Kevin Camm, KLC Land Planning for William Grimes continued review of application for two Variance from Article VII, Section 410:8 to permit construction of a dwelling 38’ (62’ variance) and septic 76’ (24’ variance) from wetlands and Variance to Article V, Section 510a to allow construction of a dwelling & septic on a 1.7Acre lot. Property located at 2 Lisheen Drive, Map 15, Lot 5, TR2 Zone.

Mr. Carter explained to the applicant that since there were only three members of the Board present, although it did constitute a quorum, the applicant could request a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting since it would require a unanimous vote of the three-person board to approve an action. Mr. Camm stated that he wished to continue to the next meeting.

John & Maureen Ferreira-Ludwig request for Special Exception as specified in Zoning Ordinance Article VII, Section 700:1 to expand a non-conforming property by adding knee walls to an existing structure, a 29’x31’3" 2^nd story addition to property located at 12B Stickney Road, Map 23, lot 48, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present: John and Mary Ferreira; Big Island Pond Corp by David Holly

The applicant wished to proceed with three Board members.

The Board agreed that this was an unpermitted primary residence. Mr. Carter said the application was for an expansion of a non-conforming use. Mrs. Ferreira said they have lived here for 27 years. Mr. Ferreira explained that he needed to repair the roof. Mr. Ferreira showed the Board a picture of the current dwelling, which had a shallow pitched roof and a drawing showing what he wanted to do. Since he was repairing the roof, he wanted to put a three-foot knee wall and then increase the pitch of the roof and change the direction and increase the height of the ridge line so they could use the additional space for storage. Mr. Ferreira could not understand why he had to come before the Board just to change the roof.

Mr. Riehl asked how they would access the attic and Mr. Ferreira said through a set of pull down stairs. Mr. Jones confirmed that he had been working with Mr. Ferreira over the past several weeks and the attic would only be used for additional storage space. Mr. Ferreira said that only he and his wife lived there.

Mr. Holly said the house was pretty far back from the lake and there was a pretty good buffer. They had no concerns with the proposal. Mr. Carter asked about the spiral staircase shown on the interior plan. Mr. Ferreira said the stairs go to the basement and was already there. Mr. Carter explained the how the Special Exception process works. The Board has no discretion. If all of the criteria are met, the Special Exception must be granted. However, if all criteria are not met, the Special Exception cannot be granted.

The Board reviewed the criteria

Michael & Jessica Morris request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a 550 sq.ft. deck 53’ - 63’ from wetland as opposed to the required 100’ on property located at 12 Hemlock Shore Drive, Map 22, Lot 71, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present: Jessica Morris; Big Island Pond Association

Mrs. Morris presented the Board with a picture of the house, a letter from the Hemlock Heights improvement association indicating they were not opposed to the deck. Mrs. Morris said they wanted to construct the deck mostly for safety reasons. There are three sets of sliders off the second floor. She has two small children and is very concerned that they or anyone else could fall out of the sliders, down to the ground. Mr. Polito said he asked Shirley to check for a State approved septic plan and could not locate one. Mrs. Morris asked if this needed to be done even thought they are just adding a deck. Mr. Polito said it is an expansion or alteration and needed to comply with WS300. Mrs. Morris said they bought the house less than a year ago and have had the system pumped and inspected. They believe it is in good working order.

Mr. Carter asked about the dimensions shown on the submitted plan and who had made the measurements. Mr. Polito wanted the record to be clear that a licensed engineer did not do the measurements. Mrs. Morris said her husband did the measurements, along with her neighbor who is a contractor. The Board did say they were concerned that if they approved the variances and the measurements were off, that could affect the validity. Mr. Polito said if they got a mortgage when they purchased the property they should have a certified Plot Plan. Mrs. Morris said her husband might have used something to determine the measurements, other than just him measuring.

Mr. Polito asked the Board if they wanted to go through the criteria and make it conditioned upon compliance of WS300. The Board agreed.

The Board determined that two variances were necessary. The first is a variance for the 15’ sideline setback and is a variance request of 6’ +/-, the second is a variance request for 47’ +/- to the water: With the construction of the deck the applicant would now be 9’ from the sideline and under section Zoning 400:4 a 15’ setback is required. The Board can only grant a variance based on the information before them and the applicant is at risk if the measurements are incorrect.

The Board reviewed the criteria for 2 variances

The Board could not locate anything regarding the septic system. They reviewed the tax card and could not determine if this dwelling had year round status. Mrs. Morris said the septic was inspected and she was sure there was a leach field and that it was in working order. The Board said she would need to get a licensed subsurface engineer to certify this was a working septic system that met the codes at the time it was installed.

The Board wants crushed stone placed in the shadow of the deck to help with erosion. Decking should contain permeable spaces so as to not create sheeting of runoff. There will be no storage underneath and the deck shall remain open. The Shoreline Protection Act does allow for decks. Hemlock Heights Improvements Association has no issue with the deck and the abutters have all signed a document stating they are in agreement with the proposal.

Antonio Quadros request for Variance from Article V, Section 530 to allow construction of a 3200 sq.ft. building 53’ from CI Zone Line to a residential district where 150’ is required on a lot with a depth of 180’ where 200’ is required in the CI Zone on property located on Rt 111, Map 21, Lot 4-2, CI Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present: Antonio Quadros; Mr. Jordan for SFC Engineering Partnership

Mr. Polito said his understanding was that this was a recent subdivision of a previous lot. It created a buildable lot in the CI Zone. Mr. Polito wanted to see the buildable envelope.

Mr. Jordan explained that this was created by a subdivision last year. It is located on Route 111. They sought to subdivide off the westerly end of the property because there is about 2 ½ acres that is uplands but is separated by a wetland that runs north to south, separating it from the remaining 6 acre parcel. A couple of things that are unique to the property are the fact that this property is triangular and that it runs down to a point on 111 which coincides with the Atkinson and Hampstead town lines,

There are two requests before the Board, and one is for lot depth. This was not looked at closely. The Ordinance requires the lot to be 200 feet deep. The lot depth is measured by taking the average of the two side lot lines. One side of the lot line is over 300 feet. The other is essentially 0 and by taking the average, the calculated depth ends up being only about 180 feet. This is a function of the shape of the lot. If they lopped off the very far corner of the property, it would increase the calculated lot depth and meet the requirements. The other request for relief from the buffer requirement is because, while all of the land on Route 111 is in Atkinson ,on the west side of the road, and is zoned Commercial Industrial, the lot line is also the Hampstead Town Line. The other side of the stone wall (lot line) is in Hampstead and zoned residential. In this situation, the proposal is unique. If the Town line was further to the north, based on the way the Town has zoned, this would be Commercial.

Mr. Polito asked about the buildable envelope and was shown it on the plan by Mr. Jordan. Mr. Carter said he discussed the buffer issue with Sue Killam who said that the Planning Board dealt with the buffer as a regulation and not zoning. The Planning Board did not intend to create something that was not usable when they approved the subdivision. Mr. Polito thought the buffer was overlooked, but Mr. Carter said Ms. Killam said it is a regulation and would be dealt with during site plan review. Mr. Polito said there was an error in the buildable envelope because it does not meet the 150 foot buffer. Mr. Carter questioned whether this was applicable across Town lines. The buildable envelope approved by the Planning Board complies with all zoning except note #7 of Section 530 of the zoning, if it applies.

Mr. Polito said the starting point would be that the Planning Board created this 2-½ acre parcel and designates the buildable envelope.

The Board agreed the buildable envelope would likely qualify for the variance with regard to lot depth. Mr. Carter said this Board came up with the calculations for determining lot depth. He agreed with Mr. Jordan’s assessment of the lot. Mr. Carter agreed that the lot could become compliant with less land by cutting the corner of the lot off. Mr. Zannini said the Planning Board created this lot. Mr. Carter said there is no precedent that he is aware of that deals with zoning across Town lines.

Mr. Polito asked the Board and the consensus was that the buildable envelope that is on the approved subdivision plan would likely qualify for a variance for lot depth, because of the mathematical peculiarity of the way the zoning was written and how it would apply to a triangular lot.

Mr. Polito asked the applicant if they were proposing something that did not fit into the buildable envelope. The applicant said they were not. Mr. Polito outlined the buildable envelope in orange highlighter.

Mr. Polito suggested the applicant look at the minutes of the Planning Board and come up with some arguments around whether the Planning Board made an error in not taking into the consideration the buffer, when it approved the building envelope. Mr. Carter did not think it was incumbent upon the applicant to research case law, but rather the Board should seek legal advice, so they could be better informed. Mr. Carter said some weight must be given to the fact that the Town of Atkinson approved this subdivision plan. Mr. Polito said a 70 x 70 building could be constructed there.

Minutes transcribed from tape. Respectfully submitted

Rebecca Russo

The following amendments to June 11, 2008 minutes were made:

Page 2, last paragraph #4, word ‘and’ should be ‘an.

Page 4, third paragraph, second sentence, word ‘of’ should be ‘or’.

Motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded and approved.

APPROVED_ 7/9/08___