First Page, second last paragraph, after "Mrs. McGrath", change "claimed" to "said".

Page 2, first paragraph, add to the motion, after "considered", "no errors in law and the record did not require clarification".

Page 2, fifth paragraph, first sentence, after "addition" add "to the", after "storage" add "The addition will now support site storage". After "They are proposing" add "an addition to".

Attorney Thomas Morgan dated 2/10/05 re: Request for Rehearing M. Saviano, Boulder Cove Road.,

Selectmen dated 2/10/05 re: Errors on Town Warrant.

Attorney Bernard Campbell dated 2/11/05 re: Request for rehearing for Casey, 37 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 34.

Attorney Sumner Kalman dated 2/14/05 re: Zannini, Jr. v. Town of Atkinson.

Home Business Application for Rita Falwell, 9 Crystal Hill Road, Map 19, Lot 58 for Foster Dog Care. The Board reviewed the application. Mr. Friel made a motion that the business was exempt based on the application. There is no sign and no outward appearance of a business. Mr. Carter seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Planning Board minutes dated 2/16/05.

Attorney Sumner Kalman dated 2/22/05 re: Zannini v. Town of Atkinson.

Planning Board Legal Notice for public hearing meeting of 3/16/05.

Zoning Board Budget printout dated 2/28/05.

Hampstead Academy dated 3/7/05 Re; closing of Hampstead Academy, 51 Maple Avenue, Map 9, Lot 38.

Planning Board Legal Notice for public hearing meeting of 3/16/05.

Outgoing

Mark Acciard, 6 Christine Drive dated 2/11/05 re: approval of Exempt Home Business.

Barry VanRy dated 2/11/05 re: Denial of rehearing request.

Brian & Cheryl Castle dated 2/14/05 re: Approval of Wetland Variance on 13 Industrial Way, Map 16, Lot 48.

4. Legal Notice for Public Hearing meeting of 3/9/05.

Attorney Morgan for Michael Saviano, 33 Boulder Cove Road re: Denial of Appeal to Building Inspector’s decision to deny renewal of Building Permits.

The Board reviewed the request. Mr. Polito again wanted the record to be clear that he had no pecuniary interest in this matter and did not feel there was any reason to recuse himself. The Board agreed.

Attorney Bernard Campbell for Mary Ann Casey, 37 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 32 re: Denial of permit to replace existing seasonal dwelling with a year round dwelling.

The Board reviewed the request.

Mr. Polito informed the applicants there were only three members of the Board present tonight and under statute the vote would have to be unanimous. He gave the applicants the opportunity to proceed tonight or continue their hearings until the next meeting. Both of the applicants wanted to proceed.

Mr. Redmond explained that there had been quite a bit of confusion since he bought the property. The deed originally described the lot line as along the shore. There was an agreement between the neighbors to allow the previous owner to come across their property to allow him to do work on the property. When the project was complete there was a peninsula that made up approximately 41 feet. Mr. Redmond bought the property believing he had 41’ along the shoreline. This was also marketed this way. There was a dock, which he believed was on his property, but Mr. Smithel made him aware that it was not his property. He eventually had the property surveyed and discovered that the lot line was in fact incorrect and the dock was not on his property. It has since been removed. Mr. Polito asked about the "unpermitted" deck? Mr. Redmond explained that he made a permit application in 1999 requesting a deck to be put on the property. He was given a building permit that included the deck. He started doing some work, which became a long drawn out project. The next summer he renewed the application, which was going to expire, but he forgot to include the deck in the new application. He put a foundation under the house and under the deck, which had been added. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued, but Mr. Jones does not know if the deck was inspected. Mr. Redmond maintains that the deck was already added prior to the CO being issued. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Redmond if he had gotten approval from the State for the deck. Mr. Redmond told the Board the State requested he come before this Board before he deals with them. The Board looked at pictures that Mr. Redmond brought. They depicted all views from the property and abutting properties. The Board reviewed the site plan. The shed replaced two sheds that were already there. Everything on the right hand side of the home, which is on the Smithels’ side, meets the setbacks. All of the required relief is on the left side of the house, which abuts the Martineaus.

There was some confusion, because the cantilevered overhang portions were not depicted as existing or proposed. The small jog is for a proposed fireplace. The existing fireplace is in the same area as the proposed location. Mr. Redmond believed the right hand cantilevered portion is 15.5 feet from the sideline. The Board reviewed the septic plans, which were approved by the State. Mr. Redmond replaced the system in 2000.

Mr. Redmond is proposing to completely demolish the existing house and rebuild on the footprint, adding the two 2’ x 17’ 10" cantilevered portions on each side and adding the garage and mudroom with a bedroom above. Mr. Polito reviewed the present tax card and determined the existing house is approximately 1,000 square feet. The proposed dwelling will be approximately 2,275 square feet. Mr. Polito said this was more than double the original size. There are no foundation changes to the existing house. Mr. Polito asked if the existing ridgeline would change. Mr. Redmond indicated that it would. The Board determined the dwelling would be approximately 29 feet in height. Mr. Polito was a little concerned about the increase in living space for a two-bedroom dwelling, given that it requires variances. Mr. Carter thought that this plan, which included an office, was of the size that would make it not possible to utilize as a bedroom. It isn’t as questionable as some other plans that have been before the Board. Mr. Polito thought the first floor was reasonable. Mr. Redmond explained that the reason for the overhangs was to accommodate the new stairs. The house is only 20’ wide. Mr. Polito questioned whether a straight run could be utilized for the stairs, knowing that the mudroom might have to be sacrificed. Mr. Friel agreed that because this is a tear down, the Board would generally look to have the house rebuilt in the existing footprint without expansion. Mr. Polito said this could be an issue under hardship, unless the stairs could be reconfigured somewhere else. He understands that this may be the plan that Mr. Redmond is looking for, but unless there is some evidence on why the stairs cannot be configured in another manner, this might be an issue. Mr. Carter asked what would the mitigation of the plan be by shrinking it 200 sq.feet? He believed this was a true two-bedroom plan and did not have an issue with the way it is configured. Mr. Polito did not believe there would be much of an issue with the setback to the street, because this was a proposed garage that would house cars that are already parked there. Mr. Redmond stated that the Martineaus are in full support of the proposal and they are the ones being impacted. Mr. Polito said it helped that they are in support, but the Board also needs to protect future owners of the properties. Mr. Polito stated that the applicant was very well prepared.

Mr. Polito read a letter from the Smithels who were concerned with the cantilevered portions of the home and the septic system. They are concerned about the height of the proposed dwelling. They were against the proposal. Mr. Polito read a letter from the Martineaus who were directly impacted by and in favor of the proposal. Mr. Polito read a letter from the Bedells, who live across the street, and are also in favor of the plan. Big Island Pond Corp. had no issue with the proposal because it did not impact the water.

Mr. Polito wants to see the dimensions more clearly marked on the plans. Mr. Carter agreed that all setbacks should be depicted. Everything should be marked either existing or proposed. Anything that is to be added should have a setback designated. All jogs, stairways, overhangs, etc. should be clearly marked. Mr. Polito asked if the Board had any additional issue. Mr. Friel said the only other issue might be the size of the dwelling. The applicant should come back before the Board and tell them why the stairs cannot be reasonably configured differently even if it means losing the mudroom. Mr. Polito needs to be convinced there isn’t another way to achieve a nice home without the bump outs. The site plan needs to be updated, signed and have an issue number. Mr. Polito suggested having a plan that met the sideline setbacks, without the bump outs or a really good reason and detail on why this plan should be approved. Mr. Redmond asked if the size were still an issue. Mr. Carter said the Board is not making that decision right now. Mr. Polito said that certainly if it were smaller, it would make it easier for the Board to look at the big picture. Mr. Carter again reiterated that this is very unlike almost anything that has come before the Board. This proposal is not within the 100’ setback from the water is not encroaching in that direction. This is a sideline setback and not a wetland issue. The Board agreed that they did not see a problem with the setback to the street. The depth of the garage is not unreasonable.

Mr. Murray explained that he wanted to construct a garage and breezeway. The application is being amended to request a 4’ variance because there was confusion with the distance of the house to the sideline. The Builder went by the dimensions from the mortgage survey plot plan. After it was surveyed, it was discovered that the house was actually 60’ from the sideline, and not 50 feet. The Board agreed they would need a more accurate plan and placement for the proposal. Mr. Polito told Mr. Murray that he would have to demonstrate hardship, and why that 4-foot variance was needed. Mr. Friel questioned why a 10’ breezeway is needed. The Board looked at pictures of the existing dwelling provided by Mr. Murray. Mr. Polito thought with the setup of the existing house it was only feasible to put the garage in the location Mr. Murray is suggesting, but again the issue will be the breezeway. Mr. Polito asked that Mr. Murray find out exactly how close he is to the lot line, and roughly the distance to the neighbors house from the lot line. Mr. Polito asked what was above the garage. Mr. Murray said it was just going to be a room with access from the garage. Mr. Polito said if Mr. Murray came down to a two-foot variance, it would be a lot less of an issue for him. Mr. Carter said it would be helpful to see the interior floor plan of the existing house and how the garage and breezeway is proposed to be attached. The Board needs an accurate description of what Mr. Murray is looking for and a demonstration to meet the hardship criteria.

Minutes transcribed from tape.

Respectfully submitted ______________________________----

Rebecca Russo Approved