Town of Pelham, NH

Pelham Conservation Commiss= ion

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

<= /p>

MEETING OF 4/20/2005 = &nb= sp; = APPROVED 5/11/05

Members Present: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Members Absent

Paul Gagnon &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Robert Yarmo

Paul Dadak

Deborah Scott

Amy Breault &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

Shirley Wakefield (Alt.)<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:4'> &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Glennie Edwards (Alt.)

The meeting was brought t= o order by vice chairman Paul Gagnon at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Gagnon reported that Chairman Yarmo continues to be sick with pneumonia and not able to be present.

ADMINISTRATIVE – Election of Officers:

Robert Yarmo was elect= ed as Chairman for the coming year on a 6-0 vote. (Mr. Yarmo is sick this eve= ning but had indicated he would continue on as chairman if the board so wished)<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> VOTE 6-0 in the affirmative.

Paul Gagnon was electe= d as Vice-Chairman for the coming year on a 5-0 vote in the affirmative.

Glennie Edwards was elected as Secretary <= span style=3D'font-weight:normal'>for the coming year on a 5-0 vote in the affirmative.

HEARINGS:

Map 30, Lot 218, Pamela & Craig Eri= ckson, 27 South Shore Drive – BOA is requesting input on proposed addition t= hat will be located within the WCD/ BOA Case #2307

Member Shirley Wakefield = recused herself from this hearing due to conflict of interest.

Mr. Gagnon said the speci= al session for this case is due to a lack of a forum at our meeting of 4/13/05= .

Pamela Erickson came befo= re the board and stated that back in December of 2004 she went before the ZBA for a variance to put in a garage and an addition to the existing house. At that meeting she said the propo= sal was to erect a 14 x 33-ft addition that would encroach 6-ft beyond the exis= ting footprint of the house and deck and into the WCD. The revised proposal is for a much smaller addition (8-ft by 33-ft.) that does not extend beyond the existing footprint of the existing house and the deck. She said she was granted a re-hear= ing by the ZBA for May 9^th for the addition because the garage was appr= oved and the addition was not. Whe= n she asked for a re-hearing it was because the Conservation Commission hadn̵= 7;t had an opportunity to hear what the new proposal was. The difference between this new ad= dition and the old one is that the area under the deck will incur minimal disturba= nce because it has already been dug out prior to (us) taking ownership of the p= roperty. She further stated that there is a= walkout basement. The part that will = need excavation is not in the WCD and that will be minimal. Ms. Erickson says th= is is already dug out, that it is used for storage and gas cans are stored the= re which she says is terrible. M= s. Erickson shared a set of photos with Commission members and said they are extremely important in relationship to the WCD. The deck is 12-ft wide and about 2= 1-ft from the water and the house is almost 33-ft from the water. Half of the house is in the WCD an= d half is not said Ms. Erickson. She considered putting the addition between the existing house and the road but that would cause her to move the kitchen and relocated the well and septic system. which are the (3) most expensive items to relocate. Ms. Erickson’s plan now show= s more grass area and a section for a garden once the pavement is taken up. Ms. Erickson says they are going to erect a drain swale to capture runoff from the roof because the runoff (from the gutter) currently goes directly into the lake and this was one of the mitigating factors for the Shoreline Protection Act. The perched beach was another requirement from the state. A waiver was granted for both the swale and perched beach from the state. The state DES supported a 14-ft by= 33-ft addition, that they did not have a problem with it said Ms. Erickson. Member Ms. Breault asked the date = of the waiver from DES. The date was 9/28/2004.

Mr. Gagnon asked Ms. Eric= kson if the waiver actually stated the size of the addition, as he could only see w= here it was stated “Expand the footprint”. Ms. Erickson explained that the si= ze of the addition was stated on the application she submitted.

Mr. Gagnon said he had a = lot of questions and concerns about this case and has done a lot of homework on th= is case, as he didn’t want to vote wrong. One of his questions was a letter = dated November 1, 2004 from NH DES, and is “Letters to Towns About Interpretation and Application of Comprehensive Shoreline Protection Acts”. The document explains “in cl= ear English” what the Shoreline Protection Act is intended to cover. There is a paragraph that says: Under the current version of the a= ct, no municipality may issue a waiver that results in a setback of less than 50-ft. Mr. Gagnon explained further, and said, “No town can authorize a primary structure to be built….”

Ms. Erickson read into the record: “DES says it can grant a waiver for redevelopment of a site that contains a non-conforming structure, for example, the demolition and rebuilding of the structure only= when the redevelopment plan demonstrates that the proposed structure is more nea= rly conforming to the Act”. Ms. Erickson asked that she be allowed to read the statute, which she did.

Mr. Gagnon’s conclu= sion after hearing the statute read (again) was: If all you were doing was taking t= he house and making it bigger there would be no case. But, because of the mitigating fac= tors, the state decided to grant the waiver.&nbs= p; In other words, because you agreed to a perched beach and a drain sw= ale, in DES’s opinion, those mitigating factors offset the expansion of the building. Ms. Erickson said “they” were also concerned having the septic design in place fo= r a contingency plan. She has don= e that and it’s been approved by the state. She also has a permit for the se= ptic should she need it. If the pr= esent septic system failed the new septic design would be required. All the necessary paperwork has be= en completed with reference to the design and approval from the state.

Member Ms. Edwards asked = if the state over-rides the town’s ordinances. Ms. Erickson replied yes. Mr. Gagnon said he believed that b= oth the town and state have to approve the change. Member Ms. Breault added that the = waiver states, “This waiver does not exempt the owner from obtaining any oth= er necessary local state or federal permits and approvals and the owner shall maintain compliance with all other requirements of the comprehensive shorel= ine protection act.” Ms. Ed= wards asked when she was given the approval from the state, was it a public heari= ng or was it a closed session? M= s. Erickson said that it was a closed session at DES and a person from DES came out and looked at the area and wrote a report and submitted it to the powers that be in the state and the decision was made.

Mr. Gagnon asked Ms. Eric= kson why the Commission hadn’t approved the 14-ft. addition. Ms. Erickson said because it was b= eyond the footprint, she thought. M= r. Gagnon said he was worried about opening a can of worms and read: “Also, for non-conforming structures erected prior to July 1^st 1994, no waiver is required= for the addition of a deck or open porch “. Ms. Erickson spoke about a large p= uddle in the road and she had hoped that the Association (Little Island Pond Asso= c.) would fix the problem, but that has not happened. She stated that along with the construction of the garage, removal of the existing pavement on her propert= y, etc., she intends to fix the road/low spot and this would be a benefit to t= he lake. She said it is not a mi= tigating issue; she just wanted to give back something to make it better.

Member Ms. Breault said it wasn’t clear to her about the authority of DES and then us (Conservat= ion Commission) because if our recommendation is not to allow the construction we’re doing it based on the same things that DES is allowing it, or h= as given a waiver. She said why = would someone go to DES to begin with and then come before the town – it wo= uld be contradictory.

Mr. Gagnon said it’= s a case of whether we want to waive the town ordinances. The town ordinance is very clear s= aid Mr. Gagnon. He read from the = Town of Pelham Zoning Ordinances: It talks about wetland conservation districts: Permitted uses are= those specific uses that will not require the erection or construction of any structures or buildings. It g= oes on to say “no building or structure may be location within the WCD”= ;.

Mr. Gagnon asked Ms. Eric= kson if she couldn’t pull the addition back to the 14-ft wide by 17 or 20-ft,= but moved toward the road such that it was out of the WCD. Mr. Erickson answered it is diffic= ult because of the design of the house, it has vertical beams and horizontal be= ams and cathedral ceilings. Mr. G= agnon suggested that the addition be 23-ft wide and be 10-ft further from the lak= e.

Ms. Erickson read into the record, the following: “= ;In making a recommendation to the ZBA regarding the revised proposal, please consider= the following: The proposed addit= ion, as revised, does not increase harm to the WCD as it is within the footprint, the area that has long been impacted by the existing house and enclosed deck with storage beneath it. The conditions imposed on us by the Shoreline waiv= er will improve the protection of the lake even with the larger prior proposal; the same benefits will now be gained with even less of an impact. The ZBA has the authority to revie= w each application for variances individually and base its decision to grant or de= ny variances on facts particular to each proposal. We applied for this waiver with the state in good faith prior to applying to the town for a variance to ensure = that they would be in compliance with the Shoreline Protection Act and to ensure that we would not be causing harm to the lake. The Conservation Board has the aut= hority to make a recommendation based on facts particular to each proposal. In this case, this addition will n= ot have a negative impact on the WCD. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Conservation board make a positive recommendation or desist from issuing a negative recommendation to the ZBA with respect to the revised proposal.= 221;

Mr. Gagnon reiterated his suggestion that the addition be14-feet by 20-feet and be moved toward the r= oad such that it would be completely out of the WCD. Mr. Gagnon addressed the television audience and said by re-engineering the design that hopefully would be more useful to the Ericksons and gets the addition out of the WCD. He made two proposals – #1 &= #8211; If, after going home, you look at the revised recommended plan, I can’= ;t do it, we will have another special meeting to hear this case again and vot= e on the 8-ft by 33-ft addition. I= f you go home and like what you see, we will make a positive recommendation to the ZBA, and the recommendation would perch the beach, you eliminated some impe= rvious surface, namely the driveway and you took the run off from the roof and ran= it through a swale and fixing this puddle in the road. This was all done witho= ut impacting the WCD because the addition will be out of the WCD.

Mr. Gagnon didn’t f= eel that a vote was needed due to the fact that this revised new plan is completely = out of the WCD. As a safeguard he= would be more comfortable with a vote, however, due to the fact that all parties = have spent a great deal of time on this case.&n= bsp; Member Mr. Dadak commended Ms. Erickson for coming in and doing ever= ything “by the book”. Ms. Erickson said she wanted the Commission to go by the book in their decision= .

MOTION: (Edwards/Dadak) That the addition = be backed up to where it is out of the 50-ft WCD.

VOTE: 5-0 in favor of sending a letter of support to the ZBA.

MINUTES:

Approved minutes of 1/12/05, 3/9/05 and 4/13/05 were approved with minor revision of wordi= ng.

Meeting adjourned at 8:40= p.m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfu= lly submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary