Mr. Ronald Nickerson dated 9/14/06 re: Home Business renewal approval.

Craig Laurence dated 9/25/06 re: Home Business approval.

Satco RT, Arthur Anderson dated 9/25/06 re: SE/Variance application, no action required.

Mr. Henry Corey dated 9/25/06 re: Home Business approval.

Legal Notices for meeting of 10/11/06.

NH Dept. of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles response re: Henry Corey, 16 Coventry Road, Map14, Lot 84-7.

Brooks Properties dated 9/29/06 re: Variance application approval.

Blaine & Mary-Ellen Austin request for Special Exception/Expand Non-Conforming and Conversion of Seasonal to Primary Residence as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 700:1 and 700:2 on property located at 18 –18A Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 43, RR3 Zone.

\Abutters List was read with the following present: Blaine Austin

Mr. Austin explained that he did research at the Registry of Deeds and followed the chain of title to the property. He presented the board a package with copies of the deeds showing the history of the parcel. Prior to 1974, the parcels were conveyed by individual deeds. In 1974 both parcels of land were conveyed by a single deed, along with all of the rights, easements and restrictions. The properties were conveyed again in 1976, 1977, 1985, 1987 and finally in 1998 to Mr. Austin and his wife. In 1994 the septic was replaced with a State approved septic system. At one point there were several lots sharing a single well. Mr. Polito was not sure why they would have conveyed the two parcels on one deed but said that it did not appear that the lots were combined. He presented the Board with the well agreement. Mr. Austin is taxed for one property, but each parcel has it’s own tax assessment card. The separate tax assessment cards date back to 1993 and he is still getting two tax assessment cards. The Board agreed there is nothing that shows the parcels were combined to one parcel. The tax assessment card for 1982 notes that there are two year round houses on the lot. The Board agreed that although the parcels went from two deeds to one, everything clearly delineates a dwelling unit on each parcel, and has been in common ownership since 1963. The board is not making any determination as to whether the applicant could sell one of these lots individually at some future date. There was a new septic system installed in 1994 for three bedrooms and it is sufficient to cover both of the dwelling units as there are 3 bedrooms between the two. Mr. Polito asked about the well and the applicant was not sure what type of well it was. The Board reviewed the plans and could not determine any information about the well but was fairly certain that the septic plan would not have been approved without the proper well. Mr. Polito pointed out that this is dealt with as part of the conditions of the special exception.

Mr. Austin said he was going to convert his house, 18 Stickney Road from a two-bedroom house to a one-bedroom house and 18A Stickney Road will change from a one-bedroom house to a two-bedroom house. Mr. Austin explained that he plans to raise the roof line of 18A Stickney to eight feet with a gable roof and square the structure off the structure making it roughly a 30’ x 30’ dwelling. The square footage would change from about 670 square feet to about 850 square feet. Mr. Polito asked how 18 Stickney Road would be converted to a one-bedroom house. Mr. Austin explained that it is not used as a bedroom now and is used only for storage. Ms. Rochford asked how that could be continued going forward, especially if the house was ever sold. Mr. Austin explained that the wall was taken down; there are no doors or closets. Mr. Polito said this would have to be contingent upon the building inspector determining this was not a bedroom. There appears to be no wetland setback or sideline setback issues. There was a consensus of the Board to consider the application squaring off the dwelling on 18A Stickney Road.

The Board reviewed the criterion of 700:1(e)

The Board agreed there was no diminution of surrounding properties. The applicant will be squaring off the 18A dwelling, raising the roof and converting it to a two-bedroom house. There were no proposed changes to 18 Stickney that would affect the outward appearance of the dwelling. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

There are no additional bedrooms being added to the overall properties. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

The applicant needs a sign off from the Health Inspector that the conditions of WS300 are met.

Rehearing - Michael Saviano request for Special Exception as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 700:1 to allow expansion of the first and second floor on an existing dwelling on a non-conforming lot plus a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 to expand the first and second floor of an existing dwelling closer than the required 100’ to wetland on property located at 33 Boulder Cove Road, Map 20, Lot 12, RR3 Zone.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Michael Saviano; Attorney Tom Morgan; Thomas Schwandt; Katherine Reid

Attorney Morgan thought as a preliminary point that the Board should not consider this a rehearing because although the application has been filed before, it was never heard. Mr. Polito agreed that under the strict definition under the RSA’s that this was not a rehearing. The Board agreed this was more of a continuation of a hearing that started a year ago. Attorney Morgan also asked that Mr. Polito recuse himself from the hearing based on the fact that Mr. Saviano believed he was not impartial. Attorney Morgan stated that Mr. Polito had asked Mr. Saviano in a previous hearing "were you dissin the Chairman" Mr. Polito asked if that were in the minutes. Attorney Morgan said it was on tape and he could produce it if needed. Mr. Polito asked the minutes to reflect that he had never been made aware of this complaint before and that it has never been brought up in any court documents or filings by Mr. Saviano. Attorney Morgan asked if Mr. Polito would recuse himself. Mr. Polito said the claim of impartiality had been raised in the lawsuits by Mr. Saviano and in all cases the court ruled against Mr. Saviani. Mr. Polito read the disqualification of a member under 673:14. Mr. Polito asked the Board whether they believed he should be disqualified because of a pecuniary interest or a prejudice that would disqualify him because of impartiality. The Board agreed unanimously that Mr. Polito should not disqualify himself. Mr. Zannini abstained. Mr. Polito said he would not be stepping down.

Mr. Polito asked if this were the same application that was presented to the Board more than a year ago? Attorney Morgan said that it was presented by Mr. Saviano but not voted on. Mr. Polito said that while that was true, the applicant had received a call from Attorney Kalman and referred him to a letter written by Mr. Polito, dated June 14, 2005, laying out what needed to be in an application for Mr. Saviano to be properly before the board. Mr. Saviano stated that the application addressed the letter. Mr. Polito said it did not. Mr. Saviano claimed he addressed all of the items in the latter and brought them to the July meeting. Mr. Polito said he did not. Mr. Saviano claimed Mr. Polito was not at the July meeting. Mr. Polito said he had the record and the issues were not addressed. Mr. Polito asked Attorney Morgan if he spoke with Town Counsel Attorney Kalman last week. Attorney Morgan said he did. Mr. Polito told him that the application, which was submitted last year, resulted in a letter that stated what was before the Board was incomplete. Attorney Morgan said he was confused because Mr. Polito was not at the hearing, but the letter stated that he had reviewed the application. Mr. Polito stated that there is no law that says the Chairman cannot review an application and send back a letter to the applicant. Mr. Polito read the letter sent to Mr. Saviano. Mr. Polito said the Board never got to "hear" the application in July because it was an incomplete application, and the same one that had been submitted previously. Mr. Polito asked what material in the package submitted for this hearing is new this year. Mr. Saviano claimed Mr. Polito never reviewed the package. Mr. Polito said that he did. Mr. Polito told Mr. Saviano that he was supposed to do what the letter asked. Attorney Kalman went out of his way to remind Attorney Morgan about the letter to save him time and money. Mr. Saviano asked what the Board was looking for that was not in the application. Mr. Polito asked him to show the Board where the items in the letter were. Mr. Polito said the Board would not waste time again trying to figure out what Mr. Saviano wants. Attorney Morgan said he understood that the application does not express with clarity what the applicant is looking for. Mr. Polito said that was correct and that the Board wanted to do a site-walk. Mr. Saviano said the Board already had a chance to do that, but they did not show up. Mr. Polito’s recollection was that Mr. Saviano told the Board that he was not welcomed at a site-walk. Mr. Saviano said that was true. Mr. Polito said that would be a problem and by Mr. Saviano’s own prejudice will not allow the Chairman of the Board on the property for a site-walk. Mr. Polito asked the Board if they were willing to do a site-walk with the exclusion of the Chairman. The Board did not agree to that restriction. Mr. Polito stated that without a site-walk the application was not going any further. Mr. Saviano conferred with his attorney and agreed that the entire Board would be allowed to do the site-walk. Attorney Morgan attempted to explain what Mr. Saviano was proposing to do. Mr. Polito said that the third item on the list was to provide a to scale certified plot plan showing setbacks. Attorney Morgan said that he did and presented the Board with a plan. Mr. Polito asked the Board if this provided sufficient clarity to address what was on the property before the additions were made by Mr. Saviano. The Board did not. Mr. Polito said that typically applicants come in and highlight with colors, what is there, and what is proposed to be added. Attorney Morgan said he could add colors. Mr. Polito said he was disappointed that a lot of time was spent going to Court and the letter regarding what the applicant needs to do is really clear. Mr. Polito stated that the Applicant took the time to research how to appeal to the Supreme Court, but appears to be obstinate enough to just ignore the instruction of the Board and not do what every other applicant does when they come before the Board. Mr. Polito stated he would be willing to grant a continuance if the applicant would just provide what the letter asked for. Attorney Morgan asked if the Board wanted something other than the certified plot plan. Mr. Polito asked the other Board members if they understood what is was there before the additions, what is currently there and what is being proposed. Ms. Rochford and Mr. Riehl said they were trying to figure it out and were confused. Mr. Polito said this is the problem the Board had on every occasion with this application. They are sitting around trying to figure out what is being proposed. Mr. Saviano said if the Board went through the application they would understand. Mr. Polito said that if Mr. Saviano just provided a drawing, with colors, indicating what was there before the additions, what is there now and what was being proposed. Attorney Morgan asked the Board to look at page 16, which the Board did. Mr. Polito said this is not clear to him. The Board concurred. Mr. Friel said the plan does not show setbacks, etc. The Board agreed they want a certified plan depicting everything. Mr. Polito did not believe the Board needed to sit hear once again and explain what they were looking for. The letter clearly explains exactly what needs to be done. Attorney Morgan asked of the Board wanted to schedule a site-walk, so that they could be prepared next month. Mr. Jones the building inspector explained that there was an expansion of the building without proper permits and there is bench trial scheduled for January. Mr. Polito said if the Board conducted a site-walk now, they would have a difficult time determining what was there prior to the construction. Mr. Jones thought the Board should have the appropriate drawings before the site-walk so they could bring the plans with them. Mr. Polito wanted the minutes to reflect that both Mr. Riehl and Ms. Rochford could not determine what was being asked for by the applicant. Mr. Polito said Mr. Saviano has been before the Board several times over the last two years with essentially the same application. The minutes on several occaisions indicate people being confused as to what was being asked for. Mr. Polito took the time on several occasions to write to Mr. Saviano in clear English, what the Board needed. Mr. Polito stated there would be no site-walk until the information needed is provided. Mr. Polito told Mr. Saviano to come to the next hearing with all of the required information and if it is sufficient, a site-walk will be scheduled. Mr. Polito wanted it to be clear that the Board needed to know what was on the property before any construction took place. The Board will have Mr. Jones review that information to see if he agrees.

Mr. Saviano stated that he just wished the Board would go through his application at least once. Mr. Polito said that the Board has bent over backwards and he has personally spent time with Courts, Lawyers and suffered the indignities of Mr. Saviano’s groundless accusations. Mr. Saviano stated he had suffered the indignities of Mr. Polito’s.

Mr. Dziechowski, Conservation Commission Chairman said there is a DES application and approval in place, which has specific requirements as to what can be added and what must be removed. He said that a letter he had written and submitted had disappeared from the Saviano property file. He researched the plans submitted to DES, and there is a requirement to remove an enclosed dining area, to reduce the footprint on the lake, in turn for which the State approved the expansion on the landward side. There also must be plantings in the front. He requested that the Conservation Commission be included in the site-walk.

Abutters List was read with the following present: David Holligan; Joan Waslechuck

Mr. Holligan stated that he wanted to enclose an existing deck with a roof and screening. The deck would remain 3 season, screened, and no heating. Mr. Holligan read a letter from the Conservation Commission, which gave their recommendation for approval, with the installation of gutters and downspouts to a dry well. Mr. Holligan proved emails to the Board from DES stating that roofs and screening is allowed over decks. The Board reviewed the plans to be sure they were clear on what was being asked

The Board reviewed the criterion

The Board agreed this was met

The Board agreed this was met

The Board agreed this was met. Only the existing deck is being covered.

The Board agreed this was met

The Board agreed this was met