Outgoing

Billie Gage dated 4/14/05 re: Home Business renewal approval, 5 Sunset Drive.

Robert Williams dated 4/14/05 re: Home Business Renewal approval, 45 Sawyer Avenue

Armond Langlois III dated 4/14/05 re: Home Business approval, 6 Knightland Road.

Paul White dated 4/14/05 re: Home Business Renewal approval, 13 Juniper Lane.

Jane Brown dated 4/14/05 re: Home Business approval, 67 Main Street.

George Murray, Jr. dated 4/18/05 re: Denial of Sideline Variance, 6 Murray Drive.

Paul Redmond dated 4/18/05 re: Frontage Variance approval, 18 Water’s Edge.

ZBA Legal Notice for meeting of 5/11/05.

Insert "Mr. Dziechowski" wherever it refers to the Conservation Commission.

Motion to approve the minutes was made by Mr. Friel, seconded by Mr. Carter and unanimously approved.

Abutters list was read with the following present: C. Warren Stickney Irrevocable Trust; C. Warren Stickney Revocable Trust

Mr. Stickney explained that he wanted to construct an accessory unit to the house owned by C. Warren Stickney Irrevocable Trust; his daughter was a Trustee and beneficiary and resided at the home. He and his wife plan to live in the accessory dwelling. He submitted a plan to the Board depicting the floor plan.

The Board reviewed the criteria:

A.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

B.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

C.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented. The deed will need to be amended and recorded.

D.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

E.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

F.) The Board discussed the egress. They confirmed with the Building Inspector that there does not need to be a door leading directly to the outside of the home. The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented

G.) There is an entrance directly to the inside of the existing home. The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

H.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

I.) This will be a condition of the Special Exception.

J.) Conditioned upon the Health Officer determining that either the current septic system is ok for the increased proposal or having a contingent replacement plan in case of failure.

K.) The Parents, C. Warren and Olive Stickney are to live in the accessory dwelling. The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

L.) The Board agreed the criterion was met as presented.

Mrs. McGrath made a motion to grant the Special Exception on the above-referenced for Plans submitted, dated May 11, 2005, contingent upon compliance with Section 460:1 ( C ) deed addendum required, ( J ) Town and State requirements for septic ( K) restrictions of occupancy to extended family and conditioned upon the construction commencing within one year of the approval.

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; Mr. Paul Busby; Mr. David Jordan, from SFC Engineering Partnership; Rebecca DelSignore

Mr. Polito said the application needed to be amended to include a Variance of 86’ +/- from the northeast corner of the proposed building to the Central wetland and a 62’ +/- Variance from the proposed building to the Easterly wetland and a 66’+/- Variance from the proposed leach field to the Wetland.

Mr. Jordan said the proposal was to construct a commercial building and presented the Board a copy of the site plan for their review. Mr. Jordan read a letter from NE Soil Scientists which addressed the value of the wetlands. He also read a letter from the Conservation Commission that also addressed the value of a major wetland on another lot and while recommending variance approval, requested actions addressing additional protection of the offsite wetland. Mr. Carter asked if they were going to address the recommendations of the Conservation Commission to mitigate the runoff. Mr. Jordan said they will be addressing that with the Planning Board during the site plan review process. They just received the letter from the Conservation Commission tonight. They intend to provide plantings along the swale to provide runoff control. Mr. Polito said they could make the approval contingent upon this. Mrs. McGrath stated that contingencies regarding the conservation commission recommendations were beyond the scope of this hearing and Mr. Carter agreed saying that a contingency would be too strong. Mrs. McGrath said this issue rests at the site plan review with the Planning Board.

There were no abutter comments.

The Board reviewed the criteria:

The Board agreed this was met as discussed.

The Board agreed this was met as discussed.

1.) This is an area Variance. The Board agreed this was met as discussed

2.) The heavy equipment will be kept further from the wetlands. Based on the discussions at the previous hearing this location was the optimal site.

The Board agreed this was met as discussed

Based on the letter from the Soil Scientist and Conservation Commission and based on the intent to mitigate concerns of the Conservation Commission during the Site Plan Review, the Board agreed this was met as discussed

Mr. Carter made a motion to approve a (38’+/-) Variance to allow the building to be located 62’ +/- to the Easterly Wetland, and (14’ +/-) Variance to allow building to be located 86’ +/- to the centrally located wetland and a (34’ +/-) Variance to allow the septic leach field 66’ +/- to the Wetland as opposed to the required 100’, contingent upon the previous Variance that was granted on June 13, 2001 to allow living area on this commercial industrial lot to be null and void. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Public Hearings: - 9:00 P.M.

Abutters list was read with the following present: Thomas Hodgson; Lavelle Associates

Mr. Carter asked Mr. Lavelle about the approved subdivision plan not being recorded. He explained that the Board’s concern was that regardless of the outcome of this proceeding, the Board wanted assurances that the plan would be recorded. Mr. Lavelle said that they had conditional approval from the Planning Board, but some of the conditions of that approval have not been completed as of yet. They have every intention of recording the Subdivision Plan. The lot has been subdivided, and a dwelling can be put on this property meeting all of the setbacks. The Board wanted to be sure the plan before the Board is the one that would be recorded. Ms. Killam said that the only way the plan could change would be for the applicant to go back before the Planning Board and reapply. Mr. Lavelle reiterated the Subdivision Plan would be recorded.

Timothy Lavelle explained that the lot started out as two lots, was then combined into one lot and then re-subdivided again into two lots. The Board reviewed the plans. Mr. Lavelle stated that the wetlands were of low quality. The proposed dwelling meets all of the setbacks, except to the wetland. Mr. Lavelle contends the wetland is an isolated wetland and not part of any wetland complex. Mr. Friel asked if the applicant had been before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Dziechowski of the Conservation Commission stated that he walked the site. He did agree it was a level 5, sheeted wetland. He believed it did drain to the east. He contended that it would be possible to build a substantial home on this lot, within the building envelope and not need any variances. His plan does not attempt to do that. In terms of hardship, he believed the Conservation Commission would want to see an alternative siteing. He does not know if they would recommend this.

Mr. Polito, speaking as an abutter, believed there were many wetlands behind Coventry and his concerns would be the year-round and seasonal streams that provide drainage on a very large scale. He does not know if the wetland on this property is an isolated wetland, or part of the larger wetland or watershed. Mr. Carter asked where the building envelope was and asked why he could not build a house in that envelope. Mr. Carter said this is not supposed to be a self-created hardship. Mr. Lavelle said the applicant could build within the building envelope, but wanted to put a house on the lot in a manner that was most esthetic to the lot. This results in the need for a variance to the wetland. Mr. Friel asked to whom it would be more pleasing. Mr. Lavelle said to the neighbors. It is not anything more than the neighbors enjoy themselves. Most of the homes were constructed prior to 100’ wetland setback being in place. Mr. Lavelle did not think he could answer why the proposed dwelling is not in the building envelope without looking at the other factors, specifically the wetlands and the watershed that runs down Orchard Drive. He believes the wetland on this property drains away from this larger wetland. He believes the two wetlands are not connected and there are upland soils in between them. They are asking for the same that the neighbors already have. There were no wetland setbacks at the time of the previous construction. Mr. Friel said that he still did not follow this request as the applicant can build within the building envelope. Mr. Carter agreed and said he did not know where the hardship would be. Mr. Lavelle believed this property was unique in its setting because it is in the middle of a subdivision that was constructed without the limit of the wetlands setbacks. They would still be keeping a 50’ wetland setback, which has become more of the norm. He wants the front of the house to face the road and be of the size as other neighboring homes. If they adhere to the 100’ setback they will have to turn the home, and maybe have the garage in the front of the home. These two lots are in a different configuration than the original subdivision of these lots.

Ms. Killam, Conservation Commission member, did not agree that a house could not be placed in a reasonable manner and presented a copy of a large home being built in Chester. She believes the same type of home could be built within the building envelope on this property. She believed this countered what they say they need to make the house fit on the lot without a variance.

Mr. Carter expressed he would have a hard time with the hardship criteria. Mrs. McGrath said that before the hardship criteria issue could be adequately addressed, she needed more information on the value of the wetlands. She said that the lot has an unusual configuration, being narrow in the front for quite a distance from the road and then much wider, but encumbered with the wetland. She said the applicant may be able to make a hardship argument because of the lot shape and other reasons, but it would be critical to know more information on the wetland value before an informed judgment could be given. Mrs. McGrath said that with all applications of this type, the Board regularly requests a soil scientist evaluation of the wetlands as well as a review by and letter from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Carter agreed but still thought he would have a difficult time with the hardship criteria. Mrs. McGrath stated that she would like the applicant to be afforded the opportunity to present his case and be given a full review with the proper consideration of all factors before deciding whether the hardship criteria is met. Mr. Lavelle said that he would like to continue the hearing in order to determine with his client how best to proceed.

Mrs. McGrath made a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled hearing. Mr. Carter seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Charles & Robin Hernandez request for Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 and Article V, Section 400:4 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a 26’x28’ addition 37.4 ft (62.6 ft. variance) from wetland as opposed to the required 100’ and 20.9 ft (9.1 ft variance) from front setback as opposed to the required 30’ on property located at 4 Bluebird Lane, Map 7, Lot 16, TR2 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present: Charles and Robin Hernandez

Mr. Hernandez explained that they were trying to create more space within the house. The proposed dwelling only encroaches into the setback a few feet more than the existing dwelling. Mr. Hernandez said the area is mostly dry throughout the year. They will be removing a handicapped ramp at the front of the home and installing a farmer’s porch so that Mrs. Hernandez’s mother, who uses a wheelchair, will have some cover from the elements. The proposed porch will protrude two feet less than the existing ramp. The Board reviewed the proposed plans and drawings submitted by the Hernandez, NH Wetland Scientist (Meridian Land Services) letter dated 4/29 and Mr. Dziechowski,. Chairman of the Conservation Commission input,. (referenced in #5 below but not in body of hearing minutes)

Mrs. Hernandez read her application and the letter from the Meridian Land Services, Inc.. The Board reviewed the criteria:

The Board agreed this was met as discussed.

The Board agreed this was met as discussed.

1.)This is an area Variance. The Board agreed this was met as discussed

2.) There is no alternative for the addition because the entire lot does not conform to today’s

Wetlands zoning.

The Board agreed this was met as discussed

Based on the letter from the Soil Scientist and the input from Mr. Dziechowski of the Conservation Commission, the Board agreed this was met as discussed

Abutters list was read with the following present: James Lavelle Associates; Keith Wolters

Mr. Lavelle presented the Board with plans for the proposal. Mr. Lavelle contends the wetland is a poorly drained soil and an isolated wetland. It is serviced by a septic system that meets all of the other criteria. He will ask for a continuance because he will need to get a Soil Scientist to evaluate the wetlands and get some input for the Conservation Commission. He just wanted to familiarize the Board with the plans. The plan has not yet been submitted to the Planning Board. The Board looked at the parking facilities to determine how far from the wetlands they were located. Mr. Lavelle said there are retention ponds to treat runoff. Mr. Polito wanted a comment from the soil scientist regarding snow storage into the buffer.

Mr. Wolters raised concerns about his well. His property already has a large amount of wetlands in the back portion and it is wet all the time. He is concerned this will bring more water onto his property. He said there has been significant clearing of the land and is concerned about having screening between the properties. Mr. Wolters lives in Salem, and is in a residential zone. Mr. Polito said there are requirements for buffers between the zones. Mr. Lavelle did agree that there was clearing already done on the property.

Mr. Carter made a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled hearing. Mrs. McGrath seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Minutes transcribed from tape

Respectfully submitted _____________________________

Rebecca Russo Approved