BOA20051212

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

December 12, 2005

The Chairman, Mr. Peter M= cNamara, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Ms. Svetla= na Paliy, called the roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Robert Molloy, Alternate Cindy Ronning (arrived after the meeting commenced), Pl= anning Director Jeff Gowan

None.

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr= . Molloy to vote for the evening’s hearings.&= nbsp;

REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Case #2331 – MARTINAGE, Patrick Joseph – 348 Gage Hill Road /= ML 17/13-60 – By applicant.

Mr. McNamara said the app= licant had submitted an application for rehearing.

Mr. Hennessey said he had carefully read the application for rehearing and went on to discuss such wi= th regard to drainage and public safety. He felt the variance would be contrary to public interest based on conservation and public safety input received. He said this was one of the smalle= st lots (based on high and dry area) that had come before the Board. He said if he felt the lot should = be approved, he would have asked for it to go before planning to verify that it was a legal lot; there was no evidence that anyone in the past considered i= t a buildable lot. Mr. Hennessey = felt the surrounding property values were diminished each time traffic came arou= nd the corner. In summary, Mr. Hennessey didn’t believe that the Board should rehear the case. He was satisfied with his original vote.

Ms. Ronning arrived.

Mr. O’Sullivan agre= ed with Mr. Hennessey’s statements. He said he was never convinced that it was either a lot that could be built upon safely or that would have the necessary high and dry land to do so.

Mr. McNamara discussed the procedure that the Board was to take regarding rehearings. He said a valid reason for reheari= ng was if new evidence was presented that was not available at the original hearing. However, in this cas= e, there was no evidence that the two items submitted (real estate evaluation = and engineering analysis) could not have been submitted at the time of the orig= inal hearing. He then discussed the constitutional argument that had been brought up (by Attorney David Groff) which gave landowners rights to enjoy land. However in this case, Mr. McNamara believed the argument was contingent on whether or not the lot was buildabl= e and it was also tempered by the fact that the Board had a strong letter from the Conservation Committee and a very strong letter from the Safety Committee (Police Chief) (regarding placement of a home with a driveway at that particular location). Mr. McN= amara didn’t see anything that would justify a rehearing.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To deny the request for rehearing. =

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried. The reheari= ng request was denied.

CONTINUED

Case #2337 – PERRY, Thomas & Michelle – 14 Plower Road / ML 10/13-166-1 – Seeking a S= pecial Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-74 to permit an accessory dwelling unit that was on the property prior to the purchase of the house.<= o:p>

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the applicant had submitted a letter to the Planning Office requesting that the= y be date specified to the January 9, 2005 meeting.

The case was date specifi= ed to the January 9, 20= 05 meeting.

MINUTES

Septe= mber 12, 2005 & = October 13, 2005

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To approve the Se= ptember 12, 2005 and the October 13, 2005 meeting minutes (with grammatical corrections).

VOTE:

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

CONTINUED CASE(S) –January 9, 2005

Case #2337 – PERRY,= Thomas & Michelle – 14 Plower Road / ML 10/13-166-1 ̵= 1; Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-74 to permi= t an accessory dwelling unit that was on the property prior to the purchase of t= he house.

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the Planning Board would be reviewing possible zoning amendments on December 15, 2005. He invited the Board to submit com= ments and/or attend the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 7:45 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