Approval of Minutes – March 10, 2004

Page 2, first paragraph, second sentence after "right" add "northeast".

Page 2, first paragraph, third sentence after "a" add "second story".

Page 2, first paragraph, criterion sect6ion, number 4 & 5, delete "previous"

Motion to accept the minutes as amended was made by Mrs. McGrath, seconded by Mr. Friel and approved. There were three abstentions.

Incoming

Abutters list was read with the following present: Attorney Linda Connell, representing Verizon/NE Telephone Co.; David Main, Doug Brouder & Dave Giffen for Verizon/NE Telephone Co.

Attorney Connell explained that the Atkinson Office was a "Central Office" used for "switching" equipment and that it was not an office where "employees" worked. Attorney Connell presented a brochure to the Board explaining what a Central Office was. It is basically a building that is full of computerized equipment. Verizon’s capital improvement plan is the upgrading of the central offices before it reaches the point of phone services becoming unreliable. This current facility is full.

Mrs. McGrath stated that she previously worked at the same law firm as Attorney Connell but that she was no longer associated with the firm and had no direct contact with the firm regarding this matter and did not believe there was any conflict. There were no objections to her participation in the hearing. Mr. Polito wanted to let the applicant know that he worked for Lucent Technologies, which did supply Verizon, but since he had no direct part in this particular product he did not feel that it provided a conflict. There were no objections to his participation in the hearing.

Attorney Connell explained that this was a 30,000 square foot lot. There is 150’ of frontage, about 31’ from the front setback and 30’ from the sideline. It would not meet current zoning. Attorney Connell provided a deed from 1961, and a subdivision plan for the lot referenced in the deed. There is no building referenced in the 1961 deed or on the plan. The first building permit in 1973 indicated a rear expansion of about 600’ to the existing building. There is a current State approved septic plan, which does not require any changes because there are no employees. The Zoning Ordinances in effect as of 1968 and 1973 permitted this use in a Commercial District "Commercial D". The definition in the zoning referred to the telephone company as a boundary.

Mr. Polito believed there was sufficient evidence presented to establish that this building and its use is a pre-existing non-conforming use and met the zoning requirements at the time. There is a paper trail in the tax cards, deeds and building permits..

The Board reviewed the criterion under Section 700:1 (a); The Board was also given a plan of what the building was proposed to look like.

Abutter’s list was read with the following present; David Holligan; Big Island Pond Corp.

The Board had granted the applicant a variance to the wetland setback in October 2003 for the construction of the workshop. Somehow in the process the Board did not notice or act upon a needed variance to the front setback and no variance was requested. There was no misrepresentation on the documents submitted by the applicant. A building permit was also erroneously issued and the work begun. Mr. Jones explained that he went to property to inspect the footings and something did not seem right so he headed back to the office and checked the application and realized there was not a variance approval for the setback. He called Mr. Holligan and asked him to stop work. Mr. Holligan agreed that Mr. Jones called and he was told that he was asked to stop, but by the time Mr. Jones had called the forms were complete and a concrete truck was on its way to pour the foundation. Mr. Holligan made a decision to go ahead with the pour because of economical and financial reasons and he had a building permit. The forms could not stay up for the length of time it would have required to get a new approval from the Board. The concrete was $1200.00 dollars and he had spent a lot more to get to that point.

Mr. Polito suggested that the principal concern would be safety and road maintenance. There are no doors facing the street. Mr. Polito asked if it would be acceptable to have nothing other than a few shrubs facing the street.

The Board reviewed equitable waiver and determined this would not meet the criteria.

The Board reviewed the criterion:

5.) The Board agreed this would not diminish surrounding properties. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

6.) There is no adverse affect on the public. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

7.) A.) This is a reasonable size lot for what is proposed. It is as far away from the lake as possible. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

B.) Restrictions of 30’ are applied to areas that are larger. This is a unique area that is an

Island. This is not a town road. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

Other lots are smaller. This lot is one of the largest in this area. There was a

consensus of the Board that this was met.

8.) The loss to the individual would be great and the use is not detrimental to the Town. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

9.) The use is consistent with others in the area. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

Mr. Polito read a letter from an abutter that had no objections.

Daniel Osborn request for a Wetland Variance to Article IV, Section 410:8 to allow an unpermitted addition to remain 23’.1"+ to wetland (variance of 76’.9") as opposed to the 100’ required on property located at Rock Island, Map 22, Lot 39, RR3 Zone.

The abutter’s list was read with the following present: Mrs. Osborn; Big Island Pond Corp.

The Osborn’s had requested a continuance, while waiting for state approval from the Wetlands Bureau.

Mr. Carter made a motion to approve the continuance to the next regularly scheduled hearing. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Abutter’s list was read with the following present; Fred and Melissa Porcella

The Porcella’s explained that they are expanding two of the existing bedrooms and adding a master bedroom with a master bath and a two-car garage. The current home is extremely small and they need more space. The houses behind them are considerably larger. The pond is manmade and when the new subdivision was created it became a wetland. There would be no wetland if the pond were not created artificially. They did not go to the Conservation Commission. There is no marshy area and grass goes completely up to the pond. The Board reviewed drawings and elevations of the proposed addition.

The Board reviewed the criterion.

1. The addition to be added is in keeping with the neighborhood. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

2. There is no harm to the public and there are no safety issues. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

3. A.) There is uniqueness to the property and the pond is manmade. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

B.) This is a manmade pond on a 1.9-acre lot with a fairly small house. This is a reasonable use of the property. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

C.) Neighbor’s lawn as well as the applicant’s goes directly to the manmade pond. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

4. This is a relatively small variance. There is no loss to the Town. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

5. The distance more than protects the pond and it is manmade. There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

 

Minutes transcribed from tape Respectfully Submitted