BOA20080414.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 14, 2008

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

The Secretary Robert Moll= oy called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Peter McNamara, Robert Molloy, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate Lance Ouellette (arri= ved after the meeting commenced), Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

None.<= /p>

Mr. Hennessey informed th= at Ken Dunne had tendered his resignation, which the Board regretfully accepted. The Board thanked Mr. Dunne for hi= s work with the Board.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Deferred to later in the = meeting.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Case #2400 – PV Limited Partnership -= Old Gage Hill Road = So. /= Map 23 Lot 8-18 – By Dougla= s Shawver

Mr. Douglas Shawver, 65 Heather Lee Lane said the request for rehearing was based on: 1) Ordinance 307-88 A.2.B.ii – benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other me= thod reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance. The following seemed feasible for = the applicant to pursue: a) similar road length through the golf course; b) take frontage from one lot and give it to another lot; and c) very little argume= nt given why access could not go through golf course.

Mr. Hennessey said even t= hough this was not a public hearing, if the proponents of the subdivision would l= ike to speak, he would allow it. = The applicant’s for the variance were not present.   Mr. McNamara asked if the ap= plicant’s has submitted anything in writing. Mr. Gowan said he made Peter Zohdi’s office (Herbert Associate= s) aware of the request. He beli= eved Mr. Zohdi was likely to withdraw the application thus presented to the Plan= ning Board and bring in at one time, the senior project and the subdivision, whi= ch would need no zoning relief. = He said this was an assumption based on a conversation, but it shouldn’t have an impact on the Board’s proceedings. Mr. Hennessey said the discussion = before the Board was a request for rehearing.&nbs= p;

Mr. Hennessey said if the= Board chose to approve the rehearing it would not be just on the items before the= m, they would start from scratch reviewing the information. He said the Board had to decide if= it had the presented information before them, if they would have voted differently.

Mr. Hennessey noted that = the information given to the Board contained a statement regarding a question M= r. O’Sullivan had asked. M= r. O’Sullivan addressed this. He said he didn’t have the notes in front of him, but recalled something along those lines stated. He = said he would rather watch the process work its way to its logical conclusion wh= ich would include a traffic study. He said it was not important whether it had been done to date or not, but knew= it would take place if the variance was allowed to stand.

Mr. McNamara said the app= eal was to the unnecessary hardship criteria only.= He said the information about the study and the road length didnR= 17;t properly belong to the hardship criteria discussion and would be more prope= rly addressed by the Planning Board. He felt there was an argument to be made as to which of the Subdivision Regulations applied to the private road.&n= bsp; He discussed the hardship criteria and the arguments presented to the Board. He noted that the Plan= ning Board could not land lock Carolyn Law’s property. He said there was a note regarding= cost feasibility and the amount given ($35 per foot) to put a road in per Town standards. He said it would b= e far in excess to put a road in to Town standards. Mr. Gowan said he had asked Stante= c pull together some figures on building a road to Town standards and the number w= as significantly higher. Mr. McN= amara said the figure provided (in the information received April 9, 2008) was extremely l= ow. Mr. Gowan agreed. Mr. Shawver said he knew the build= er when Heather Lee Lane was built. He said the cost t= o put Heather Lee Lane in (eight/nine years ago) was approximately $110,000. He said he contacted an engineerin= g firm who gave him the number of $35 per foot which would not include extraneous work.

Mr. Hennessey said he wou= ld instruct the Board to use common sense when making a decision. He said under the hardship rule, economic factors can and should be used in making a determination to grant a variance. He said the fact th= at it would cost the developer was germane to the decision. He said the Board members had to d= ecide if the amount of money listed was reasonable and was in fact enough to constitute a hardship. He sai= d the members would have to presume the numbers were accurate, unless they knew through common sense, that it was not.&nbs= p;

Mr. Ouellette discussed t= he hardship and the fact that he felt when the attorney discussed Boccia, they= had brought up a good argument. M= r. Hennessey discussed Boccia. M= r. McNamara felt it was important to realize that the Board was just talking a= bout hardship. He reiterated that = road length and reasonable alternatives would be more properly addressed at Planning. He said this was an application because they didn’t have enough frontage. He said using common sense to revi= ew, they had demonstrated to some extent that going from the other side of the golf course through for an access point might entail unreasonable economic cost.= He said other points would be the = cut through making the golf course not viable going forward, the Town would lose its right to first refusal and the golf course might be developed. He also pointed out, in terms of a= ccess, that Lifeline flew helicopters from the golf course in cases of sever injury. He said in terms of a second access, the Planning Board reviewed the roads/golf paths to make sure they could support some sort of secondary access.

Mr. Hennessey said the Bo= ard would take a simple ‘up’ or ‘down’ vote. And Aye vote would allow for a rehearing; a No vote would be that the original decision to grant the varia= nce would stand.

MOTION:

To allow for a rehearin= g.

VOTE:

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

The rehearing was not granted.

HEARINGS

Case #2399 - LUSSI= ER, Gerald & DOOLEY, Douglas – Dracut Line -= Map 39 Lot 1-62 – Seeking an ‘Area’ Variance to Article III, Section 307-13 (B) 1&2 to permit the subdivision of the pa= rcel into residential lots without direct access to a street that is directly accessible to police, fire, medical emergency and school transportation vehicles without these vehicles first having to leave the corporate limits = of the Town of Pelham.

Attorney Jeffrey Zall, 221 Main Street, Nashua NH, representing the appl= icants, asked that the matter be continued to the next meeting. He said at the last meeting the Bo= ard continued the hearing so they could get input from the Conservation Commiss= ion, Highway Safety Committee, Park & Recreation and Nashua Regional Planning Commission as well as to conduct a joint site walk. He said the only input received wa= s from Park & Recreation. He sai= d he spoke to Mr. Gowan, who was unable to get the Safety Committee to convene because the Fire Chief was out of town until today.

Attorney Zall said before= the Board voted to continue he wanted to raise a couple issues. He said at this point in time ther= e had been very little engineering done on the project; the only engineering was a conceptual plan that had been submitted as part of the Variance application= . He said without knowing where or w= hat the wetlands were and how the subdivision would impact such, there would be nothing for the Conservation Commission to consider. He asked the Board to reconsider g= etting input from Conservation, which he felt was more appropriate for the Planning Board level.

Mr. Hennessey said in the= absence of going to the Conservation Commission or the state, a stipulation that the project didn’t fall under the Shore Land Protection Act would be fine with him.

Mr. McNamara believed ano= ther reason the Board had made the request was to find out the feasibility of connection from the project to the park (for emergency exit or the water line). He said he would like = to know if there are wetlands on the property without putting the applicant to extreme engineering studies. Attorney Zall said at this point it may end up being fairly expensiv= e. They didn’t want to incur the expense until they knew whether they had the variance because if it wasn’t granted they didn’t want to spend money on engineering.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara noted that a site walk would be conducted later on. Attorney Zall said if the variance was granted with a stipulation fo= r a second means of access to the park and water and when the got to the Planni= ng Board if it was determined there was too much wetland to build it, they wouldn’t be able to satisfy the conditions of the variance or move forward with the project.

Mr. Hennessey appreciated= the fact that the applicant had a ‘chicken or the egg’ situation. He said the problem was that the criteria for wetland crossing, when granting a variance, versus meeting Planning’s Subdivision Regulations was quite different. He said the Board tended to be a l= ittle tougher regarding a wetland crossing than they do at Planning. He said it was useful information = to know about the wetlands when reviewing a variance.

Ms. Paliy said there appe= ared to be multiple issues and questioned if the plan would end up back before the Board if there were wetland issues. She said right now they were only asking if it was feasible to have access from one town to another. Mr. Hennessey said that was necessarily true. He said it might be a case for a j= oint hearing. Mr. McNamara said a key piece woul= d be the recommendation from the Highway Safety Committee. Attorney Zall said the problem with having a joint meeting with planning, they would have the expense of engineering for a subdivision plan, which was what they were trying to avoid until they knew they had the variance.&nbs= p; He felt the real issue was the Highway Safety issue of bringing emergency vehicles outside the Town limits.

Mr. Kearney questioned wh= at the engineering costs would be. Attorney Zall said the engineering costs to bring the plan through t= he Planning Board stage could cost approximately $20,000 to $25,000.

Ms. Paliy asked if the Bo= ard could grant a partial approval. Mr. Hennessey said in zoning either a variance was granted or not. He thought the cost was a valid item to be br= ought before the Board.

Mr. Gowan said Attorney Z= all and his client had sought to meet with the Board of Selectmen first regarding t= he proposal for more than a year. He said not getting on an agenda, he recommended that they start on this end a= nd work toward that direction. H= e said any variance would have to be subject to Board of Selectmen approval becaus= e of the Town services. He agreed = that the Highway Safety Committee would go a long way to help the Board make a decision. He said one problem= the Highway Safety Committee had when discussing the project conceptually, was = that there was no detail on the plan to react to. He said he would ask the Highway S= afety Committee to convene by next week. He said if/when the plan moved on to the Planning Board, he would require that Dracut= be notified. Mr. Hennessey ag= reed that public safety was the issue.

Mr. McNamara asked why the Selectmen were being approached. Attorney Zall said he wasn’t sure what the first step should be. He said it seemed that go= ing to the Selectmen to see if they would allow emergency access outside of the To= wn would be the first step, because if they were opposed, the plan wouldn̵= 7;t move forward. He said after speaking with Mr. Gowan they decided to start with the Board of Adjustment = and if they received a variance, they would then go in front of the Selectmen.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

To grant a continuance = and date specify the hearing to May 12, 2008.

VOTE:

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

Case #2401 – ARISTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC - 151 Bridge Street -= Map 29 Lot 7-119 & 7-120 – Seeking a Variance to Articles = III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-13 & 307-40 (B) to permit the construct= ion of a retail pharmacy with setbacks of 77.8 feet and 76 feet where 105 feet = and 81 feet, respectively, are required. To allow site development on a lot with 27,400SF on contiguous dry upland where 35,000SF is required; also to permit the construction of a building and related lot improvements and alterations within the WCD

Mr. Molloy read a summary= of the minutes from the site walk. M= r. Hennessey asked if anyone had any comments regarding the minutes. He said there was a comment made t= hat the footprint of the building was shrunk.&= nbsp; He said while they were there, Mr. Fineman made a point of testifying/asking, and received a response that square footage of the build= ing would essentially stay the same because the second floor of the building wo= uld be used for storage.

He said one of the reason= s the applicant was in front of the Board was for setbacks. He believed there was a comment ma= de that they wouldn’t need to if it weren’t for the towers.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis of Gottesman & Hollis, representing the applicant, said that was correct.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He also pointed out they had a par= apet wall to provide screening for the roof air conditioning units.

Mr. Hennessey said the ap= plicant was also in front of the Board because of the size of the building on a lot that didn’t contain 35,000SF of contiguous high and dry land.

Mr. Gowan noted there was= also planned construction within the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’); that being the wall, and some parking. Attorney DeCarolis said they would= need a WCD waiver from the Planning Board and a WCD variance from the Zoning Board. Mr. Hennessy confirmed= that the applicant was requesting the following: 1) WCD variance; 2) setback variance; and 3) high and dry variance.&nb= sp; Ms. Paliy said they were also altering the WCD. Mr. Gowan believed that the altera= tion was limited to planting. He s= aid it wasn’t construction and would therefore argue that it was part of the= Planning Board special permit process. Attorney DeCarolis said there was some overlap between the Boards. He believed the development/constr= uction on the westerly side of the property would fall under the Zoning Board̵= 7;s purview; and the WCD encroachments along the entrance to Route 38 were Plan= ning Board issues.

Mr. Hennessey said the Bo= ard had conducted a joint site walk with the Conservation Commission and questioned= if they had the plans before them. Attorney DeCarolis said they met with the Conservation Commission la= st week. He said they had not pr= ovided written comment, but had provided verbal comments that the engineers was working on and trying to accommodate as much as possible. He said they were looking for more information from the hydrologist. He said under Section 307:40,B written comment from the Conservation Commission would be required for the Planning Board. Mr. Hennessey said the applicant w= as correct, but he had hoped for a recommendation after the site walk. Attorney DeCarolis said based on t= he amount of information the Commission was provided with, he felt it was unfa= ir to ask them to vote that evening. He had been hopeful that they would have considered the information,= but the Commission wanted another meeting.&nbs= p; He said they would be meeting with the Planning Board next week. He noted that the applicant would = like to do the work on the site late summer when the water was the lowest. Mr. McNamara said one problem was = that the Planning Board couldn’t accept a plan if it wasn’t in compl= iance with zoning. He said it could= be heard conceptually.

There was further discuss= ion how the Board would proceed.

Ms. Deb Brewster, Project Engineer TFMoran said they had three requests before the Board and thought = they might be able to move forward with the setback request. She said they were looking into fo= ur comments made at the Conservation Commission. One comment was to review the sout= h west corner and offer more relief/space. Ms. Brewster said they were reviewing it at this time. She said they also asked them to r= eview the flow rate and erosion control practices. She said the other thing they would review potential compensatory storage.&nbs= p;

Attorney DeCarolis said h= e spoke to Arista Development Project Manager John Steward, who didn’t have a problem tabling the hearing. =

Mr. Hennessey asked if the applicant would like the Board to vote regarding the setback requirements, = or keep it all back and continue to the next meeting. Attorney DeCarolis said whatever t= he Board was comfortable with. M= r. Hennessey felt it should all be bundled together because it was one issue.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney DeCarolis said he would l= ike to do the legal arguments and the presentation on the same night the Board votes. Mr. Hennessey said the public would have the opportunity to speak at the next hearing as well.

Mr. Gowan said the applic= ant had sought an estimate from Stantec on the cost for engineering peer review. He said typically, that didn’= ;t happen until a plan was accepted for consideration. He said the applicant hoped that questions would have the benefit of Stantec’s review. Mr. Hennessey said he was hopeful = that interested parties would review the site walk minutes and listen to the meetings before making their minds up regarding the project.

When discussing the date = for the continuance, it was noted that the Conservation Commission would meet after= the Board’s next meeting. M= r. Gowan was asked if the Conservation Commission would consider a joint meeti= ng on May 12, 2008<= /st1:date>. He will request such from the Conservation Commission Chairman.

Mr. Hennessey said of the= three issues, he would like Conservation’s input on the wetlands and the si= ze of the building envelope.

MOTION:

To continue the hearing= to the May 12, 2008 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.

VOTE:

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

HEARINGS

Case #2402 PIESLAK, Steven & Julliette - South Shore Drive   /   Map 30 Lot 11-203 – Se= eking an “Area” Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-12 & 307-14 to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a pre-exis= ting non-conforming lot of record that has 150ft. of frontage on South Shore Dri= ve, “A Private Road”, where 200ft. is required and has 18,450SF whe= re 43,560 SF is required.

Mr. Hennessey stepped dow= n. Vice Chairwoman Paliy took over. She appointed Mr. Kearney to vote = in Mr. Hennessey’s place.

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.&nb= sp;

Mr. Shane Gendron of Herb= ert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the variance request.   He be= gan by reading the variance criteria into the record (as submitted):

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed use is permitted in this zone, it will increase the tax revenue generated by th= is lot and will not in any way affect the publics use of South Shore Road.

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: The lot was originally plotted as 2 lots in 1924 by Fred Stowers, it has since been combined to one lot that retains a larger size than many of = the surrounding lots in this neighborhood.

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: = At this time there is not land feasibly available to the owner to add to this parcel.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: We are only seeking a variance to wave 2 zoning requirements and will meet all other setbacks associated with the lot.&nb= sp; There is a state approved septic design for this lot and the new dwelling will meet all other building, health, and safety codes for the Tow= n of Pelham.=

4. Substantial justice is= done because: This is a permitted use in= the zone and will allow the owner to use his property in a manner consistent wi= th surrounding lots.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The new dwelling will be of greater or equal value of the surrounding propertie= s maintaining the character of the neighborhood. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara asked how ta= ll the building would be. He also sa= id the a copy of the state approved septic would have to be submitted.

Mr. Molloy wanted to know= what the surround area looked like.

Mr. Gendron said the appr= oximate height of the building would be 27-feet.&n= bsp; He said they were proposing a side entry garage (as shown on the sta= te approved plan) not a front entry as shown.= He said the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’)= had approved the design for a two-bedroom.&nbs= p; The house met all the setback requirements.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d what was currently on the lot. Mr. Gendron said the lot was currently vacant.= Mr. O’Sullivan asked if there had previously been a dwelling, = well or septic on the lot. Mr. Gen= dron answered no.

Mr. Kearney asked where t= he lake was located. Mr. Gendron show= ed where the house was located in comparison to the water. Mr. McNamara asked how far the hou= se would be located from the water. Mr. Gendron said it would be approximately 270ft. He said they were not in the Shore= Land Protection. Mr. McNamara aske= d if there were homes on lots 11-206,208 & 209. Mr. Gendron explained what was in = the area. Mr. McNamara said the B= oard was typically sensitive of neighbor’s concerns in regard to reduction= of sight distance to the lake as well as the size of the home given the nature= of the lot. He said it seemed on= first glance that the home was a big footprint for the area. Mr. Gendron showed where the abutt= ing homes were located. He said t= hey didn’t feel, at this point, that anyone’s view of the lake woul= d be blocked.

Ms. Paliy said it seemed = that the Board should look at what was around the site because the house would be la= rger than some of the surrounding. Mr. Gendron said the proposed lot was larger than many of the surrounding lots. He showed the Board a t= ax map of the area.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d how long the owners had owned the property.&nb= sp; Mr. Gendron believed the current owners had owned the property for a= few months. Mr. Rick Pieslak (fat= her of the applicant) informed that the parcel had been in the family since the ea= rly 1940’s. He provided fur= ther detail regarding the lot. He = said the lot was recently given to his son as a gift.

Mr. Gowan asked how many = bedrooms the septic system was approved for. Mr. Gendron said it was approved for two bedrooms. Mr. Gowan showed the Board that the second floor of the plan showed an office and a sitting room. He said because those rooms didn&#= 8217;t contain closets, they weren’t considered bedrooms (per the regulation= s).

Ms. Paliy asked if there = had been any new construction in the area on the smaller lots. Mr. Gowan said he was not aware of= any new construction in the immediate area and suggested if the Board had conce= rns, that they conduct a site walk. Ms. Paliy said she wanted a site walk. The Board members agreed.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Jim Malapan, 15 South Shore Drive, who resided across the street from the proposed, had no problem of the proposed. He noted that the proposed house would be smaller than his house. He said he knew the area and told = the Board that there was nothing around and the proposed wouldn’t block anyone’s view.

Mr. Ouellette said he liv= ed down around the pond and told the Board that recently there were larger homes be= ing built. He agreed that the Boa= rd should conduct a site walk.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Molloy) To co= nduct a site walk.

VOTE:

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

A site walk was scheduled= for April 19, 2008 = beginning at 9am.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 12, 2008= meeting.

Mr. Hennessey returned to= the Board and resumed as Chairman.

Case #2403 BEAULIE= U, Joseph - Bush Hill road   / Map 20 Lot 2-132-1 – Seeking= and “Area” Variance to Article III, Section 307-7 & 307-12 to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot with area just under the 1 acre minimum, 0.933 acres or 40,632 SF

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.&nb= sp;

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board. He discussed the history of the lot. He said the Health Offic= er Paul Zarnowski had been to the site and reviewed the test pits and the plan. He said state had appro= ved the septic design. Mr. Aspinw= all said the only issue relative to Zoning was the lot was slightly less than o= ne acre. He said the applicant w= ould like to proceed and build a three-bedroom house on the lot. He said they met all the setback requirements. He showed the B= oard a colored picture of the proposed design for the home.

Mr. Aspinwall read the cr= iteria aloud (as submitted):

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed house conforms with the use requirements in the zone and will conform with = all other health, safety and building codes in the Town of Pelham.

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: a survey of this pre-existing lot which description goes back to 19= 21, shows the lot is just short of the 1 acre lot size requirement.   .933 acres or 40,932 square = feet, a shortage of 2929SF.

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: = The owner can not acquire additional l= and to make the minimum lot size.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: We are only requesting a variance to waive one of the zoning requirements, and will meet all the other Setbacks and codes.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: It will allow the owner to= build a house and make reasonable use of his land.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The proposed house will be a well designed new structure which will meet all current building codes and fit in well in the neighborhood. =

Mr. Aspinwall showed the = lot and described the area to the Board. Mr. Gowan asked if there were any poorly drained soils on site. Mr. Aspinwall answered no. He said there was a little bit to = the north near a culvert, but didn’t believe it was poorly drained or wet= land soil.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d what the topography of the lot was. Mr. Aspinwall said the area of the house and septic system going out to Bush Hill Road was very flat. He said they went = to the Board of Health for review and allowed them to send the plan to the state f= or approval.

Mr. McNamara asked if lot= 2-131 would be landlocked. Mr. Aspi= nwall believed that lot had frontage on the road. Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed= lot was part of lot 131 at one point. Mr. Aspinwall said it was not. Mr. Gowan said the lot, at some point in the past, was probably a subdivision of lot 20-2-132. He said because= it was an existing lot, the land locking issue would be irrelevant.

Mr. Hennessey asked if th= e lot was created prior to the Town having the requirement of acre zoning. Mr. Gowan said he hadn’t researched it because it was an existing lot, but felt it was a fair assumption. Mr. Hennessey que= stioned if the lot was already approved for building, based on Town Counsel’s previous advice. Mr. Gowan sa= id in the past it’s gone either way, and largely what was determined was whether or not the lot was part of a subdivision where active and substanti= al development took place. He sa= id the argument could be made. He sa= id he didn’t seek legal opinion regarding this lot. He preferred to review each lot on= its individual merits rather than having a blanket ‘it’s a lot of record’ point of view. = Mr. Hennessey’s personal opinion was that in the absence of a Planning Bo= ard decision creating the subdivision, undersized lots should be come before the Board. He said unless someone= could point to a specific Planning Board approval of a specific subdivision, he d= idn’t believe that undersized lots had a right to be built on regardless of what = Town Counsel had said.

Mr. Aspinwall said he con= sulted with the Zoning Officer (Jeff Gowan) who advised the lot should come before= the Board. Mr. Hennessey agreed w= ith that decision.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara addressed the criteria and felt it qualified under the ‘area’ criteria. Mr. Molloy asked if the setbacks w= ere met. Mr. Aspinwall said it di= d. He said they showed where the house could be located, but asked that they not be held to those exact measurements. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the architectural rendering= and layout of the house provided to the Board was representative of = what would be put on the lot. Mr. Aspinwall said it was.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d if the properties to the west, north and south were currently undeveloped. Mr. Aspinwall said lot 2-132 (to t= he south) had a house and showed where it was located. He then described where approximat= ely the other surrounding houses were located.= Mr. O’Sullivan asked if any of the surrounding properties were accessed via the proposed lot or had any easements on them. Mr. Aspinwall answered no.

Mr. Gowan noted that unle= ss the Board specified or made reference to specifics on the plan with regard to variance conditions, the applicant could move the structure around on the p= lan as long as they met the setbacks. He said the septic couldn’t be moved unless it went back to DE= S. Mr. McNamara said the Board was to= ld that information submitted would be representative of the house to the built. He wanted to know if t= he house size could be doubled. Mr. Go= wan said because the applicant described a specific size dwelling, there would = be constrictions. He said Mr. Aspinwall wanted leeway regarding house placement. He said the applicant had to stay = in compliance with the state septic.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria=

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

“AREA” VARIANCE GRANTED

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To a= ppoint Svetlana Paliy as Chair.=

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sulli= van) To appoint Robert Molloy as Vice Chair.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Molloy/McNamara) To ap= point Kevin O’Sullivan as Secretary.

VOTE:

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

SITE WALK – April 19, 2008 - 9am

Case #2402 PIESLAK, Steven & Julliette - South Shore Drive   /   Map 30 Lot 11-203 – Se= eking an “Area” Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-12 & 307-14 to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a pre-exis= ting non-conforming lot of record that has 150ft. of frontage on South Shore Dri= ve, “A Private Road”, where 200ft. is required and has 18,450SF whe= re 43,560 SF is required.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – May 12, 2008

Case #2399 - LUSSIER, Gerald & DOOLEY, Doug= las – Dracut Line - Map 39 Lot 1-62 – Seeking an ‘Area’ Variance to Article III, Section 307-13 (B) 1&2 to permit the subdivision of the parcel into residential lots without direct access to a street that is directly accessible to police, fire, medical emergency and school transportation vehicles without these vehicles first having to leave the corporate limits of the Town of Pelham.

Case #2401 – ARISTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC - 151 Bridge Street - Map 29 Lot 7-119 & 7-120 ̵= 1; Seeking a Variance to Articles III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-13 & 307-40 (B) to permit the construction of a retail pharmacy with setbacks of 77.8 feet and 76 feet where 105 feet and 81 feet, respectively, are required. To allow site devel= opment on a lot with 27,400SF on contiguous dry upland where 35,000SF is required; also to permit the construction of a building and related lot improvements = and alterations within the WCD

Case #2402 PIESLAK, Steven & Julliette - South Shore Drive   /   Map 30 Lot 11-203 – Se= eking an “Area” Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-12 & 307-14 to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a pre-exis= ting non-conforming lot of record that has 150ft. of frontage on South Shore Dri= ve, “A Private Road”, where 200ft. is required and has 18,450SF whe= re 43,560 SF is required.

MINUTES

March 10, = 2008 – The minutes were reviewed, amendments were made. The Board inadvertently didn’= ;t take a motion to approve.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Molloy/O’Sulliva= n) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:11pm.

           &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