Correspondence

Sumner Kalman dated 1/13/03 re: Saviano v. Town of Atkinson.

Dennis Edmondson from James Kirsch dated 1/14/03 re: Home Business, 21 Stonewall Terrace, Map 17, Lot 30-22.

Home Business Renewal from Paul White, 13 Juniper Lane, Map 3, Lot 41.

ZBA Budget Printout dated 2/3/03.

Sumner Kalman dated 1/31/03 re: Currier v. Town of Atkinson Notice of Hearing.

Mrs. Walworth Williams re: John Henry application for Wetland Variance, Map 23, Lot 76. (Mr. Carter read this letter to the Board)

Legal Notice for Planning Board meeting of 2/19/03.

Outgoing

Robert Williams dated 1/9/03 re: Home Business Renewal, Map 3, Lot 68.

Billie Gage dated 1/9/03 re: Home Business Renewal, Map 8, Lot 14.

Steven Allen dated 1/13/03 re: Wetland Variance approval, Map 3, Lot 120.

Bruce Cambriello dated 1/13/03 re: Conversion approval, Map 22, Lot 20.

Legal Notice for meeting of 1/12/03.

Approval of Minutes: - January 8, 2003

The Board reviewed the minutes and the following corrections/additions were made:

Page 3, first paragraph, after "applicants", delete "are" and add "could be".

Motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Mr. Lewis, Seconded by Mr. Friel and unanimously approved.

Home Business Renewals: Paul White – Mr. Carter read the application. There were no changes noted.

PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 P.M. - Continued from January 8:

Kevin Camm, KLC Land Planning & Consulting for John Henry request to amend previous application for a Special Exception to Article VII, Section 700:1(a) to include a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 (or any other applicable setback sections) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit demolition of a preexisting residential cottage that is located 15 feet + to Island Pond and reconstruction of a two bedroom residential dwelling no closer than 15 feet + (85’ variance) to Island Pond where 100 feet is required on property located at 41 Boulder Cove Road, Map 23, Lot 6, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read and the following were present: Kevin Camm, KLC Planning; John Henry. A representative from Big Island Pond Corp arrived after abutters were called and after the hearing had begun.

Mr. Camm presented a new proposed plan, different from that discussed at the prior Zoning Board meeting. He also suggested that a variance may be required for the new plan. Mr. Carter explained that he was not happy that the Board had not received any materials at the time of application. Mr. Camm explained that at the last meeting there was no clear direction from the Board regarding the wetland setback issue. Therefore, they applied for both the Variance and Special Exception. Mr. Carter asked Mr. Camm if he had approval from the State and Mr. Camm stated that he did not, based on the new plan submitted to the Board, which moved the proposed dwelling back 50’ from the shoreline. Mr. Camm explained that he had gone to the State with the prior plan and was given a verbal approval, but it would have taken another two to three weeks to get the written approval. To avoid the delay and the need for State approval, Mr. Henry decided to move the proposed structure to 50’ from the shoreline.

Mr. Carter asked, as a matter of housekeeping, if the Board thought that requesting a Variance now met the posting and notification issues. Mr. Camm stated that the request before the Board previously was a request for a Variance for 80’+ and now that has been changed to a smaller variance. The rest of the Board agreed that abutters were noticed and that if any of the abutters had a problem, they could have been at the meeting. There is also a 30-day appeal period.

Mr. Camm revised the application to reflect a 50’ Variance instead of an 85’ Variance. Mr. Camm did not believe that the 100’ setback was applicable because there are certain grandfathered rights associated with an existing use of structure on the property. Mr. Henrickson stated that he recalled that the issue at the last hearing was that the originally proposed new dwelling encroached further into the setback than the existing dwelling.

The Board agreed that this should be a looked at as a Variance request. Mr. Carter asked what the square footage was in the existing dwelling as opposed to the proposed dwelling. Mr. Henry explained that the existing dwelling has 1551 square feet and the proposed dwelling has 1899 square feet, an 18% increase. Part of the increase is to add a dining room, which they do not currently have. The proposed dwelling is a two-story timber framed structure and the current carport would be eliminated. There will be a poured foundation, but foundation construction will depend on how much ledge is found when they start to excavate.

Mr. Camm explained that the setback from the water is 50’ in all directions. Mr. Henry had two lots that are now combined into one. Mr. Carter stated that it looked as if the existing situation was mitigated by this proposed plan and makes good use of the land.

Mr. Carter read the application. The Board reviewed plans of the proposed dwelling.

The Board reviewed the criterion:

There is no diminution of property values. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Mr. Carter believed the circumstances were mitigated because the proposed dwelling was moved back. The Board agreed this criterion was met

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

a. The Board agreed this criterion was met

b. The Board agreed this criterion was met

c. The expansion is reasonable and not excessive. The bedroom count remains the same in the new proposal. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Mr. Henrickson made a motion to approve the request for a Variance based on the plan submitted and that the construction of the new building will be no closer than 50’ from Island Pond. The existing structure will be demolished. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

After the close of the hearing a representative from Big Island Pond Association announced himself and stated that he had been present for most of the discussion and had no problems with the proposed construction.

David & Helen Weymouth request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit (1) a 16’x20’ three season porch to rear of house 79’ ( 21’ variance) from wetlands as opposed to the required 100’ and (2) a 15’x25’ addition to existing garage 82’ (18’ variance) from wetland on property located at 60 Summit Drive, Map 7, Lot 147, TR2 Zone.

Abutters list was read and the following were present: David and Helen Weymouth; Lewis Builders Development.

Mr. Lewis recused himself.

Mr. Weymouth explained that they would like to build a three-season porch at the back of the house, at the location of an existing deck, and add an additional bay to the existing one car garage. The three-season room will have everything but heat and will be constructed on posts. The house was originally built in 1974 and already sits within the 100’ buffer to wetlands, because of zoning changes subsequent to construction. There are no issues with the sideline setbacks. The board asked about alternate locations to avoid the need for a variance. The Weymouths said that the bedrooms are located at the other end of the house. A garage addition at that end of the house would be extremely costly and would involve changing the entire floor plan of the house. The septic tank is also located on the opposite side of the house. They said that the proposed locations are the most practical.

The Board reviewed the criterion:

The Board agreed that the proposed additions would be in keeping with other housed in the neighborhood. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

2. The Board agreed this was a non-intensive use. The Board agreed this criterion was met

3. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

1. The Board agreed this criterion was met

2. The Board agreed this criterion was met

3. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

4. The potential impact of vehicles stored outside is greater than if stored inside. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

5. A low intensive use. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Rebecca A. Russo ________________________