Page 2, Public Hearing", Change "Mr. Rockford" to "Mr. Rockwell"

Incoming

Planning Board Legal Notice for meeting of 3/17/04.

Budget Printout dated 2/27/04.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Kevin Camm, KLC Land Planning for Glenn Saba; Glenn Saba

The Board noted that the applicant presented a new plan delineating the wetlands and their values and the approved house location.. Mr. Camm explained that the Board could now see the building envelope and setback lines. Mr. Camm explained that given the topography of the lot and location of wetlands the lot is constrained by the setbacks. Mr. Camm argued in the rehearing that before the zoning changed there was a bigger envelope for the applicant to utilize. The proposed garage is 60’ from the wetland edge. They are proposing a 40’ wide natural buffer along the entire wetland edge along the north of the property. Mr. Camm stated that the applicant would be within his rights to cut down every tree, pull every stump, re-grade the lot and store and park anything he wanted right up to the wetlands. Mr. Polito contended there were ordinance against junk and nuisances. Mr. Camm said the point was the applicant wanted to construct this garage to contain these types of things.

Mr. Saba said that the Board was in agreement that three out of the five criteria were met. Mr. Polito wanted the record to be clear that this was a totally new hearing and that the Board does not already agree to any of the criteria being met. This referred back to another hearing with another set of facts. Mr. Saba said that he would start over.

Mr. Polito asked what type of garage this would be; Mr. Saba represented that this would be a 28’ x 32’ two stall garage from the face. There will be a "man" door on the right northeast side. The color, siding and architecture will match the house. There will be a set of stairs in the interior leading to a second story storage area. There will be no access on the outside to the storage area. The garage doors will be approximately 10’ wide by 9’ high. The garage will be on a slab. It will have a 9-pitch roof with the height of a single story house, and the first floor will be approximately 10’-11’ high.

The Board wanted to know the location of the driveway, as it was not indicated on the plan. Mr. Camm updated it by drawing the location of the proposed driveway.

Mr. Polito suggested the applicant present each of the criteria. The applicant agreed.

The Applicant read his application for each criterion:

Based on discussions the Board agreed this criterion was met.

Mr. Lewis discussed a construction fence and a safety fence to prevent any of the construction crew from harming the wetlands. Based on discussions the Board agreed this criterion was met.

a.) The Board agreed that based on the uniqueness of the land and the fact that if the applicant moved the structure further it would result in financial hardship and would denigrate the neighborhood. Mr. Camm explained that the most affected neighbor, Mr. Bruzzezi was for the proposal as he already had a 15’ no cut sideline buffer between the properties. This was a condition upon the granting of the Variance for the house. There was a consensus that this was met. Conservation Commission had agreed to the original proposal and this one was better than the last, so the Board concurred that the Conservation Commission would also favor this proposal. Mr. Polito stated that the main issue was hardship. He thought the applicant did a good job putting a case together. Mr. Polito did have some concerns regarding "reasonable" use. Mr. Friel agreed. Mr. Polito asked if the garage could be brought even closer to the house. The applicant explained that it would denigrate the neighborhood, there would be financial constraints, it would put it closer to the neighbor’s property and not protect the wetlands any better than what is proposed. Mr. Lewis stated that the parcel was over 2 acres and that most of it could not be used because of the small wetland running through the middle of it. Mr. Camm restated that the 40’ buffer would be in perpetuity with the land. Mr. Lewis stated that size of the garage has no bearing because he would still have the same issue even if he were proposing a smaller structure. The distance from the wetlands is the problem. Three Board members agreed this was met and two did not.

b.) The board agreed this was met based on previous discussions and the fact that there is a buffer.

c.) The board agreed this was met based on previous discussions.

There was a consensus of the Board that this was met based on discussions.

There was a consensus of the Board that this was met based on discussions.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Dave Giffin for Verizon/NE Telephone Co; Melinda Murphy

The Board needed to determine if this business had standing as a non-conforming use. Some of the Board members had recollections of this building always being a telephone building. Mr. Polito explained this would have to come before the Board as a request for a Special Exception. The Board reviewed the file and determined the building was there in 1973/1974, but needed further proof that it predated the zoning. Mr. Polito explained to the applicant that they would need to show that they were a non-conforming use and then would have apply for a Special Exception to expand that use.

Ms. Murphy was concerned about the humming noise and what the expansion was going to look like.

Mrs. McGrath made a motion to continue without prejudice. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Minutes transcribed from tape Respectfully Submitted