Page 2 , Public Hearing after "320’" add "square foot".

Page 3, first paragraph after "assign the" add "two 2’ x 17’10" cantilevered". Three quarters of the way down after "200" add "square feet".

Page 4, 5^th sentence, change "nee" to "need".

Motion to approve the minutes of March 9, 2005 as amended was made by Mr. Carter, seconded by Mr. Friel and approved. There were three abstentions.

2005 ZBA Handbook.

Home Business Application, Armand Langlois, 6 Knightland Road, Map 17, Loy 66. After reviewing the application the Mr. Carter made a motion that this was exempt based on the information provided by the applicant. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Home Business Application, Jane Brown, 67 Main Street, Map 9, Lot 9. After reviewing the application the Mr. Friel made a motion that this was exempt based on the information provided by the applicant . Mr. Carter seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. based on the information provided by the applicant

Home Business Renewal Application, Billie Gage, 5 Sunset Drive, Map 8, Lot 14. The Board reviewed the application. Mrs. McGrath made a motion to approve the renewal based on the information provided by the applicant , Mr. Carter seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Home Business Renewal Application, Robert Williams, 45 Sawyer Avenue, Map 3, Lot 68. Mr. Carter made a motion to approve the renewal based on the information provided by the applicant , Mrs. McGrath seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved

Home Business Renewal Application, Paul White, 13 Juniper Lane, Map 3, Lot 41. The Board reviewed the application. Mrs. McGrath made a motion to approve the renewal based on the information provided by the applicant , Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Planning Board minutes dated 3/16/05.

ZBA Budget printout dated 3/31/05.

Memo from Town Administrator dated 4/5/05 re: Appointment Recommendations.

Memo from Joseph Chamberlain, Health Officer dated 4/12/05 re: Stickney Access. Living Unit review.

Outgoing

Attorney Thomas Morgan, dated 3/11/05 re: Saviano rehearing denial.

Rita Falwell, dated 3/11/05 re: Home Business Application approval.

Attorney Bernard Campbell dated 3/11/05 re: Mary Ann Casey rehearing denial.

Robert Williams dated 3/11/05 re: notice for Home Business renewal.

Billie Gage dated 3/11/05 re: notice for Home Business renewal.

Robert Levine dated 3/11/05 re: Home Business renewal.

Paul White dated 3/11/05 re: Home Business renewal.

Michael Jackson dated 3/11/05 re: Home Business renewal.

Zoning Board Legal Notice for meeting dated 4/13/05.

Zoning Board Legal Notice for meeting dated 4/13/05.

Mr. and Mrs. Stickney had asked for a continuance prior to the hearing.

Abutter list was read with the following present: Scott Livermore; Mr. Redmond.

The Board reviewed the revised plan showing all of the exiting structures as well as the proposed additions. The Board agreed that a Variance was needed for the existing deck, gas chimney, proposed steps, cantilevered portion on the left side of the dwelling and the distance to the street from the garage.

Mr. Polito said the only issue he had remaining was with the proposed interior steps. There was a discussion at the last hearing about seeing if they could be reconfigured to eliminate the cantilevered portion of the proposal. Mr. Redmond read a letter from the architect who stated that the steps could not feasibly be reconfigured and still meet the building codes as well as providing access to the lower level. Mr. Friel had an issue with the size of the dwelling. Mr. Carter reiterated his opinion that this was a true two-bedroom proposal that did not have an obvious potential for additional bedrooms. Mrs. McGrath and Mr. Lewis agreed. Mr. Redmond read another letter from the Martineaus reconfirming their approval of the proposal.

The Board reviewed the criteria;

Based on the application and the discussions, the Board agreed this criterion was met.

Based on the application and the discussions, the Board agreed this criterion was met. There is no adverse affect on the surrounding area.

1.) This is an area variance. The proposal is in keeping the structure as near as possible to the original footprint. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

2.) This property is unique because of the narrowness of the lot. The applicant provided a letter from an Architect stating that there was not another feasible way for the stairs to be constructed. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The denial does not gain any justice. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

This proposal is not closer to the waterfront. The sideline variance does not span the entire house, but only a portion. The garage is only 6’ feet from the street but is consistent with others in the neighborhood. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Rock Ridge Development, LLC request for Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a commercial building 62’ (38’ variance) and Waste Disposal System within 66’ (34’ variance) opposed to the required 100 feet on property located on Route 111, Map 20, Lot 35-1, CI and RR3 Zones.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Rock Ridge Development, LLC; Paul Busby, Virginia Busby, SFC Engineering; Vincent Delsignore

George Fredette explained this was a proposal to add a 6000 square foot commercial building. They did make an appearance before the Planning Board last week and was sent to the ZBA. Mr. Polito asked if Mr. Busby believed he would meet all of planning regulations. Mr. Busby said he did. The Planning Board did not take this under advisement or do a full site review. The Planning Board wanted the applicant to come before the ZBA first. Mr. Polito asked about a chambered system under the driveway. Mr. Busby explained that they did many test pits and as they got further out it became increasingly rocky. The topography would not allow it and if they came further out they would encroach on the other wetland. Mr. Lewis said that they would have a steady stream of heavy equipment coming in and out of the area because of the type of business it was and this would not be good for a septic system. Mr. Busby agreed that this is why it was closer to the wetland on that side. Mr. Lewis asked about the value of the wetland. George said they were both isolated pockets and were not contiguous to any bodies of water. Mr. Polito asked if the applicant had anything from a soil scientist or the Conservation Commission? Tim Dziechowski, Vice Chairman of Conservation Commission was present and stated that he was very interested because there is a very valuable wetland to the east of this property. He originally thought the wetland would be impacted but after seeing this plan, he realizes it is not. He stated the Conservation Commission would probably be concerned with runoff from equipment and traffic. Mrs. McGrath asked if the leach field were a concern. It was not. Mr. Dziechowski did not believe they were valuable wetlands. Mrs. McGrath asked how far the buildings were from the valuable wetland to the east of the property. Mr. Busby believed it was at least 400 or 500 feet. There are a series of hills in between.

Mr. Polito said that a variance would also be required to the other wetland. There would be two variances required for the building and one for the septic system. Mr. Polito said it would have been good to have something from Conservation in writing. The Board agreed that they would not feel comfortable proceeding without the input of a soil scientist as to the value of the wetland. Mrs. McGrath felt this was an important part of any application requesting a variance to a wetland. Mr. Polito said that the Planning Board would look at run off as part of the site plan review. Mr. Carter thought the Board needed something from a soil scientist to speak to the value of the wetlands. He also thought it would be good to have something in writing from the Conservation Commission for the record. Mr. Lewis said the runoff issue should be dealt with by the Planning Board as part of the site review. Mr. Polito said that it would be good to have an engineering note saying there were test pits done and that they were inadequate. This would address the hardship issue. Mr. Polito said that this property already had a variance granted in 2001. There was a variance granted for an apartment for security for a self- storage facility. He believed this should be disposed of as part of this application. The applicant stated that this plan was dead. George explained that the residential buffer would remain the same. There is a cell tower that was approved by the Planning Board and constructed, so this should not be an issue. There didn’t seem to be any other outstanding issues that the Board could see regarding this plan.

Mr. Carter made a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled hearing so that the applicant could provide additional information including input from a soil scientist to attest to the value of the wetlands. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

George Murray, Jr. continued review of application Variance to permit construction of a breezeway and 2 car garage 23’ from sideline (7’ variance) as opposed to the required 30’ on property located at 6 Murray Drive, Map 15, Lot 32, TR2 Zone.

The applicants did not appear at the hearing.

Minutes transcribed from tape

Respectfully submitted ____________________________________

Rebecca Russo Approved