1. Bonnie Tracy dated 6/18/02 re: Special Exception/In-Law Apartment dated 6/18/02.

2. Guy Laplante dated 6/20/02 re: Variance approval.

3. John Pomer dated 6/20/02 re: Special Exception/Conversion of Seasonal to Primary residence.

4. James Spinney dated 6/20/02 re: Wetland Variance approval.

5. Zoning Board, legal notice for meeting of 7/17/02.

Approval of minutes – June 12, 2002

Board reviewed minutes of June 12, 2002. Mr. Ashford made a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 2002 as submitted. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Mrs. McGrath abstained.

PUBLIC HEARING: Robert Weber request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 17’6"x10’ deck to be added 34’ from wetland (66’ variance) as opposed to the required 100’ on property located at 23 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 25, RR3 Zone.

Abutters’ list was read with the following present: Robert Weber; Kathleen Raymond.

Mr. Weber reviewed his application and explained that he would like to add a 17’6"x10" deck. He noted that he had contacted NH DES and spoke with Gary Springs regarding state shoreline protection and learned that the Shoreland Protection Act, Section 483:B,11 permits an open deck or porch up to a maximum of 12 feet toward the reference line from the structure. He also referenced Environment section 1406-3 and the Simplex v. Newington case. He noted that within the Shoreland Act, the state had verbiage to prohibit the deck addition from later becoming part of the living area and he suggested the board might want to consider that as a condition if they choose to approve his request. Mr. Weber acknowledged that there was still the issue of the town requirement of 100’ from wetland. He also explained that the deck would be constructed on sona tubes, which would be less of an impact to the wetland.

Mr. Polito read the Conservation Commission review letter dated 7/9/02, which recommended denial of the variance but also noted that upon further consideration of additional information the board gave a non-official reconsideration indicating support of the variance. Board members noted that generally the board relies on the commission’s input but uses them in an advisory capacity only.

Mr. Polito asked Mr. Weber if he planned to store things under this deck, i.e. lawnmower, boat, car or gasoline, etc. Mr. Weber stated that he did not plan to use it for storage. Mr. Polito opened the hearing to abutters. Those present indicated they had no problem with the proposed deck.

Mr. Polito reviewed the five-variance criterion. A consensus vote was taken on each and the board agreed that all conditions were satisfactorily met.

Mrs. McGrath made a motion to grant a variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 to allow construction of a 17’6" deck to be added to 34’ +/- from wetland (66’variance) on property located at 23 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 25 subject to the conditions that the deck remain open and cannot become living space and that hazardous materials, such as fuel or motorized equipment, not be stored on or under the deck. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Mr. Polito closed the hearing at 9:00 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING: Robert Allen, Jr. request for Variances from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 50’x26’ addition 65.6’ from wetland (35’ + variance) and one 12’x12’ addition 82.8" from wetland (20’+ variance) and one 12’x12’ addition- 89.5’ to wetland (21+ variance) as opposed to the required 100’ on property located at 9 Emery Drive, Map 16, Lot 32, RR3 Zone.

Mr. Polito opened the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Abutters list was read with the following present: Robert Allen, R.; Mr. And Mrs. Norman Cote, Frederick Hatton; Mrs. Peter Issenberg; Mr. And Mrs. Steven Paley; Mr. and Mrs. John Widman and a representative of Daily Revocable Trust.

Mr. Polito reviewed the historical file on Map 16, Lot 32 and read the minutes from the 1993 hearing regarding the lot consolidation and variance granted to permit construction of the original house. The wetland markings on the file plan were noted as well as a drainage easement. Mrs. McGrath noted the permits for a three (3) bedroom septic approved dwelling.

Mr. Polito read the Conservation Commission review letter that recommended denial of the variance.

Mr. Allen presented his plan and noted that he could make adjustments to the siting of the garage addition and placement of the driveway. He stated that the proposed garage addition is for a four (4) car garage with a second story above for additional living space. He stated that the two 12’ x 12’ additions would be off the back of the house, one enclosing a first floor existing deck and the other one at the second floor level. No architectural drawings or plans were presented indicating elevation measurements.

Mrs. McGrath noted that the plan presented had the wetlands "flagged", and indicated that the wetlands were approximately 16 feet further from the original structure than the 1993 plan and asked for an explanation. Mr. Allen did not have any knowledge regarding the discrepancy. Mrs. McGrath stated her concerns and that it would be important to have a Soil Scientist report on the quality and type of wetlands, an explanation as to whether and why the wetlands appear to be moving and a qualified opinion as to the potential impact on the wetlands by the proposed additions.

Mr. Ashford, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Polito expressed their concerns regarding the proposed placement of the driveway, which appears to have the most impact on the wetlands. Mr. Allen stated that he would consider side or front access to the garage rather than the proposed rear access.

Mr. Polito opened the hearing to abutters. Abutters noted the following concerns:

Covenants.

The abutters noted that the covenants limited garages to 3 stalls. Mr. Polito reported that the town does not enforce deed covenants; the board cannot take them into consideration and that covenants are a civil issue. Mr. Allen reported that he has never seen any documentation regarding covenants on his home or the area.

Drainage

Mr. Allen reported that the drainage runs under his property and he is not making any changes. Mr. Polito noted no drainage on his plans and looked through his property file. It was noted that drainage was on the septic plan. Fill was further discussed. Mr. Allen showed the board where he was filling on his property and stated that it had nothing to do with wetland. It was for his driveway to correct his present runoff. When asked, Mr. Allen reported that the flagging was done approximately two weeks ago.

Proposed location of driveway, which will be closer to wetland.

Mr. Allen noted that he could move the garage forward as the Building Inspector told him that his setback was 30’. Mr. Polito questioned the 30’ setback. He stated that this property was in a 3 acre zone and he believed it should be 70’ but would verify the regulation.

Impact on Abutter wells and storage of numerous pieces of equipment.

An abutter reported that Mr. Allen presently has numerous pieces of equipment, i.e. boats, jet skis, cars, etc. outside in the area of the proposed addition. He would like to see some architectural plans on his project. He is concerned with the size of the addition and the wetlands.

Existing Variance

An abutter noted her concern with the fact that the town had granted a variance when the original house was built and now the new owner wants more. She asked, "when does it stop?"

Mr. Polito informed the abutters that there was in fact a previous variance with no conditions and if Mr. Allen wants to build these additions, he needs additional variances and he has a right to apply for them.

Mr. Polito closed the hearing to the public and the board took a five-minute recess.

The hearing was reopened at 9:55 P.M.

Mr. Polito reviewed the board’s concerns/issues:

The discrepancy about the missing 16’ of wetland.

The 30’ frontage setback.

The numerous abutter concerns.

Mr. Lewis noted his concern with the proposed driveway out the back. He would prefer to see it on the end or the front of the garage. Mrs. McGrath noted that she would like to see a Soil Scientist Report, which would investigate and address the missing 16’ wetland to see if it had been previously filled or if it naturally changed direction. She would also like to see the report address the quality of the wetland and the effect the proposed building would have on the wetland.

The board discussed the two 12’x12’ additions. It was their consensus that these aboveground additions will likely not have an adverse impact on the wetlands since the deck/structure already exists and the proposed additions would not further encroach on the wetlands.

Mr. Polito informed Mr. Allen that he must demonstrate that the garage addition size would not diminish surrounding property values. "It could be an eyesore." Board members noted that it might be difficult to meet the hardship criteria in his quest to build a 4-car garage and large expansion.

Mr. Polito took a consensus of the board on the information presented. All members reported they needed additional information, i.e. engineering report, before they would consider approving a variance. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Allen if he wanted a vote taken now. Mr. Allen stated that he had presented his basic plan without architectural detail to open discussion and look for direction. He would change his plan at the pleasure of the board. Mr. Allen agreed he would have more comprehensive drawings done.

Mr. Polito restated some of the issues and concerns:

Convince the board that the proposed addition fits in the neighborhood.

Outstanding question of the 30’ frontage setback (is additional variance needed?)

The board agreed that the proposed driveway is adversely encroaching on the wetland and not a good idea.

Ms. McGrath suggested an unofficial Site Walk of the property prior to the next hearing. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Allen if he would allow that. Mr. Allen agreed.

Discussion followed regarding the file septic documentation approved for 3 bedrooms. Mr. Allen reported that the house now contains 4 bedrooms and that he has finished living space on both the walkout basement and the third floor/attic He also foresees a master bedroom in the proposed second story of the garage addition. Mr. Allen was told he may have to address "3 bedroom septic" issue.

The board agreed that the proposed large addition may not be an unreasonable project but may be unreasonable on this piece of property.

The board voted to continue the hearing to August 14.

Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Ashford, seconded and unanimously approved.

Mr. Polito closed the meeting at 10"30 p.m.

Minutes prepared from incomplete tape. Respectfully submitted,

APPROVED____8/14/02____

Shirley Galvin & Elizabeth McGrath