DICUSSION

Mr. Kirsch asked the Board if he could have a discussion regarding a home business run by Fred D’Urso, whose business is in Atkinson, but the entrance is in Haverhill, where there is a sign. This business is exempt, which does not allow a sign, but he does have a sign on the Haverhill part of the property. The Board agreed that if the sign were in Haverhill, they had no jurisdiction. Mr. Kirsch stated that Mr. D’Urso advertises the sale of Commercial Fertilizer, which the fire department says he needs to be inspected for. The Board agreed that was not represented on is application and therefore would not be exempt. The Board agreed the scope of the business has changed if he is selling Commercial Fertilizer and Mr. D’Urso needs to come back before the Board.

New/Old Business:

1. The Board discussed State Approval for Salco Realty Trust – Further clarification is needed because if this is used for retail sales there is a problem.

Mr. Lewis stepped down

2. The Board discussed State Approval for Peter Lewis Repair. There were no changes.

Mr. Polito made a motion to approve, Ms. McGrath seconded and it was unanimously approved.

3. The Board discussed State Approval for David Samra Inspection for Motorcycles. The Board needs further clarification because unless he is approved for a Home Business this would not qualify.

PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M.

Ronald LeBlanc request for a Special Exception as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 700:1a, to permit the enlargement of an existing one bedroom apartment in barn on property located at 57 Meditation Lane, Map 8, Lot 130, TR2 Zone.

Mr. Ashford stepped down from the Board.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

The Board asked Mr. LeBlanc if he had a plan or layout of what the apartment was going to look like. Mr. LeBlanc did not have one with him but said that he could run home and print it off his computer. The Board agreed to recess this hearing until Mr. LeBlanc could return with the proposed plan.

Resumed – 8:45 P.M.

There was an approval for an expansion of the existing apartment to 12’ x 45’ in 1992. The Special Exception was never acted upon.

Mr. Polito asked if anything were different from the original approval and this proposal. This proposal is 300+- square feet larger than the original request and Mr. Polito asked Mr. LeBlanc the reason for the substantial increase in size. Mr. LeBlanc stated that his daughter was going to school to study Equestrian Science and wanted to live in the apartment and eventually take over the horse/farming business. He wanted to expand the existing 12’ x 12’ apartment to accommodate his daughter. Mr. LeBlanc stated that he wanted to now expand the apartment to an 18’ x 45’ and have a laundry area and closet in the hallway.

Mr. Polito read the minutes from the 1992 hearing, and stated the Board had determined at that time that the apartment had existed before Zoning.

The proposed floor plan offered a bedroom, living room kitchen and a small office. Mr. Polito raised some concerns about the office being a second bedroom. The Board determined that the size, approximately 8’ x 8’ would be too small for a bedroom.

Mr. Henrickson brought up the issue of non-conforming uses and abandonment and asked if these apartments had been used continuously. Mr. LeBlanc stated that that apartment is used on a regular basis for cooking, bathroom facilities, etc. There is also a heating system and air conditioning. It is used on a daily basis, but someone has not been staying in there overnight.

The Board reviewed the criterion

The Board agreed this criterion was met

The Board agreed this was not harming the public’s interest. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Mr. Henrickson said that the Board was changing the character of the use. Ms. McGrath did not agree because there have been two apartments since the 60’s, which was fairly unique. Mr. Polito stated that it was pretty common with stables to have housing for the stable hands. Mr. Henrickson raised issues regarding the future use of this property if at some point it ceased to be a working farm. He had concerns with this becoming an apartment complex, which the zoning prohibits. Mr. Polito suggested that a condition could be put on the approval dictating that if the horses went away, so would the special exception. Ms. McGrath did not agree that the use of the apartment was conditioned upon the horses. Mr. Polito contended that the apartment was ancillary to the use, which are the horses. Mr. Henrickson stated that the intent of the Zoning was to restrict this type of apartment. She did not feel this would be setting a precedent, as there were not many properties like this in Town. Ms. McGrath contends that the horses had nothing to do with these apartments because they have been in existence for so long. Mr. Lewis agreed that there was just some space being added to an already existing apartment and that there was not a third apartment being added. Mr. Henrickson contended that if the spirit and intent of the ordinance was to restrict the growth of rental apartments in Town, what the Board is doing is allowing a potentially new rentable apartment in Town. Ms. McGrath did not agree because this property is unique in that it was farmland with roughly 30+- acres. Mr. Polito believed the restriction on the approval is justifiable. There is a tenuous thread around abandonment of this apartment, and there is a considerable increase in the size. Mr. LeBlanc agreed on the restriction but asked that it be tied to agriculture/farming of the land and not just horses. Ms. McGrath did not agree with the restriction and believed this was infringing on Civil Liberties. Mr. Polito asked what motivation the Town would have to grant this without the restriction. Ms. McGrath contends it is tied to the uniqueness of the property and the fact that it is agricultural and a very large piece of land. Ms. McGrath stated that the Special exception had to be given if it met the criteria. Mr. Henrickson stated that the Board had been very liberal in it’s interpretations. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

 

 

Mr. Henrickson made a motion to approve the request for the construction of an apartment as represented by the applicant with three conditions: 1.) If the property ceases to be used in a farming or agricultural manner, use of the expanded apartment will no longer be valid under the special exception and the occupant(s) will have a period of 1 year to vacate the premises; 2.) The Special exception is not valid until all of the inspections are made by the proper authorities and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued; 3.) Construction is to begin within one year. Mr. Friel seconded the motion and it was approved. Ms. McGrath made a dissenting opinion and stated that the restriction was overreaching, over bearing and inappropriate.

John & Kathrine Martin request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 400:4 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a 12’x15’ addition 13.5’ from the sideline as opposed to the required 15’ (1.5’ variance) on property located at 19 Lakeside Avenue, Map 23, Lot 67, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

John and Katherine Martin; Betty Flanagan

The Martins explained that this was a 3-room house and that they were proposing to construct a family room. This is a very small house with little room. The Board agreed this was a very small variance request and that base on the plan presented, if the proposed addition was moved it would go closer to the shoreline instead of the sideline.

Mrs. Martin read three letters from abutters who had no objections to the addition.

The Board reviewed the criterion:

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

There is no adverse affect on the public interest. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

a.) Because the existing house is already in a 15’ envelope, on a curved lot and the setback from the street is met, the Board agreed this criterion was met.

B.) The house is already close and the requirements predated Zoning. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

c.) 1 ½ feet is diminumis. The Board agreed this criterion is met.

Denial would be unreasonable. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The abutter were in favor of the addition and the proposed addition is further away from the shoreline. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

Ms. McGrath made a motion to approve the request as stated above for the construction of a family room and not a bedroom, as shown on the plan presented by the applicant. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

David Bushek request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a 10’x16’ deck , 41’ from wetland as opposed to the required 100’ (59’ variance) on property located at 8 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 49, RR3 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

David Bushek

Mr. Bushek explained that he wanted to build a 10’ x 16’ deck off the back of his house, per the proposed plans. Mr. Polito asked if Mr. Bushek intended on putting stairs, as there were none shown on the plan. Mr. Bushek indicated he did not intent to put any stairs.

The Board reviewed the criterion:

The Board agreed this was typical for this neighborhood. There was a consensus that this was met.

The Board agreed there was no adverse affect. There was a consensus that this criterion was met.

a.) The Board agreed this was met

b.) The Shoreline Protection Act singles out decks as not being harmful. The Board agreed this was met

c.) The Board agreed this was met

The Board agreed this was met

The Board agreed that because of the Shoreline Protection Act, this was met.

Paul Currier request for a Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a single family dwelling within the 100’ wetland setback . Applicant returning per court mandate. Property located on Sleepy Hollow Road, Map 3, Lot 80, TR2 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

Paul Currier; Robert Jones; James Lavelle Associates

Mr. Polito read page seven of the Court’s decision and the Board agreed that although they would be granting a variance they had latitude to decide where the placement of the dwelling could be put in order to have the least impact on wetlands and abutters and in keeping with the neighborhood; the size of the dwelling. There was some confusion on the size of the proposed dwelling. Mr. Jones thought that the plan he had originally seen was for a 24’ x 32’ house. Mr. Currier thought it was for a 28’ x 34’ and indicated he would prefer the bigger but would not be opposed to the smaller size. Mr. Polito indicated that it was presented to the Court as a modest size two bedroom home. The Board asked what type of house was proposed and no one could answer the question. There were no proposed plans of the dwelling. Mr. Currier had thought the Board already had them.

The Board agreed that they could not decide on anything until they saw the proposed dwelling with any decks, porches and driveways depicted on a plan.

Minutes Transcribed form Tape Rebecca A. Russo