4-11-2011

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 11, 2011

The Chairman David Hennes= sey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The Secretary Robert Moll= oy called roll:

P= RESENT:

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Robert Molloy, Peter McNamara, Kev= in O'Sullivan, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Alternate Bill Kearney, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Alternate Lance Ouellette

ELECTION OF OFFICER= S

MOTION:

(= McNamara/O'Sullivan)To appoint Mr. Hennessey as Chairman.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(= McNamara/Molloy)To appoint Ms. Paliy as Vice Chairwoman.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(= McNamara/O'Sullivan)To appoint Mr. Molloy as Secretary.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

CONTINUED

Case #ZO2011-00004 - COSTA, Linda - 25 Hillcrest Lane /= Map 36 Lot 10-17 – Seeking a Special Exception to Article IV, Section 307-18, Table 2 - to = permit construction of a new 4-bedroom single family house with an accessory apart= ment to be constructed on a lot with no frontage on a Town accepted road. <= /o:p>

Mr. Hennessey said the Sp= ecial Exception case had been continued from the last meeting. The Board had received legal opini= on regarding the differences between Variances and Special Exceptions.

Mr. McNamara understood t= he logic and reasoning of the opinion received by the Board, but it troubled him. Not so much for this case because = the variance had already been granted and they had discussed a dimensional vari= ance not a use variance. His conce= rn was (in the future) if the distinction between variance and special exceptions became watered down to the point of being meaningless. He reviewed the criteria for grant= ing a Special Exception and questioned what prevented someone from requesting a variance from the section reading “...the use requested is listed as being permitted by Special Exception by Table 1 or elsewhere in the ordinan= ce for the district in which the use is requested.” Mr. Hennessey noted that he wasn't reading aloud the advisory letter from the attorney because there was lawyer/client privilege involved with the advice. He stated that the Board had been struggling with the idea of granting a variance on a road with no frontage,= and then in the same case having a request for special exception before the Board. With regard to the cur= rent case before the Board, they had previously granted the variance and were now considering the request for special exception.

Mr. Shayne Gendron of Her= bert Associates, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the request= for Special Exception. He noted t= hat they had been granted a variance for a pre-existing lot of record with no frontage on a Town road. Part= of that same application was a request for a Special Exception for an in-law apartment. Mr. Gendron review= ed a copy of the plot plan which showed that the square footage of the in-law apartme= nt met the Special Exception requirements.&nb= sp; He reviewed the floor plan showing that the requirements for the proposed in-law apartment met the criteria. A septic design for 5.5 bedrooms h= ad been approved by the State. A= copy of the driveway grading plan was shown; as well as being forwarded to the Planning Board for a Special Permit request. Mr. Gendron told the Board that the applicant had gone to the Conservation Commission and received their 'blessing'. The plan would be= put in front of the Selectmen for approval for a building permit.

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f the owner of the property would be moving into the property. Mr. Gendron answered no. The current owner would be selling= the property to the gentleman that Mr. Gendron was working for regarding obtain= ing permits. Mr. McNamara wanted = to know if the person for whom the in-law would be constructed was identified. Mr. Gendron answe= red yes; it was his client's mother-in-law.&nb= sp;

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Go= wan how the Board knew that an in-law was being used for the purposes in which it w= as passed. Mr. Gowan said they w= ere monitored; they also relied on public input (complaints) and intervened with Code Enforcement, but the place it was typically sorted out was when a prop= erty was listed for sale. He noted= that the entire file was reviewed when building permits were being issued; the restrictions are also noted on that permit. Mr. McNamara questioned if the restrictions appeared on the deed. Mr. Gowan said in some instances it would be on the deed, such as wh= en a new house was being constructed. He believed the Board had the right to condition a special exception upon the = fact that it be recorded at the Registry. Mr. Molloy asked if the Town did anything other than receive complai= nts or review a building permit to monitor in-law apartments. Mr. Gowan said they conducted on-going compliance monitoring, but in-law apartm= ents were difficult to monitor because they were designed by nature to be virtua= lly invisible.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Gendron told the Boar= d that they reviewed the application as a low-impact use; the property contained approximately seven acres and the house would be constructed approximately 900ft. back from the frontage.

Mr. Hennessey asked that a restriction be placed on the deed for an accessory apartment. Mr. Gendron didn't object to the proposed restriction.

MOTION:

(= McNamara/Molloy) The application is limited to a single family(dwelling) plus an accessory apartment.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

Mr. Hennessey stated that= he had voted against the approval of the variance at the previous meeting, but giv= en the fact that it had passed and under Zoning the applicant could construct a duplex, he believed the accessory apartment was the lesser of evils in this case.

Mr. McNamara said he woul= d vote in favor of the request. He believed it to be a good use of the land.&= nbsp; He read aloud a portion of Section 674:33 and noted that the Board received testimony that an aging parent would reside in the apartment. Mr. Hennessey commented that there= was a difference between age and disability.&nbs= p;

Mr. Gowan noted that if t= he Special Exception was granted, the applicant would still need to go to the Planning Board for a Special Permit for the wetlands crossing as well as meeting with the Selectmen.

BALLOT VOTE:

M= r. Hennessey – Yes – subject to the restriction of in-law apartm= ent no duplex

Ms. Paliy – Yes <= /p>

Mr. McNamara – Yes – with= restrictions as mentioned in motion<= /span>

Mr. Molloy – Yes = -with stipulation as mentioned

Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes

&n= bsp;

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

<= o:p>

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED – with condition.

HEARING(S)

Case #ZO2011-00007 ROZZI FAMILY TRUST - 8 Albert Street / Map 34 Lot 6-263 – Se= eking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-8C & 307-12 to permit the construction of a 6x29.6ft. porch which would extend/change the front setba= ck from 34ft. To 28ft. To build on a frontage of 144.7 which is less than the required 200ft. On an undersized lot.

Mr. Molloy read the list = of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or w= ho had difficulty with notification.

Ms. Charlene and John Roz= zi came forward to discuss their variance requests to build a porch on their house. The variance was essen= tially for 2ft.of the frontage setback requirement and because the lot's frontage contained less then the required 200ft.&nb= sp; Ms. Rozzi showed the Board photographs of where the addition would be located on their home. They a= lso submitted photographs showing neighbor's houses, which had a farmer's porch= es similar to that which was being proposed.&= nbsp; Ms. Rozzi read aloud the variance criteria as submitted in their application packet. = ;

The Board reviewed the su= bmitted photographs and commented that they were very helpful to give the Board an = idea of the neighborhood and how the proposed porch would be situated.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Charlie Potter, 13 Al= bert Street, had no objections to the request.&= nbsp; He commented that the applicant had improved the home since they had resided there.

BALLOT VOTE:

M= r. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all crite= ria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes to all criteria

&n= bsp;

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

<= o:p>

VARIANCES GRANTED

Case #ZO2011-00008 - PATEL PLAZA, LLC = 211; 11 Bridge Street / Map 41 Lot 6-124 – Seeking a Variance to Articles III & V, Sections 307-8, 307-12C & 307-18 to permit an existing 1860SF single story office building in the Industrial Zo= ne within the WCD to be removed and replaced with a new

2-story building outside the WCD with a building footprint of 17= 36SF and a total floor area of

3144SF (2^nd floor=3D1408SF), having a retail use (convenience store) on the first floor and a 2-bedroom apartment (manager's residence) on the second floor. The proposed building to be located 26ft. from Pulpit Rock Road / Cardinal Road= and on a lot with 1.5 acres rather than 2 acres.

Mr. Molloy read the list = of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had difficulty with notification.&n= bsp;

Mr. Shayne Gendron of Her= bert Associates, representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the request= ed variance. He explained that t= he application in front of the Board was new based on the drastic changes that were made to the site. He dis= cussed the items that the Board had previously requested, such as pulling the prop= osed building out of the Wetland Conservation District ('WCD') area. The site plan was redone so all th= e improvements were outside of the WCD. The applicant was requesting a two-bedroom manager's apartment above the store. The main change was the setback distance from Pulpit Rock Road (26ft). Mr. Gendron read aloud the Variance criteria as submitted with the application package. He discussed the idea behind havin= g a manager's apartment, which was to try to alleviate possible crime and keep = the property safer for the public. With regard to the site plan, everything had been moved out of the WCD and all s= ight distances were met. A septic = design has been submitted to the Health Inspector who had no issues with the design and indicated it would be forwarded to Concord.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara thanked Mr. = Gendron for preparing the answers to the criteria because they persuasively laid out all of the answers to such. He believed because the Board had asked that the building be moved out of the = WCD, it constrained the applicant to need to request the additional variances. He felt the case for variance had = been made, and the proposed plan showed a substantial improvement. Mr. McNamara wanted to be sure tha= t the manager's apartment remained as such and was not made into a rental propert= y; not a commercial apartment for rent.

MOTION:

(= McNamara/O'Sullivan) To condition an approval based on the proposed manager's apartment remain= ing as such and not being converted into a non-commercial rental.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

Mr. Hennessey commented t= hat the application was completed well. The Board's review at the present meeting was made easier because of the review process that occurred during the previous hearing of the case.

BALLOT VOTE:

M= r. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all crite= ria – with conditions as indicated in motion

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria – with apartment stipulation

Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes to all criteria

&n= bsp;

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

<= o:p>

VARIANCES GRANTED=

Case #ZO2011-00009<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> GRENNELL, Matthew & Tania R= 11; 45 Castle Hill Road – Map 1 Lot 5-137 – Seeking a Variance to Arti= cle III, Sections 307-7 & 307-8C – to permit an addition to be constructed on an existing house which is non-conforming (front setback is 19.7ft. to the house and 14.1ft. to the porch) for the purposes of enlarging the primary dwelling and adding an accessory dwelling. <= /p>

Mr. Molloy read the list = of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had difficulty with notification.&n= bsp;

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates came forward to present the requested Variance. He began by reviewing the Variance criteria as submitted with the application packet. He showed the plot plan which indi= cated the location of the existing structure as well as a proposed addition that = was in conformance with the setbacks; a portion of the addition would be an accessory dwelling. There was= an existing shed and proposed garage in the northerly end of the lot that were= in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and would comply with the Building Requirements. The proposed dr= iveway was shown. Mr. Aspinwall said= a portion of the addition and the new garage fell within the Shore Land Protection District. They had prepared a Shore Land application that would be sent to the state. A septic design had been been revi= ewed and signed-off on by Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski that was pending state approval.

Mr. McNamara asked for the setback of the proposed addition. Mr. Aspinwall believed it was approximately 31ft.-32ft.

Mr. Hennessey reviewed the accessory apartment layout. M= r. Aspinwall asked if the Board was reviewing the Special Exception at the same time as the Variance. Mr. Hen= nessey said the Board would hold off, but voiced his concern about the size of the building and wanted to know what they were doing with a 256SF laundry room (13ft.x24ft.) and why the bath was abutting the laundry room. He said according to the requireme= nts of an accessory apartment, there is supposed to be a connection with the rest = of the building; the the laundry appears to be part of the accessory apartment= and possibly a future master bedroom. Mr. Aspinwall commented that the existing house was a relatively sma= ll cape-style home (photographs were provided to the Board in the application package). The proposed additi= on was meant to substantially enlarge the existing house. The laundry and the new bath were = part of the primary dwelling space; there was a bath incorporated within the accessory dwelling. Mr. Henne= ssey saw that the accessory unit had a bath and that there was a bath on the fir= st floor abutting the living; he questioned the purpose of the third bathroom. Mr. Aspinwall reite= rated that the home was relatively small and the applicant wanted additional spac= e to live in. He said a good part = of the expansion was for the primary dwelling's space. He noted they weren't disturbing a= ny part of the building that was within 30ft. of Castle Hill Road. Mr. Hennessey stated that the layo= ut of the accessory apartment was different from any that he'd seen and he was concerned by it.

Mr. McNamara asked for clarification of where the in-law apartment would be located. Mr. Aspinwall reviewed the floor p= lan and showed that the proposed apartment (680SF) would be located next to the laundry room. The front of the existing dwelling would remain the same; the back (right rear) would have a 4ftx11ft. addition. Mr. McNam= ara agreed that the laundry area was large.&nb= sp; Mr. Aspinwall said the laundry room was also an additional entrance.=

Mr. Hennessey asked what = size septic was being requested. M= r. Aspinwall stated it would be sized for four and a half bedrooms. Mr. Hennessey asked if there was c= urrently a bathroom on the second floor. Mr. Aspinwall answered no.

Ms. Paliy questioned wher= e the entrance for the home was located. Mr. Aspinwall showed that there was an entrance between the primary = to the accessory dwelling located from the laundry. He said there were several entranc= es to the home and went on to show the Board where they were located. He believed the house and proposed addition complied with the Building Requirements.

Mr. Molloy asked if there= was a garage. Mr. Aspinwall said the existing garage would be removed to construct the proposed addition onto th= e house. Mr. Molloy questioned if the first= floor of the addition would be at the same level as the primary dwelling. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes.

Mr. McNamara wanted to kn= ow how the application would change if the laundry room were to be labeled a maste= r bedroom. Mr. Aspinwall said there wouldn't = be a change to the plan or application, but it would be an odd configuration. He said most people wouldn't have = a door to another unit coming from a bedroom.&nbs= p; Mr. Hennessey commented that the laundry room looked like a master bedroom.

Mr. Gowan said both he an= d the Building Inspector reviewed the plans.&nbs= p; He said some homes had different configurations and guessed that the proposed laundry room may act more as a multipurpose room. He believed the application, as proposed, was in conformance. He confirmed that no portion of the basement would be utilized by the apartment. Mr. Aspinwall said= that was correct; it was basically storage for the primary dwelling. Mr. Gowan questioned if the baseme= nt was intended to become a finished basement.&nb= sp; Mr. Aspinwall didn't know the answer. He noted there was an access door = that made the basement accessible from the primary dwelling.

Mr. McNamara commented th= at the driveway was rather long to be able to access the proposed garage and questioned if there was a reason for such.= Mr. Aspinwall said part of the reason was due to the Shore Land Protection zone. He said the applicant wanted to have the garage in the next few years, so he advised th= em to incorporate it into the same plan and get the Shore Land Permit. He noted there wasn't room for the garage outside of the Shore Land area.&nbs= p;

Mr. Hennessey commented t= hat the Board would address the Variance request first and then would address the Special Exception.

PUBLIC INPUT

The applicant, Mr. Matt G= rennell, came forward and explained to the Board that they had no intention of using= the proposed laundry room as a master bedroom.= He said they were having a wider hallway to provide a wider access to the accessory apartment for furniture etc.= He told the Board that he did landscaping for work and the laundry r= oom would provide a changing area and storage for his work clothes. The additional bathroom would allo= w him to clean up before entering the primary dwelling. He noted that having the addition = would also allow for light to come in to the house. Mr. Grennell reiterated that they = had no intention of turning the proposed laundry room into a bedroom. They were trying to address the la= ck of storage they presently had.

Mr. O'Sullivan asked if a= ny thought had been given to reconfiguring the existing porch toward the driveway. There was no response.

The Board addressed the V= ariance request.

BALLOT VOTE:

M= r. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all crite= ria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes to all criteria

&n= bsp;

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

VARIANCE GRANTED<= /o:p>

Case #ZO2011-00010<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> GRENNELL, Matthew & Tania 45 Castle Hill Road - Map 1 Lot 5-137 – Seeking a Special Exception to Articles V & XII, Sections 307-18 & 307-74 to permit an addition to their house and use a portion of the addition for an accessory dwelling unit.

The abutters were previou= sly read during the hearing for the applicant's Variance request.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates, representing the applicant, stated they believed they met all t= he conditions specified in the Ordinance.&nbs= p; The intended use of the accessory apartment would be for the applica= nt's family.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Hennessey explained t= he difference between the review of a Variance and a Special Exception.

Mr. McNamara noted that t= he use of the accessory apartment was limited to family or care givers and could n= ot be rented or used otherwise commercially.&= nbsp; Mr. Aspinwall was aware of the restrictions.

BALLOT VOTE:

M= r. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all crite= ria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes to all criteria

&n= bsp;

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRAN= TED

MINUTES

MOTION:

(= McNamara/O'Sullivan) To approve the March 5, 2011 (joint site walk) minutes as written.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

MOTION:

(= Molloy/O'Sullivan) To approve the Zoning Board’s portion of the March 14, 2011 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(= Molloy/O'Sullivan)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

<= o:p>

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:45 pm.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfully submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Charity A. Landry Willis

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Recording Secretary