The following amendments/corrections were made.

Page 2, last paragraph, sixth sentence, change "confirm" to "conform".

Mr. Carter made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Ms. Rochford second and the minutes were approved.

Mr. Riehl joined the Board.

Incoming

Planning Board minutes dated 1/18/06

Sumner Kalman dated 1/30/06 re: Town of Atkinson v. Michael Saviano.

Sumner Kalman dated 1/23/06 re: Zannin v. Town of Atkinson.

Sumner Kalman dated 1/24/06 re: Zannini v. Town of Atkinson.

Sumner Kalman dated 2/1/06 re: Zannini v. Town of Atkinson.

Ms. Janet Palasma dated 2/2/06 re: Request for business reinstatment ‘Confetti’s Bakery’ , 7 Academy Avenue.

Zonning Board budget printout dated 2/28/06.

Board of Health Legal Notice for meeting of 3/13/06 re: Casey, 36 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 32.

James Lavelle Associates dated 3/6/06 re: Chambers request to withdraw frontage variance application for Main street, Map 4, lot 5.

Sumner Kalman dated 3/6/06 re: Zannini v. Town of Atkinson.

Henry Corey, Home Business Application for United Wholesalers of Atkinson, LLC, 16 Coventry Road, Map 14, Lot 84-7. Mr. Polito joined the Board. The Board reviewed the application. Mr. Carter made a motion that based on the application, the business was exempt. Ms. Rochford seconded the motion and it was approved. Mr. Polito abstained.

Outgoing

Jolanta Jasiak dated 1/12/06 re: Home Business Renewal approval for Yolanta’s Professional Tailoring, 22 Wood Drive, Map 7, Lot 175.

Michael Cronin dated 1/18/06 re: Special Exception Permit conversion from Seasonal to Year Round approved w/conditions on 11 Hemlock Shore Drive, Map 22, Lot 106 & 113.

Michael Chambers request for Variance from Article V, Section 530b of the Zoning Ordinance to allow frontage of 193.54’ (variance of 6.46’) as opposed to the required 200’ frontage for property located at 43 & 43A Main Street, Map 4, Lot 5 TR2 Zone.

The applicant asked that the application be withdrawn without prejudice.

Matthew Trudel, Lake Mary Development, LLC request for Variances from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the present Zoning Ordinance and Variance from Article VI, Section 600:11 of the 2001 Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a single family residence 79.4 ft. from wetlands (20.6 ft. variance) as opposed to the required 100’ and 20’ into the 100’ landscaped project buffer on property located at 13 Carriage Chase Lane, Map 9, Lot 62-10, TR2 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

Matthew Trudel and Lake Mary Development; Robin Renihan

Mr. Trudel explained that he had been before the ZBA prior to this under an Appeal from his neighbor Mr. Hammond but the board ruled in Mr. Trudel’s favor. He then received his building permit and started construction. One of the abutters, Mr. Hammond has taken him to Court, with the corresponding hearing scheduled for Friday. Even if they were to win in Court, Mr. Hammond could still appeal the decision; which could tie him up for another year. In order to expedite this process he has decided to try and move the location of his house so he can move it further from Mr. Hammond’s property. Mr. Trudel read a portion of a letter from Attorney Campbell, who represents Mr. Hammond. The letter stated that they would support a Variance for the wetland and buffer setbacks. Mr. Hammond wants to put an addition onto his house and wants Mr. Trudel to move his proposed house 15’ from the lot line. The only way this can be accomplished is to get a variance to the wetland and landscape buffers. Mr. Polito asked if the original proposal was going to be able to be accomplished without a variance to the wetlands. Mr. Trudel said that is was. Mr. Trudel gave the Board a plot plan and said that originally the house was supposed to be 2 feet from the lot line and they were able to move it to 7 feet. Mr. Polito said that a variance to the landscape buffer would be a problem. This is a deeded covenant to the buffer to which all owners of the properties have an interest. Even if the Board were to grant a Variance, the applicant would not have a legal right to build in the buffer unless the deed issues were resolved. Mr. Polito said that the applicant would likely have to go before the Planning Board to get relief. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Jones what could go into the buffer zone under zoning. Mr. Jones said it was for recreational things such as pools. Mr. Trudel asked if he could change the application to ask for just a variance to the wetlands instead. He would deal with the buffer by putting a jog or something in the house. He is not that far into the landscape buffer so he knows he can deal with it. The Board agreed in principle but had concern that the plan presented did not clearly reflect where the landscape buffer was and how far it extended into the lot. They were also unclear on where the wetland buffer extended. There need to be two lines showing both the buffer to wetlands and the 100’ landscape buffer. The Board agreed they could entertain a wetland setback variance with a more clear plan showing the buffers and where the foundation would go. Mr. Polito asked if there were any input from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Dziechowski said this was the first he had heard of this. There are no wetlands flagging so he could not make a recommendation. The wetlands on the side of Carriage Chase are pretty swampy. Mr. Polito suggested a letter from a soil scientist attesting to the value of the wetlands. Mr. Polito suggested a continuance until next month so that the applicant could produce a plan that has definitive boundaries for the wetland buffer and the landscape buffer. Mr. Polito believed that Mr. Trudel had to stay out of the landscape buffer. Mr. Trudel said that by coming out of the landscape buffer, he was going to come closer to other neighbor’s homes. Mr. Polito understood.

Mrs. Renihan said that when she built her house she was told that Mr. Trudel’s the lot was unbuildable. She went to Town Hall several times and was told that any building could only go in the buildable area. She said she would completely lose her privacy because her house is only a few feet from the sideline (to Mr. Tudel’s the lot). If this house is pushed further away from Mr. Hammond’s, it will be in her kitchen. She believed the value of her house will go downs. She thought the house would be a little behind her house. Now, the house will be behind her house. She will pursue her options with an Attorney if this is granted. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Trudel why he couldn’t move the house forward. Mr. Trudel said it was because of the septic system which is to be located in the front. Mr. Polito asked how big her home was. Mrs. Renihan said it was approximately 2800 square feet. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Trudel how big his house was going to be. He said it was approximately 2500 – 2600 square feet. Mr. Polito said it appeared Mr. Hammond’s house was the same size as Mrs. Renihans’, therefore the applicant is in keeping with what is presently in the neighborhood. Mr. Trudel said that he had already scaled back the size. This was originally supposed to be approximately 3000 square feet, but was scaled down because of the proximately to the other homes. Mr. Jones said there may be other options for the septic system and may have to ask for a variance to the wetland for that. Mr. Trudel said he would look into some other options for the septic and requested a continuance.

Todd Wallace for Paul Shea - request for Variances from Article IV, Section 410:8 and Section 400:4 to allow construction of a 14’x16’ family room with 10’x14’ deck 11.7ft from sideline (variance of 3.3ft ) and 40’ from wetlands (60’ variance) as opposed to the required 100’ on property located at 5 Valcat Lane, Map 22, Lot 49, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

Paul Shea and Todd Wallace; Big Island Pond Association

Mr. Wallace explained that they are proposing a 14’ x 16’ foot addition with a deck. They are filling an L shaped area on the existing home. The house is non-confirming under current zoning. They did meet with the Conservation Commission and were before the Board to hear any recommendations they had to offer. Mr. Wallace gave the Board a rendition of what the house would look like and pictures of the current structure. There is not a complete basement under the existing home. The house is on piers.

Mr. Shea said there is a crawlspace under a portion of the house. Mr. Shea said that the house is currently a one-bedroom house and will remain a one bedroom. The addition is for the expansion of the family room. The living space will be expanded by approximately 240 +/- square feet. Mr. Polito wanted the record to show that they did have a state approved 2-bedroom septic system. Mr. Polito asked if the existing house was already encroaching 3 feet. Mr. Shea said that it was. Mr. Polito explained to the applicant that when they got into the criteria of hardship, one of the issues was going to be, was there another way to accomplish this goal without a variance. Mr. Polito asked about reducing the width of the room by 3 feet. Mr. Shea said the room width would go down to 9 feet wide. Mr. Shea said building off the back would be more cost prohibited because of the grade of the property and the excavation costs. Mr. Wallace said that this proposal does not make the building any more non-conforming. Mr. Polito was not concerned about the deck space because the Shoreline Protection Act was very liberal with respect to decks. The Board thought they had enough information to review the criteria.

Mr. Dziechowski said that the Conservation Commission would like gutters on the addition, connected to a drywell, to control the runoff water. He would also like to see plantings around the disturbed area. Mr. She did not have a problem with those requests. Big Island Pond members did not have a problem with the addition because it was not encroaching towards the lake.

Criterion:

1.) The Board reviewed pictures of the abutting house because it was right on the property line. The Board agreed because of the topography of the lots this was not an issue. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

2.) Mr. Polito questioned if the applicant was planning on putting in this septic system. Mr. Shea stated that he was planning on doing things in stages. Mr. Carter asked Mr. Shea if he planned on leaving the existing cesspool in place. Mr. Shea said he did not believe that the Town’s records were accurate as to what was there. He said that there was a septic tank with a small leach field in front. Mr. Shea said that when he purchased the property last year the Real Estate agent supplied him with an engineering plan that showed a septic tank with a small leach field. He knows the tank is not where the record indicates. Mr. Polito said this would be an issue for him. Usually in granting the variance, a new septic system, as opposed to the old one, is installed. If Mr. Shea could demonstrate that if there is a septic currently on the property and it is in reasonably good shape, then the board would consider that system new. According to the plan, there is a cesspool. Mr. Carter agreed and said that with the expansion of house brings an increase of the intensity of use and it is an equitable trade off that a septic system is part of the equation. Mr. Friel agreed and said there could be a condition as to the time frame. Mr. Shea said he did not plan on replacing the system for a year or two. The Board agreed that this was too long a period of time. Mr. Polito told the applicant that he could continue this and come to the Board next month showing that the system in place now is newer than what the record indicates. This would require a certified septic plan of what is in existence. The Board agreed that if this did require a new system to be in place, that this should occur before the expansion.

 

Minutes Transcribed from tape.

Respectfully submitted ________________________________

Rebecca Russo Approved