said the existing home was approximately 1000SF; it is a one-story building with approximately 12ft in height to the ridge.  With the new septic system it could have converted to year round but the owner didn’t go through that process.  Mr. McNamara asked how many feet the proposed structure would be moved away from the pond.  Mr. Maynard said the structure would be pulled away from the pond approximately 6ft.  The shed would be removed making the setback greater.  Movement was limited because of where the septic system was located and the approach to the garage.  Mr. McNamara asked if there was anyone located behind the lot whose view may be obstructed.  Mr. Maynard answered no; the neighbor behind the lot had a garage located between the homes. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT


Mr. Greg Saccardo, 8 Woekel Circle, had no objections to the proposed plan. 

 

Mr. Hennessey felt the Board should conduct a site walk; it was necessary on the pond. 

 

Mr. LaFrance said he would normally agree, but with the number of people that spoke in favor of the proposal, he didn’t see the need for a site walk. 

 

Mr. Hennessey said if the Board didn’t walk the site, he would ask for a motion to restrict the height of the proposed structure.  There was no motion made to conduct a site walk.  Mr. McNamara said with the houses on either side of the proposed lot being greater in height, he put forth to restrict the height of the structure.  Mr. LaFrance seconded the motion.  Ms. Paliy suggested that the Board be consistent with the height stipulation so the rooflines matched.  Mr. McNamara disagreed.  He said the Board should handle the cases on an individual basis, what was good on one site may not be good at another location.  In this case the applicant didn’t want 30ft. Mr. LaFrance agreed. 

 

Mr. Gowan assumed that the grade in the front of the lot differed to the grade in the back.  Mr. Maynard said the lot was relatively flat across the majority of it.  They were splitting the difference.  He said the height would be from the first floor to the ridge. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/LaFrance) The height of the proposed structure (from the first floor to the peak) is not to exceed 26ft. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

There was a consensus to move forward with the case without conducting a site walk.

 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria – with height restriction

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria – with height restriction of 26ft

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

Case #ZO2012-00017  DEHNEY, Thomas & Christine – 10 Little Island Park /  Map 24 Lot 12-87 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-7, 307-12 & 307-14 (Table 1) to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling on a lot having only 40 +/- of frontage on Little Island Park

 

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. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the variance request.  He told the Board that the property was out of the 250ft. Shore Line regulatory requirements.  The lot contained approximately 2.5 acres containing approximately 40ft. of frontage on Little Island Park.  Currently the property is improved with a structure (older camp) portions of which sit on a paper right-of-way that was never constructed.  The home has a septic system.  Mr. Maynard discussed the history of the property.  He had met with the Conservation Commission about putting a driveway in by crossing the wetland and Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) at the narrowest point. He said once the proposed house is constructed, the structure sitting by the pond will be razed and the septic system will be discontinued.  A new state of the art septic system will be installed at the rear of the lot.  The main reason for the variance request was that the lot didn’t have the proper frontage on a Town road. 

 

Mr. Maynard read aloud the variance criteria as submitted with the application.  He understood they would need to go in front of the Planning Board for a special permit.  In speaking to Mr. Gowan, he also understood they would need a driveway turnaround for emergency apparatus. 

 

Mr. Gowan commented the turnaround was through NFPA authority with the Fire Chief.  He recommended that the plan be modified when it went to the Planning Board to show the pullover spot and turnaround for the apparatus.  Specifics should be worked with the Fire Chief prior to going to the Planning Board so the review process isn’t held up.  Mr. Hennessey questioned if the Zoning Board needed to add a condition for such.  Mr. Gowan answered no; he simply wanted it on the record. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the existing home would be razed prior to the proposed home being constructed.  Mr. Maynard said the owner would like to utilize the existing home while the proposed was being built.  At the point they were seeking a certificate of occupancy, the existing home would be razed and the driveway connectivity would be made.  Mr. Gowan pointed out that Zoning didn’t allow two dwelling structures on an individual lot.  He suggested that the Zoning Board condition any approval that the existing structure had to be demolished within a time period from the certificate of occupancy being issued. 

 

Mr. Maynard said the Little Island Park frontage was a congested area and the proposal to raze the structure near that road would alleviate that congestion. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Maynard submitted a letter of support from a neighbor (Gleason family 7&9 Little Island Park).  Mr. Hennessey read the letter into the record; they were in favor of the applicant’s proposal.

 

Mr. John Murphy, 31 Spring Street Extension was in favor of the proposal. 

 

Mr. Dave Reidy, Little Island Park felt the testimony was accurate  about alleviating congestion and by reviewing the plans was in favor of the proposed home. 

 

Ms. Holly Bulmer, Spring Street Extension was a neighbor of the applicant for many years.  She was in favor of the proposal. 

 

Mr. Bob Lamoreaux, Forestry Committee member and President of the Boarder Riders, asked that the Board vote in favor of the proposal.  He spoke about the applicant involvement with the trails in Town and how helpful he had been.

 

Mr. Hennessey asked for the height of the proposed building.  Mr. Maynard hadn’t seen the building design, but noted the home was in the woods, and wouldn’t be on the pond. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the wording of the condition for approval.  Mr. Hennessey didn’t understand how a certificate of occupancy could be issued for the new home while the old one was still standing.  He felt it was a function of the occupancy permit that the old structure be razed. 

 

The applicant, Ms. Christine Dehney, came forward.  She told the Board she was in close contact with the Building Inspector about the proposal. She didn’t object to having the home taken down within a timely fashion.  She resided in the existing home with her husband and three children.  She said they had planned to stay in that home until the new home was constructed at which time they would move in and take the old home down.  She said they would want the existing home to come down quickly and noted there wouldn’t be a gap in time having it done.

 

Ms. Paliy felt the applicant was making a reasonable request. 

 

Mr. Gowan said the situation was unusual.  He felt the Zoning Board had every right to add an approval condition.  It was noted that the existing home had a septic system; a new septic system was being proposed for the new home. 

 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/LaFrance) Within fifteen (15) days after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the existing older property be taken down and at no time will both structures be occupied.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

The Board considered the variance.

 

 

BALLOT VOTE:

 

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria – with stipulation of occupancy

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria – with stipulation contained in motion

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Yes to all criteria

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

 

 

VARIANCE GRANTED

 

 

Case #ZO2012-00018  CROTEAU, Jay & LAFRANCE, Christopher  - Kennedy Drive /  Map 17 Lot 12-253-1 seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-8, 307-12 (Table 1) & 307-14 to permit the existing 6 acre lot to be subdivided into two duplex lots each with approximately 40 +/- of frontage along Kennedy Drive

 

The Board asked that Mr. LaFrance step down given he was one of the applicants for the case. 

 

Mr. LaFrance stepped down. 

 

Mr. Hennessey explained to the public with the Board having four sitting members, it had been the Board’s practice that they ask the applicant if they wish to continue.  A variance approval would require three votes in the affirmative.  The applicant was asked if they would like to continue. 

 

Mr. McNamara commented that he served on the Planning Board and CIP with the applicant Jay Croteau and on the Zoning Board with applicant Christopher LaFrance.  He believed he could make a fair and impartial decision and offered to recuse himself if it was thought he couldn’t do so.  There were no objections to have Mr. McNamara remaining seated for the case.

 

The applicants, Mr. Jay Croteau and Mr. Christopher LaFrance discussed their request with their representative Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering.  Mr. Maynard asked if the Board would be conducting a site walk; if so, the applicant wouldn’t mind opening the case for discussion then continuing the hearing until after a site walk.  Mr. Hennessey said he would be looking to schedule a site walk.  However, the Board couldn’t vote to do so until the case was opened.  The other members offered that they would be in favor of a site walk.  Mr. Maynard told the Board they were fine opening the case and scheduling a site walk.

 

Mr. Hennessey explained the proceedings to the public.  He said if the two absent Board members reviewed the case prior to the next scheduled meeting they would be able to participate in the case.  He was hopeful this would occur. 

 

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. Maynard discussed the property which contained approximately six acres and roughly 90ft. of frontage on Kennedy Drive.  The uniqueness of the parcel was that it contained an approved subdivision for three lots.  The road was designed and approved; permits are still in place to build the road.  The design was signed by the Planning Board and was at the Registry of Deeds.  When created, the subdivision contained four lots, that forth lot was the frontage lot belonging to the resident that lives on Kennedy Drive.  The remaining three lots ranged in size from two acres, 1.8 acres and 1.55 acres.  To access the lots the plan was approved with approximately 1000ft. of road. Mr. Maynard believed with a small lot line adjustment, they could end up with two lots being 2 acres in size and one lot being approximately 1.4 acres.  By right, two duplexes would be allowed to be constructed on that new road.  The land area and frontage requirements would be met.    

 

Mr. Maynard told the Board they didn’t feel it was practical or feasible to build the road contained in the (approved) plan. The request is to dissolve the subdivision and instead subdivide the property into two lots that could each handle a duplex.  Each of those lots would be a minimum of three acres in size.  The frontage would be reduced to approximately 40ft. for one lot and the residual would go with the other lot.  The proposed homes will sit approximately 600ft.-700ft. back from Kennedy Drive.  Mr. Maynard said there was a wetland that traversed the front portion of the road; a dredge and fill was granted to cross that wetland for a full road crossing, if something smaller was done, such as a driveway, they wouldn’t have to reapply to the Wetlands Board.  Because of the wetland there is an associated Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) that creates a buffer area between the residents on the Kennedy Road side and anywhere the two duplexes would be constructed.  If needed, they would add a no-cut buffer to the Kennedy Road side. 

 

Mr. Maynard understood that financial impact couldn’t be used as much for an argument as in the past, but pointed out to the Board that 1000ft. of road would be needed to build the subdivision.  With the current road and asphalt costs the construction would be just under $300,000 to build that road.  Given the average cost for a lot, having road construction cost be that high made development not practical.  If allowed, the proposal would offer less of an impact to the parcel and those around it. 

 

Mr. Maynard read aloud the variance criteria as submitted with the application.  He added that the subdivision was already granted, approved and recorded at the Registry; the proposal would have a similar use, but be less of an impact to everything around it.  It would have the appearance of a single family driveway coming in from the street and maintain the buffers; the homes would be constructed toward the rear of the property. 

 

Mr. Hennessey entertained a motion to conduct a site walk. 

 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To conduct a site walk on the property September 29, 2012 at 9am.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

Mr. Hennessey stated that the site walk was considered a public hearing at which everyone was invited to attend.  During the site walk comments would be directed through him. Mr. Gowan suggested inviting the Planning Board to attend the site walk.  Mr. Hennessey said the Planning Board and Conservation Commission were invited to attend.

 

It was also noted that the case would be date specified to October 11, 2012. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Hennessey noted the public would have the opportunity to offer testimony during the site walk.  He opened the present hearing up for public comment. 

 

Mr. Ron Belden, 17 Kennedy Drive, wanted to know if the road was made into a driveway if it would still be accessible for fire apparatus.  Mr. Gowan replied that the parcel would have to be accessible to fire apparatus.  He reviewed the requirement for roads exceeding 300ft. and commented that the design would need to be altered.  He said those requirements would be addressed at the Planning Board. 

 

Mr. Frank Tredeau, 12 Kennedy Drive, resided behind where the proposed dwellings would be located.  He said he had many questions regarding what affects the proposed dwellings would have on water.  The area experiences problems with runoff and drainage.  In looking at the plan he questioned if there was enough acreage that was not wetland/marsh land to provide the two acres necessary for duplex dwellings.  He said this was his first time looking at the map and would like time to study the proposal.  He believed other residents on Kennedy Drive would like that same opportunity.  Mr. Hennessey urged all the abutters to join the Board on the site walk.  He said people were welcome to review what had been filed at the Planning Department.  He noted residents would have at least two additional times to comment or ask questions; at the site walk and at the next hearing in October.

 

Mr. Jack Tirrell, Old Gage Hill Road, came forward representing his wife Karen Zabel, asked if there were copies of the application details available for review.  He wanted to clarify if there was a right-of-way driveway that could potentially access another parcel of land.  Mr. Hennessey answered no; the Board was reviewing a driveway that would access the two proposed lots.  He heard no other testimony on a right-of-way. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked for comment regarding the acreage for the duplex lot.  Mr. Maynard stated he reviewed the previously approved plans and believed there was a way to reconfigure the lot lines to bring the lot up to the required acreage.  He said they had enough buildable area and received a waiver for the shape.  He noted that soil plans were also available from the approved subdivision.  Mr. Gowan commented that a duplex lot was 55,000SF of contiguous non-wetland soil types; any WCD area can be calculated in that.  He suggested in advance of the site walk that the center line of the driveway be staked up to the split, and then each driveway be staked along the center line from that split up to the proposed house.

 

Mr. Hennessey reiterated the invitation of the public to attend the site walk. 

 

The Case was date specified to October 11, 2012.

 

Mr. LaFrance returned to the Board. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Ms. Paliy asked if the Board could be counseled on questions regarding wetlands issues.  She felt the Board should somehow obtain more knowledge regarding such.  Mr. McNamara said typically in the Planning Association meetings there were discussions that covered the topic.  Having someone meet with the Board would have an associated cost.  Mr. Gowan said there was a process already taking place.  The Town issued an RFQ from interested firms to conduct a flood study to explore flooding causes and possible mitigation for such.  He will research to see if there were any training or information sessions the Board could attend. 

 

SITE WALK – September 29, 2012 at 9am

Case #ZO2012-00018  CROTEAU, Jay & LAFRANCE, Christopher  - Kennedy Drive /  Map 17 Lot 12-253-1

 

DATE SPECIFIED HEARINGS – October 11, 2012

Case #ZO2012-00018  CROTEAU, Jay & LAFRANCE, Christopher  - Kennedy Drive /  Map 17 Lot 12-253-1

 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

August 13, 2012

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sullivan) To approve the August 13, 2012 meeting minutes as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

 

August 18, 2012 (site walk minutes)– deferred.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(5-0-0) The motion carried. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:08 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Charity A. Landry              

                                                                                                Recording Secretary