BOA20071011.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

October 11, 2007

The Chairman, Mr. David H= ennessey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The Secretary, Robert Mol= loy called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Peter McNamara, Svetlana Paliy, Robert Molloy, Alternate Bill Kearney, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Alternate Ken Dunne

Mr. Hennessey appointed M= r. Kearney to vote in Mr. O’Sullivan’s absence for case #’s = 2386 and 2387.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Case #2383 SUN BRIDGE PROFESSIONAL CENTER<= /st1:PlaceType>, LLC - 5 Old Bridge Street South Map 35 Lot<= /st1:place> 6-113-1 By applicant

Mr. Hennessey said the Bo= ard had received a request for rehearing that the Board had to consider either at t= he meeting or via telephone over the next few days. He said Ms. Paliy had recused hers= elf during the hearing at the last meeting and shouldn’t vote regarding t= he request for rehearing.

* The Board discussed the= request later in the meeting. See below.

HEARINGS

Case #2386 NAGEL, = Kayle & Glenda – 9 Wood Road - Map 30 Lot 11-327 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12= to permit the extension/expansion of a non-conforming dwelling.=

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

Mr. Paul Volckmann, autho= rized by the applicants to request the variance, met with the Board. He said the unit had been in exist= ence since the 1930’s. The condition of the camp is deteriorating somewhat. The Nagels had installed a new wel= l to service the camp. A septic de= sign had been approved both by the Town and the state of = New Hampshire. The property is not a rectangular = piece of property, therefore it runs along a non-conforming area because of the shape. Mr. Volckmann said the= y were not looking to expand the footprint of the building; it would remain the same. The variance is request= ed because of the nature of the expansion being straight up approximately six feet. Mr. Volckmann said that= the roof was somewhat deteriorating and the headroom in the second floor loft w= as inadequate for adults. He sai= d they were just looking to put adequate bedrooms in the second floor area and cau= se the first floor to be more of an open concept area. He said the cottage was used seaso= nally from July 1^st thru September 30^th. In summary the new septic was goin= g in, the new well was in and they were just looking to raise the roof a minimal amount for headroom in the bedrooms.

The ‘Area’ Va= riance criteria were reviewed as submitted:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The origin= al house footprint is being used. The expansion will add to property values locally.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: No enlargement of footprint (foundation) is being proposed.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = Mr. Hennessey asked if there was any way of doing what the applicant wanted to = do under the zoning laws. Mr. Volckmann answered no. <= /i>

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: upgrades of well and septic along with 2^nd floor remodel gains reasonable bedroom sizes with no outward expansions.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: Adequate bedrooms with ventilation is needed to enjoy this property.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: This remodeling will enhance the neighborhood increasing values. =

Mr. McNamara asked how cl= ose the deck and house was from the water. Mr. Volckmann believed the deck was approximately 35ft from the water and the house was 45ft from the water.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara understood that the lot was undersized and asked if they were closer than the 15ft. side setbacks.&= nbsp; Mr. Volckmann believed the side setbacks were approximately 12ft-13ft. Mr. McNamara asked= for the current square footage. M= r. Volckmann was unsure, but approximated it at 900SF. Mr. McNamara asked what the square footage for the addition would be. Mr. Volckmann said the addition would remain in the footprint. Mr. Gowan explained that the addit= ion was simply to raise the second floor roof so the space would be able to be used= for bedrooms. He said the roof wo= uld be raised from approximately 17ft. in height to 23ft. in height. The square footage would not be increased. Mr. Gowan then dis= cussed the deck, which would not have footings in the ground, but would be an expansion. He noted that the setbacks indicated on the submitted drawing were 11ft. on the left side of = the house and 10ft. on the right (the plot plan is not certified). Mr. McNamara questioned how close = the neighbors were to the property so he could determine if the expansion would block their view. Mr. Volckma= nn explained that at the applicant’s location the lake could be viewed in two different directions. He = said the applicant owned two cottages next door and the other abutters would sti= ll be able to view the lake with the proposed expansion. He didn’t feel the abutter&#= 8217;s view would be blocked. Mr. Mc= Namara asked if any trees/shrubs or vegetation would be removed from the property. Mr. Volckmann said = to conform to the state certified septic system; three trees had been removed = from the street/driveway side of the lot. Mr. McNamara asked if there would be any further removal. Mr. Volckmann answered no.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Hennessey said his on= ly concern was the proposed deck and questioned if it was a violation of the Shore Land Protection Act. Mr. Gowan bel= ieved that the existing deck, which was only 25ft. from the water, was the suppor= ting structure that would support the upper deck that didn’t stick out as far. He said in his view, unl= ess the new proposed deck had footings, it would be a ‘stretch’ to = say it fell under Shore Land Protection. He suggested that the applicant contact the Department of Environmen= tal Services to find out if it was acceptable.=

Building Inspector Roland= Soucy (who was seated with the public) came forward to briefly explain the Shore = Land Protection Act. He said it al= lowed the expansion of a deck/non-covered porch up to 12ft closer to the water. He said he had taken a refresher c= ourse with DES approximately four or five months ago for clarification. Mr. Hennessey said he would take M= r. Soucy’s word, but believed the recent changes were ‘opaque’.

Mr. Volckmann noted that = the deck was proposed because the roof in that section had deteriorated. He said the structure already exis= ted and he was just making the roof a deck.&nb= sp; Mr. Hennessey noted that the existing and the proposed deck could no= t be enclosed per the Shore Land Protection Act. Mr. Volckmann said the existing de= ck was already enclosed and was used at the dining room.

Ms. Paliy wanted to know = what the pitch of the existing roof was compared to the proposed. Mr. Volckmann explained that they were only proposing to raise the second floor room approximately six feet. The p= itch would probably remain the same. Ms.= Paliy asked how tall the room currently was.&nbs= p; Mr. Volckmann said an adult could stand in the middle, but if they deviated by one foot to the left or right they would begin to hit their hea= d on the ceiling. He explained the proposal to increase the height of the room so it would be livable.

Mr. Hennessey asked if an= y of the abutter’s view would be altered due to the increase in height. Mr. Volckmann didn’t believe so. Mr. Hennessey asked if the Board wanted to do a site walk. He also asked Mr. Gowan if the applicant’s statements were correct regar= ding the view of the abutters. Mr.= Gowan said he relied on the statements of the applicant.

Mr. Jeffery Keene, Truste= e of the Muriel Keene Revocable Trust, representing his family, said the concern was= if the property would remain seasonal or become year-round. Mr. Gowan said if the property was currently not legally a year-round property, they would have to go through a legal process to attain that classification. He said the Board of Health had the authority for the final sign-off of the process.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. Kearney – Yes= to all criteria

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

‘AREA’ VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2387 DEMERS, Daniel & Tina - 391 Gage = Hill Road - Map 10 Lot 13-167-7 &#= 8211; Seeking a Special Exception to Article XII, Section 307-76 (III) to permit = the sales of firewood from their property.

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

Daniel and Tina Demers me= t with the Board to discuss their request. They were seeking to process and deliver fire wood from their property. Mr. Demers read alo= ud their letter of intent as submitted. He had contacted six of the abutters, none of which had a problem wi= th the business. He explained th= at he had been in business for seven years (with a partner) and was fully aware of what the business entailed. H= e said he loved the business and found it hard to support his family without the income.

Mr. Hennessey read the cr= iteria to the General Home Occupation and asked that the Demers provide an answer = for each to the Board. Their stat= ements were in accordance to the criteria.

Mr. Kearney said the hour= s of operation (using a log splitter between 4pm-7pm) seemed to be at dinner time. = Mr. Demers said he spoke with the six immediate abutters and they didn’t = have a problem with it. He said it wouldn’t be every day. = Mr. Kearney asked if most of the activity would be located as specified on the plan. Mr. Demers answered yes= ; he said it would be tucked into the corner.&n= bsp; Mr. Kearney asked how far the next house was from the corner of the lot. Mr. Demers said his hous= e was the closest. Mr. Kearney aske= d if the work area could be viewed from the road. Mr. Demers answered no. Mr. Kearney asked if any trees wou= ld be removed to make a work area. = Mr. Demers said three or four dead apple trees would be removed.

Mr. Molloy asked how the = trees would get to the lot for processing. Mr. Demers said they would be picked up with the dump truck. Mr. Molloy asked how the log split= ter was powered. Mr. Demers said = it was gas powered. The splitter was= quiet compared to a chain saw. Mr. = Molloy said he might have issues with the Saturday hours. Mr. Demers said it would depend on= what he had; it would not be an everyday thing.=

Ms. Paliy questioned what= would happen if the granted the request, the business began and then the abutters weren’t fine with it. S= he said there were a lot of different log splitters that could be used. Mr. McNamara noted that the Special Exception would only be the first step; the next step would be to go before= the Planning Board for Site Plan review. He suggested that the Board may want to conduct a site walk to ensure that the criteria were adequately covered.= He said the Board could place conditions, or leave it to the Planning Board to do so. Ms. Paliy was concerned about granting a special exception without knowing the type of machinery that would be used or the size of the business.

Mr. McNamara asked how fa= r the work area would be from the applicant’s house. Mr. Demers said it was a couple hu= ndred feet. Mr. McNamara asked if there was a road or driveway that currently wen= t to the area. Mr. Demers answered no. Mr. McNamara asked if the= area where the well was located was ‘treed’. Mr. Demers answered no; he said hi= s well was in the middle of the yard. Mr. McNamara asked if they would have trouble getting a truck to the work area. Mr. Demers answered no.= He said he would have to expand his driveway. Mr. McNamara felt t= he Board should walk the site. <= /p>

Mr. Hennessey was concern= ed about the area to the left of the applicant’s lot because it was a wooded l= ot owned by someone else. He said there was no guaranty that someone wouldn’t but the lot and put a hou= se in close proximity.

The Board discussed the r= equest further. Mr. McNamara asked t= he Demers if they had an existing business now. Mr. Demers answered no. He said that he previously had a s= imilar business in partnership but had not done it for two seasons.

Mr. Kearney asked if it w= as seasonal work. Mr. Demers sai= d it was done all year; during this time of year the deliveries were made.

MOTION:

(Molloy/Kearney) To con= duct a site walk.

VOTE:

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

The Board scheduled a sit= e walk for October 21,= 2007 beginning at 8am. =

REQUEST FOR REHEARING CON’T….

Case #2383 SUN BRIDGE PROFESSIONAL CENTER<= /st1:PlaceType>, LLC - 5 Old Bridge Street South Map 35 Lot<= /st1:place> 6-113-1 By applicant

Mr. Hennessey noted that = Ms. Paliy had recused herself from the initial discussion. It was noted that Mr. Kearney had = been present for the last hearing.

Ms. Paliy recused herself= .

Mr. Hennessey said the ap= plicant had requested a rehearing and appealed the Board’s decision to uphold= the Building Inspector’s denial of a building permit request. The Board reviewed the information= submitted.

Mr. Kearney asked if any = action had been taken by the applicant or the Board. Mr. Hennessey said the only thing = the Board knew was the information contained in the request to rehear the case.=

Mr. Molloy said based upo= n the information provided, he didn’t see any new evidence that lead him to believe that the Board should change their decision. He said no new evidence was provid= ed; the information was a review of the same issues discussed at the meeting.

Mr. McNamara said the sub= mission was basically a restatement of the arguments. He didn’t see any new evidence. He said he would ha= ve to take issue with some of the so-called purported findings that the Board mad= e; he felt they were mislabeled (on the third page). He didn’t see anything that = was persuasive of an error in law being made or additional factual findings that require a rehearing. He felt = what the Building Inspector did was proper.&nbs= p; He didn’t think, given the fact that the Board, the Planning Director and the Building Inspector were given the environmental evidence t= he night of the meeting that it was unreasonable for the Board to act the way = they did.

MOTION:

To grant a rehearing.

VOTE:

(0-4-= 0) The motion failed.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

MINUTES

September = 6, 2007

MOTION:

(McNamara/Paliy) To app= rove the meeting minutes of September 6, 2007 as written. =

VOTE:

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

September = 10, 2007

MOTION:

(McNamara/Molloy) To ap= prove the meeting minutes of September 10, 2007 as amended =

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Molloy) To ad= journ the meeting. <= /b>

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:20 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