6-14-10

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

June 14, 2010

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, Robert Molloy, Svetlana Paliy, Peter McNamara, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate Chris LaFrance

Altern= ate Lance Ouellette, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

HEARINGS

Case # 2437 HARRIN= GTON, Scott & Lori – 19 Brandy Lane&nb= sp; - Map 36 Lot 10-368-10 – Seeking a Variance to Article VII, Section 307-41-B to permit a portion of a proposed addition to extend in to= the W.C.D. along with a temporary disturbance of the W.C.D. for grading around = the proposed addition

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

Mr. Shane Gendron of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, came forwa= rd to discuss the variance. He s= aid the applicant was seeking to construct an addition to add living space to t= heir home. The lot is limited as f= ar as the allowable building footprint. There is a wetland conservation district (‘WCD’) setback= in the front of the lot; the driveway crosses the wetland to access the builda= ble area. There is a septic syste= m and existing pool in the back yard. Mr. Gendron told the Board that when doing the proposed design, they tried to k= eep the impact to a minimum. Information packets had been previously provided to the Board for re= view which included photos of the existing conditions as well as an artist rende= ring of the proposed addition. The impact area for the building pad would total 255SF; there would be a tempor= ary impact area of 276SF around the pad for construction purposes. There is 410SF of existing impact = to the WCD from filling a pool that had been put in and adding a fence. A septic design plan has been approved/stamped by the state for the house to increase from a three bedroo= ms to four bedrooms.

Mr. Gendron read aloud the variance criteria as follows (as submitted):

The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because= : the owners are only looking to permanently impact 255SF of W.C.D. which will have little to no environmental impact on the wetlands.= Granting of this request will not interfere with the publicR= 17;s use of Brandy Lane.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because: Only a minimal amount of grading = is needed around the proposed disturbance and a 38ft. buffer will remain protecting the wetland area while maintaining the functionality as sta= ted in the purpose and intent of article 7 section 307-37.

Substantial justice is done because: Relief from this section of the zoning ordinance will allow the owners use of their property that is consistent with the abutting properties and the underlying residential district, while maintaining = all other building and health codes.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because:= This project will increase the va= lue of the existing home creating a tax benefit to the town while maintaining= the residential character of the neighborhood. The new addition will also en= hance the aesthetic value of the home.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it = from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

&n= bsp;

(A)    For purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means tha= t, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

&n= bsp;

i.      =             &nb= sp; no fair and substantial relationship exists between= the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific applicat= ion of that provision to the property because: Given the wetland and W.C.D. configuration, and the location of the house, septic system and pool, there is no other feasible area for the addition to the ho= use that would be conforming. The proposal does not conflict with the purposes of the W.C.D. as stated in Art= icle 7 Sec. 307-37. The proposed i= mpact to the W.C.D. is limited to the proposed addition and a 5ft. area around the building for grading. This sm= all area will have no substantial impact on the W.C.D. due to the grade of the = land in this area is relatively flat further protecting the wet land areas from potential runoff.

ii.      =             &nb= sp; the proposed use is a reasonable one because: It will allow the owners to make use of their property in a manner which is consistent with the zone in which it is located, and will have little to no impact on the wetland associated with t= he W.C.D.

(B)     If the criteria in subparagraph (A) above are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditio= ns of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. The position of the existing home, the existing pool and location of the existi= ng septic system creates a limited area outside of the W.C.D. for an addition, therefore limiting the use of the property by the owners.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara asked if the= 255ft impact included the 5ft. boundary. Mr. Gendron answered no; that 5ft. would be added to the temporary i= mpact (totaling approximately 525ft). Mr. McNamara said he had difficulty with the fact that the imprint into the WCD would be increased and that there would be a further incursion into the area due to maintaining it. Mr. Ge= ndron said the applicants had done well with their existing landscaping to mainta= in the WCD setback in a natural state. He commented that the house had been guttered and the proposed addit= ion would be guttered as well to cut back on the storm water runoff. He didn’t feel the wetland w= ould be impacted with the amount of buffer they were maintaining. Mr. McNamara asked for the square = feet of the existing home. Mr. Gen= dron believed the existing home was approximately 2000SF. The existing home contained three bedrooms, the design was for four bedrooms.

Mr. Molloy stated that he= had friends on the abutter’s list and questioned if anyone objected to him remaining seated for the case. There were no objections from the Board or the applicant’s rep= resentative. Mr. Molloy asked if the 53ftx20ft = would be one bedroom. Mr. Gendron explained that there would be a bedroom upstairs and living space downstairs. Per the state, the applicant was only allowed to increase their home to 4 bedrooms. Mr. Molloy questioned if a bathroom would be added upstairs. Mr. Gendron believed a bathroom would be added.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d when the existing impact occurred. Mr. Gendron believed the owner added the pool, but kept it out of the WCD. He said there was some impact to t= he WCD; there was a fence put around the pool and lawn being maintained. Mr. O’Sullivan questioned if= there had been an attempt to balance the disturbance by returning another portion= of the property to a natural state. Mr. Gendron stated that most of the lot remained in its natural stat= e; directly behind the pool fence was a wooded area. The front of the lot had been main= tained almost exactly to the dredge and fill permit through the wetlands bureau. The wetland seemed to be functioni= ng well. = Lot 10-368-8 contained a treatment swale that fed the wetland area. The applicant didn’t have pr= oblems with the wetlands backing up in the culverts.

Mr. Hennessey focused on = the existing area of WCD impact. = He asked if the impact area would be mitigated or if the applicant was request= ing that the impact area remain the way it was. Mr. Gendron stated that he was not= asked to come before the Board and request any more impact for the pool; it was in existence. He didn’t ob= ject to working with the Board regarding mitigation to help improve. Mr. Hennessey stated that it seeme= d the applicant should either mitigate, or amend the application to include it as= an impact. He said it may be in existence, but it was still a violation of Zoning. Mr. Gendron noted that it was show= n on the plan as an existing impact and would like to work with the Board to do = what was needed. Mr. Hennessey str= uggled with #5a of the variance application (special conditions of the property) a= nd asked if the first two lines of the answer where what the applicant conside= red the special conditions. Mr. G= endron believed the biggest hardship for the applicant was the placement of the ho= use on the lot. Mr. Hennessey questioned if the lot had been site specific when approved. Mr. Gendron didn’t have an answer. Mr. McNamara said the subdivision was before his time on the Board.

Ms. Paliy suggested that = the Board conduct a site walk to better understand the proposal. Mr. Hennessey suggested that the Conservation Commission be invited to attend the site walk and provide comm= ent.

MOTION:

(Paliy/McNamara) To conduct a site walk.

VOTE:

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

A site walk was scheduled= for July 10, 2010 b= eginning at 8:30am. The Conservation Commission and the public were invited to attend the site walk.

Mr. Gendron wanted to kno= w if the Board would consider working the pool impact into the current application.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Hennessey said the Board would either be asking for an amendment to the application or ask that the applic= ant stipulate that the impact would be taken care of. He said the Conservation Commission should be shown (at the site walk) what the issue was.

The case was continued to= the July 12, 2010 m= eeting.

Case #2438 SOUZA, = Edward – 46 Susan Drive - Map = 35 Lot 10-352-27 - Seeking a Varianc= e to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit a shed 5 feet from the left setback w= here 15 feet is required

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

The applicant, Mr. Edward Souza, came before the Board to discuss his variance request. He would like to pla= ce a shed to the rear of his left property line. He said the location was preferable because of the lot shape and the fact that the other areas of the lot were higher on a hill. He then read aloud the variance criteria and his answers as follows (as submitted).

The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because= : The shed proposed does not alter = the character of the neighborhood nor does it impact public health, safety= , or welfare.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because: The shed will meet all building and ordinance requirements with the except= ion of the 15ft. setback to the left property line.

Substantial justice is done because: The use is consistent with uses of like residential lots.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because: The shed will be constructed to match the architectural integr= ity and aesthetics of the property and neighborhood.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it = from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

&n= bsp;

(A) For purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

&n= bsp;

i.      =             &nb= sp; no fair and substantial relationship exists between= the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific applicat= ion of that provision to the property because: The structure does not impact public health, safety, or welfare.

ii.      =             &nb= sp; the proposed use is a reasonable one because: it is for lawn and garden equipment storage.

(B) If the criteria in subparagraph (A) above are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditio= ns of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.   Due to the narrow layout and limited use of usable and level space, inclusive of septic system location, drop off of land, and wet land area, the shed is be= st served on the proposed location of the lot.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed location was treed. Mr. Souza said it would be placed = on the property line with his neighbor; the area was wide open space and visible to the neighbor. Mr. McNamara questioned the reason for large size of the shed. Mr. Souza described the items that= would be placed within the shed. Mr. McNamara asked where the items were presently being stored. Mr. Souza said the items were in h= is garage and took up an entire bay. Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Souza had spoken to his neighbor about the shed. Mr. Souza answered yes; his neighb= or preferred the location as opposed to the middle of the back yard.

Mr. O’Sullivan confirmed that the shed’s egress would be on the long end making it so Mr. Souza wouldn’t need to cross onto his neighbor&#= 8217;s property. Mr. Souza said that was correct.=

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked the distance between the poorly drained soil and the shed. Mr. Souza described the lot’s slope and explained that the area became damp/moist after a large amount of rain fall. He believed the ar= ea should drain approximately 20ft.-30ft. behind the shed. Mr. McNamara asked if the 20ft.-30= ft. behind the shed remained dry. Mr. Souza answered yes. The yard = was graded so the drainage flowed away from the shed.

Mr. Hennessey commented that the applicant’s last answer on the applicati= on and went on to question if there was any mapping of wetlands on the property. Mr. Souza said the = area wasn’t technically wetlands. He commented that there were conservation lands to the right of his property. He said the term ‘wet’ on his application indicated that the area was damp and soggy. Mr. Hennessey question= ed if the area was encroaching on a setback off a wetland. Mr. Molloy noted that the conserva= tion land was on the east of the applicant’s property, not on the west of = the property in the location of the proposed shed. Mr. Molloy asked if there were any wetlands on the west side of the property.= Mr. Souza said there was sort of a stream that ran through the west = of the property. Mr. McNamara asked if there was a reason the shed couldn̵= 7;t be placed on the opposite side of the property near the treed area. Mr. Souza said due to the slope of= the property there would be a very small space (if any). Mr. Hennessey asked if there wetla= nd on the neighbor’s property where the shed was being proposed. Mr. Souza answered no.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. Ouellette – Y= es to all criteria

VOTE:

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

VARIANCE APPROVED

Mr. Souza asked if there = was a limitation to the variance approval. Mr. Hennessey stated that there were no limitations proposed; the variance would stay with the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Souza asked if constructing a smaller shed would have any affect. Mr. Hennessey answered no.

Case#2439 PICARD, = Paul – 5 South Shore Drive -= Map 30 Lot 11-207 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit a 12x12 shed 3 feet from = the left setback where 15 feet is required

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

The applicant, Mr. Paul Picard, came forward to discuss his variance request. He wanted to purchase a pre-built 12ft.x12ft storage shed and located such in his back yard to gain needed storage space.

Mr. Picard read aloud the variance criteria as follows (as submitted).

The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because= : The placement of the shed will not alter the essential character of the locality as it will be placed in = my back yard. Also it will = not threaten the public health, safety and welfare of my neighbors.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because: I am only requesting a variance to place the shed closer to my neighbor’s lot line than the 15ft. set back requirement because = the trees on my property and the location of my driveway prevent me from placing the shed 15ft. from the lot line.

Substantial justice is done because: The use being requested is consistent with uses of the surroun= ding properties, and a variance being granted will allow us to use our prop= erty in the same manner as our neighbors.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because:= The proposed structure will be aesthetically pleasing and will add to the property. Thus the surro= unding properties will not be adversely affected.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it = from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

&n= bsp;

= (A) For purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

&n= bsp;

i.      =             &nb= sp; no fair and substantial relationship exists between= the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific applicat= ion of that provision to the property because: it is reasonable because this shed would not be out of character in this neighborhood. The abutter on = the east side has a shed within the set back to my property. Furthermore he has submitted a wri= tten statement that he has no objections to the construction of this shed. <= /p>

ii.      =             &nb= sp; the proposed use is a reasonable one because: The proposed use of the shed is reasonable because I need more storage space. My home doesn’t have a basem= ent.

=

(B) If the criteria in subparagraph (A) above = are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and on= ly if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from ot= her properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to en= able a reasonable use of it.   Due to the narrowness of my lot and lo= cation of my driveway, conformity to the ordinance is not possible. The proposed location for the shed= is the only reasonable place to construct it.

Abutters had submitted le= tters of support for the variance. Mr. Hennessey read those letters aloud. Mr. Picard said there were no objections (by anyone) regarding the s= hed.

Mr. McNamara asked if tre= es would need to be cut in order to meet the setback. Mr. Picard stated that the propose= d location was the best possible place for the shed.&= nbsp; There were huge pine trees that would shield the shed from view of <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">South Shore as well as the abutters on that side of the property. Mr. Picard said the shed would be located approximately 50ft. from the closest abutter, who had no objections= to the variance. Mr. McNamara complimented Mr. Picard’s presentation.

Ms. Paliy asked if a foun= dation would be put in. Mr. Picard answered no. Ms. Paliy asked = how the shed would be located between the trees. Mr. Picard explained where the shed would be located by Reeds Ferry Sheds.&nbs= p; Mr. Hennessey stated that he drove past the property and commented t= hat the applicant was constrained because of Shore Land Protection. The applicant would not be removing trees to place the shed; the plot plan showed the location. The shed would come in panels and = be erected in the proposed location.

There was no public input= .

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. Ouellette – Y= es to all criteria

VOTE:

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

VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2440 FANNIE = MAE – 3 Hearthstone Road - = Map 22 Lot 8-157 – Seeking an Equitable Waiver to Article III, Section 307-1= 2 to permit an existing deck that is 28.7 feet from the street line where 30 fee= t is required

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

Attorney Rick Hubbard, Bedford, New Hampshire, representing Fannie Mae came forward to discuss the Equitable Waiver request. He stated that Fannie Mae had taken the property for foreclosure in = May, 2010. When the plot plan was = done, it showed a minor encroachment. He said they were trying to dispose of the property and get it into the hands = of a new owner.

Mr. Hennessey brought the discussion back to the Board. He told the Board that he did some work with Fannie Mae, but had no listings.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said that he and Attorney Hubba= rd had conducted business over the years, but to his knowledge had no current or on-going business. He asked t= he Board if they felt he had any conflict; if so he would step down from heari= ng the case. There were no objec= tions by the Board or the applicant’s representative.

Attorney Hubbard believed= the deck to have been constructed in August, 2007 by the previous owner who misjudged the distance. He th= en reviewed the Equitable Waiver requirements as submitted.

Mr. O’Sullivan comm= ented that the Board didn’t have photos of the condition or age of the deck. Attorney Hubbard believ= ed the deck was built shortly after August, 2007.=

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re was a reason the applicant didn’t file a variance, rather than an equitable waiver request. Attorney Hubb= ard said the deck was a dimensional encroachment. Mr. McNamara said it was a 10ft. mistake. The deck was 28.7ft.= from the front; notes from the Planning Director indicated that the front porch would be 38ft. from the front lot line.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara read aloud a portion of the Planning Director’s n= otes regarding the case. He believ= ed there was a recent case decided by the New Hampshire Supreme Court he thoug= ht was on the subject of mistaken calibration not meeting the equitable waiver criteria. Mr. Hennessey read = aloud additional comments submitted by the Planning Director indicating that (und= er RSA 674:33-a II) the porch was built in 2007 so the 10 year standard couldnR= 17;t be applied. Attorney Hubbard = felt it was an either/or requirement and went on to read a portion of the application requirements (#2) that indicate an ‘or’ situation.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He referenced 674:33 in which the = Board could grant an Equitable Waiver from the requirement. There was further discussion regar= ding the application, the setbacks and the manner in which to proceed. Mr. Hennessey said the question be= fore the Board was to determine if the application was valid under an equitable waiver. He said this was not = like a variance case where a valued judgment could be made.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd had to make a finding under the equitable waiver criteria and went on to read a portion of which. He said it = was clear that the applicant had no knowledge of it, it was pre-existing. He said it was instead caused by e= ither a good faith error in measurement or calculation. There was a brief discussion as to= how it was determined to be a 10ft. error.&nbs= p; The front porch was supposed to be 38 feet from the front lot line (= per the building permit), but it was constructed 28 feet from the line. The porch was 1.5 feet within the setback requirement of 30ft. = Mr. Hennessey said the Board was asked to grant a waiver on the 1.5 foot setback. He said the Board ha= d to decide if the error was willful or inadvertent. Mr. Molloy felt the degree of the mistake showed the willfulness.

Attorney Hubbard said the= recent plot plan showed the deck being 36.7ft from the corner of the house to the roadway. He didn’t unde= rstand the comment regarding a 10ft. error.

Ms. Paliy questioned if e= rror was due to the Town owning land further than the distance from the center line.

Attorney Hubbard reviewed= the application and didn’t believe that the error was willful.

Mr. O’Sullivan ques= tioned if permanent relief needed to be given for a deck, which could be deemed a temporary structure. Attorney Hubbard discussed the Equitable Waiver and commented that someone wanted to= add onto the deck would need to come back to the Board. Mr. O’Sullivan asked if the = Board could grant a variance to allow the desk to exist, but stipulate that it couldn’t be rebuilt. Mr. Hennessey said an equitable waiver was designed for cases such as the one in front of the Board. He said i= f the application met the criteria the Board would have to vote in favor of it.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Sperounis, 4 Hea= rthstone wanted to know if there was a difference between a deck and a porch. Mr. McNamara said for purposes of = front setbacks, he didn’t believe there was a distinction. Mr. Sperounis wanted to know where= the setback measurement was taken since the roof was longer than the bottom (of= the porch). Mr. Hennessey said the measurement was from the structure. Mr. Molloy asked if the roof extended further than the edge of the d= eck and wanted to know by how many feet. Mr. Sperounis answered yes and believed it extended approximately on= e to two feet further. Attorney Hu= bbard believed the survey depicted the furthest most point to the street line. Mr. Sperounis wanted to know if he= could appeal the granting of the equitable waiver. Mr. Hennessey answered yes. He told Mr. Sperounis if he had objections, he should tell the Board. Mr. Sperounis said if the Town had a rule of a 30ft. setback, the setback should be 30ft.

The Board discussed how t= hey would proceed. Mr. Molloy said there was no evidence leading the Board to believe that there was a willful violation.

Mr. Hennessey put it on r= ecord that he was unaware of having a conflict with the case. He didn’t know who the listing/selling agent was. He= said he wouldn’t benefit either way.



BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. Ouellette – Y= es to all criteria

VOTE:

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

EQUITABLE WAIVER GRANTED

Case #2441 SWEENY, Daniel – 8 Diamond H= ill Drive - Map 35 Lot 10-355-1 – Seeking a Special Exception to permit an accessory dwelling unit

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

Mr. Jim Tierney, representing the applicants, came forward to discuss the speci= al exception. An addition had be= en built on the left side of the home, which would be utilized for the accesso= ry dwelling unit. Parking will b= e in the existing driveway and not expanded.&nb= sp; The floor plan will have one bedroom, a small kitchen and a bath area. A door will go between = the units. The addition will be 24ft.x20ft.

Mr. Hennessey confirmed that Mr. Tierney understood the restrictions. Mr. Tierney answered yes. Mr. Hennessey asked for explanatio= n of the septic system and wanted to know if it would be upgraded. Mr. Tierney said there was an exis= ting system that was in good working order.&nbs= p; He said Herbert Associates had done a new plan that was approved by = the Town and the state. Mr. Henne= ssey explained that for an accessory dwelling, an applicant either complied or didn’t.

A stipulation was made for the approval that a copy of the state approved pla= n be submitted to the Planning Department.

Mr. Molloy asked how many bedrooms the home currently had. Mr. Tierney said the home currentl= y had three bedrooms. The area of t= he addition was a large family room; interior wall space would be created. One bedroom would be added. There will be no exterior construc= tion, other than changing windows and adding a slider. The footprint will remain the same= .

Mr. McNamara wanted the applicant to understand that the use could not be used = as a rental apartment or change to any other form of ownership. Mr. Tierney understood.

MOTION:

(Molloy/McNamara) To grant the Special Exception

VOTE:

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

SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED



SITE WALK – July 10, 2010 8:30am<= /st1:time>

Case # 2437 HARRINGTON, Scott & Lori ̵= 1; 19 Brandy Lane - Map 36 Lot 10-368-10 – See= king a Variance to Article VII, Section 307-41-B to permit a portion of a proposed addition to extend in to the W.C.D. along with a temporary disturbance of t= he W.C.D. for grading around the proposed addition

DATE SPECIFIED CASES – July 12, 2010

Case # 2437 HARRINGTON, Scott & Lori ̵= 1; 19 Brandy Lane - Map 36 Lot 10-368-10 – See= king a Variance to Article VII, Section 307-41-B to permit a portion of a proposed addition to extend in to the W.C.D. along with a temporary disturbance of t= he W.C.D. for grading around the proposed addition

        =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =                    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =         =             &nb= sp;

MINUTES

April 12= , 2010

MOTION:

(Molloy/O’Sulliva= n) To approve the Ap= ril 12, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:41 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