April 14, 2003


The acting Chairman, Mr. Peter McNamara, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.


The acting Clerk, Mr. Edmund Gleason, called the roll:






Peter McNamara, Edmund Gleason, Walter Kosik, Alternate David Hennessey, Alternate Svetlana Beloritsky, Selectmen’s Representative Victor Danevich




Mr. McNamara informed that Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Beloritsky would vote in the absence of full-Board members.  The Selectmen have not yet informed of re-appointments.




Case #2243 - ML 7-41 - BIBEAU, David/36 Atwood Road - By Pelham Conservation Commission


Conservation Commission Chairman, Bob Yarmo was present, on behalf of the Conservation Commission. 


Mr. McNamara began by referencing a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court case ‘Hookset Conservation Commission vs. Hookset Zoning Board of Adjustment’.  He said the opinion was issued in January of the past year.  His interpretation was the court said that conservation commissions, and other commissions/boards (other than a board of selectmen), do not have standing to request a rehearing, or to appeal to a superior court decision of a zoning board of adjustment, or to a planning board.  He provided Mr. Yarmo with a copy of the document.  Mr. McNamara said the Board could either hear the parties speak, or decide that the cited case was applicable and hear no testimony. 


Mr. Hennessey reviewed the document, and at first glance believed it had been misread.  Mr. McNamara reiterated his interpretation, which Mr. Hennessey then agreed with.  Mr. Kosik said that he had requested an opinion from Town Counsel, but had not received a response.  It was his understanding that no testimony would be heard. 


After a brief discussion, the Board agreed that the request had no standing.  With the exception of Ms. Beloritsky (who had no comment), there was a consensus of the Board to take no action. 


Mr. Gleason asked if the Conservation Commission was aware of the conditions placed on the Variance which required written state approval.  Mr. Yarmo said that the applicant would need to have a public hearing from the Wetlands Bureau in Concord.  He said his first step was for the protection of the Town. 




Case #2246 - ML 4-180-17 -TWO M CONSTRUCTION CO./off Benoit Avenue Extension - Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-13, 14 to permit reduced frontage to meet Backland Standards for Lot Shape per Section 11.04 of Rules & Regulations Governing Subdivision of Land.   (This is to be continued to the May 12, 2003 BOA meeting)


There were no representatives present.


Mr. Gleason noted that the applicant had been granted a (60-day) continuance at the last Board meeting.  Mr. McNamara informed that the case would be continued to the May 12, 2003 Board meeting.  He pointed out that the applicant was due to be heard at the next scheduled Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Gleason confirmed with Conservation Chairman Bob Yarmo that the letter submitted by Dr. Frank Richardson should be submitted into the record.  Mr. Yarmo answered yes, and said that the letter had also been submitted to the Planning Department. 


The case was continued to May 12, 2003. 




Case #2254 - ML 5-125 - LATOUR, Dana & Joan/570 Mammoth Road - Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-74 to permit the construction of an accessory dwelling in the residential zone.


Mr. Gleason 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.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.


The applicants, Mr. Dana & Joan Latour met with the Board to review their case.  He said the intent was to construct the accessory dwelling for him and his wife.  He said that they currently owned two residences, 564 and 570 Mammoth Road (separate lots).  He noted that they resided at 564 Mammoth Road, and would like to move into an accessory dwelling at 570 Mammoth Road, where their son was living.  They had not decided what they would do with 564 Mammoth Road once they moved, either sell it, or rent it.


Mr. McNamara confirmed that the current septic capacity was four and one half bedrooms.  He asked how many bedrooms were currently in the home.  Mr. Latour said there were three bedrooms. 


The drawing submitted contained a structure that was to be removed upon completion of construction of a new home.  Mr. Latour clarified that the drawing was old, and the structure was no longer on the property, and already removed. 


Mr. Gleason reviewed the plan for the accessory dwelling.  He noted that there was no interior door within the common wall shown on the plan per RSA 307-74 (g).  Mr. Latour said that he would modify the plan.  Building Inspector Roland Soucy said that he had not reviewed the plan.  Upon his review at this meeting, Mr. Soucy said the interior door within the common wall was all that appeared to be all that was missing.  Mr. McNamara informed that all conditions would have to be met for a Special Exception to be granted. 


There was a brief discussion regarding what the applicant needed to do at this point.  Mr. Hennessey said that he would like the Building Inspector to review the plan before voting.  In the spirit of cooperation, Mr. Soucy was comfortable with the plan be amended at this meeting to add a doorway.  He said that it would be reviewed during the permitting process.  Mr. Gleason felt that Mr. Latour should modify the plan (this evening), to the best of his ability, to indicate where the door would be placed.  It was suggested that the following language could be added as a stipulation: “require that an updated plan, acceptable to the Building Inspector be filed with the Town within seven days”.


Mr. Latour marked the plan contained within the file, which showed where the door would be located.




Mr. McNamara - Yes

Mr. Gleason - Yes - approve as modified and per the stipulation that the applicant be required to file with the Town an updated plan, acceptable to the Building Inspector, which is to be found acceptable to the Town within seven days. 

Mr. Kosik - Yes - subject to the condition that it must comply with the criteria for granting Special Exceptions for in-law apartments.

Mr. Hennessey - Yes

Ms. Beloritsky – Yes




(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carried.







The Board welcomed Ms. Beloritsky.


Mr. Gleason thanked Mr. Danevich for attending the meeting.  He said that he would like to institute training for new members, as well as have on-going training for existing members.  He also asked that the Board be informed by Town Council of Supreme Court cases, findings from appeals and changes in state regulations.  Mr. Hennessey felt that the Selectmen should join the Board when meeting with Town Counsel.  He felt that there should be annual updates to ‘due process’ to ensure that everyone coming before the Board had due process, which he believed was the main reason for appeals.  He suggested that a requirement be made that Board members attend meetings held by the Office of State Planning.  Mr. McNamara said that notification was not being transmitted to the members of Town boards.  There was further discussion regarding certain cases that had been appealed, and the fact that the Board had not been informed of the outcome.  It was suggested that the Board receive a quarterly update regarding the status of court cases.  Mr. Danevich discussed the Board’s requests and noted the meetings and publications that may help the Board stay up to date with processes.  He ended by discussing the role of Town Counsel and didn’t feel there would be problem setting up an appointment to meet with the Board. 


Building Inspector, Roland Soucy met with the Board to discuss calculating square footage for accessory dwellings.  Mr. Kosik said that the main question was living area.  Mr. Soucy said that calculating the square footage of closets, bathrooms and living area was how living space was computed for accessory dwellings.  He said that corridors/hallways and stairways were not included in the calculation.  He noted that new housing calculations were different.  He discussed the common wall requirement and how it came about being included in the regulations.  Mr. Soucy noted that BOCA required that elderly housing be designed at 650SF and pointed out that the International Building Code and BOCA were not being met by the Town’s requirement of 500SF for an accessory dwelling unit.  Mr. Kosik provided a brief history of why the requirement had been changed.  Mr. Soucy said that he would be meeting with the Planning Board to review items such as what was being discussed. 


Mr. Hennessey wanted the Board to clarify if the Planning Director’s comments should be read into record, if the Board was receiving them.  The Board discussed the comments that the Planning Director provided to the Board, and if they should be read into the record without the Planning Director present to discuss with the applicant.  It was decided to revisit the issue once there was a full Board present to make a final decision. 




March 10, 2003



(Gleason/Kosik) To approve the March 10, 2003 minutes as amended.




(4 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Ms. Beloritsky abstained.





(Kosik/Gleason) To adjourn the meeting.




(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:53pm.


                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                          Charity A.L. Willis            

                                                                                          Recording Secretary