BOA20060410

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 10, 2006

The Chairman, Mr. Peter M= cNamara, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Ms. Svetla= na Paliy, called the roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Robert Molloy, A= lternate Bob Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan (who was present in the audienc= e).

None.



Mr. McNamara began the me= eting by welcoming Mr. Molloy as a full-time member and Mr. Haverty as an alternate member.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To n= ominate Mr. McNamara as Chairman.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Molloy) To n= ominate Ms. Paliy as Secretary.<= /o:p>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Molloy/O’Sulliva= n) To elect Mr. Hennessey as Vice Chairman.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

CONTINUED

Case #2341 K &= K EQUIPMENT – Pulpit Rock Road / ML 41/6-138 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit develop= ment of a lot that was created prior to current area requirements which the Town= is considering undersized.

Mr. McNamara said the app= licant requested a continuance to the May 8, 2006 meeting. = He said the matter had been continued a number of times and asked if the Board= had an opinion regarding abutter notification.= Mr. Hennessey believed re-notification was necessary. Mr. McNamara agreed. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the case; Mr. Gowan felt it was reasonable to re-notify the abutters for the May meeting.

HEARING(S)

Case # 2344 TYNCO = REALTY LLC – Mammoth Road / ML 2/5-57 – Seeking a Varian= ce concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit a subdivision of a 5 acre = lot into two lots, one with 126.10-feet of frontage not the required 200-feet.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The proposed lot would be 2.22 acr= es.

Ms. Paliy read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Tim Lavelle, represen= ting TYNCO Realty, met with the Board to discuss the request. He said the proposal was to split = a 5.18 acre lot into two lots. The l= ot requiring a variance would have 2.22 acres and 126-feet of frontage. He said they had gone before the Planning Board to request a three-lot subdivision where it was suggested th= at the parcel may be better for two lots (utilizing Mammoth Road); however, the frontage would be short for one of the lots. Basically the proposal would allow the applicant to subdivide the property without creating a new infrastructure for the Town to maintain lat= er on.

Mr. Lavelle read the Area Variance criteria into the record as follows:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: It allows = for the creation of 2 lots where 3 would be possible.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The existing 5.18 acre lot only has 326.10-feet of frontage on exis= ting Mammoth Road= .

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = Gaining frontage from either abutting property is not a feasible alternative because of under frontage for one si= de and a right-of-way on the other side.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: This proposal does not adversely affect lot density due to the size of the lots proposed.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: It would allow for the productive use of the property without creating additional roadways to be maintained by the Town.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The property values would not be adversely affected because the lots would be twice+ the required lot size and new dwellings would be constructed on each lot.

Mr. Gowan provided a brief summary of how/why the case was sent to the Board. He said there was a proposed shared driveway easement that would access from the current driveway; there seemed= to have adequate sight distance.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the proposal had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Lavelle answered no. He said no work was required to be= done in the wetland protection district. In reference to lot 5-57-1 (2.96 acres), Mr. Hennessey asked what the setback was to Mammoth Roa= d. Mr. Lavelle said it was 30-feet; t= he building setbacks (and envelopes) are shown. Mr. Hennessey asked if the existin= g road bed (off Mammoth Road) was being used for the offset. Mr. Lavelle said they were using the right-of-way line, not the pavement (becau= se it varied). Mr. Hennessey was= concerned with how close the setback was to the state road and based on the building envelope saw there was no place to move it. Mr. Lavelle said the buildings weren’t proposed for 30 feet.

Mr. McNamara asked if dup= lexes were proposed for both lots. = Mr. Lavelle answered yes. Mr. McN= amara questioned if other waivers/variances would be needed. Mr. Lavelle answered no.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d if there was currently a well or septic on the property. Mr. Lavelle said the existing well= and septic would not be utilized because they were not in a location that could= be reused. New wells and septics= would be proposed for both lots; test pits, 4K areas and proposed locations were shown on page 4 of the plan set.

There was no public input= .

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211;Yes to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

‘AREA’ VARIANCE APPROVED

DATE SPECIFIED HEARINGS

Case #2341 K & K EQUIPMENT – Pulpit= Rock Road / ML 41/6-138 – Seeking a Vari= ance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit development of a lot that = was created prior to current area requirements which the Town is considering undersized.

MINUTES

March 13, = 2006

MOTION:

(O’Sullivan/Mollo= y) To approve the March 13, = 2006 meeting minutes as amended. <= o:p>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Gowan said binders we= re provided to the members that included reference information; they could als= o be used to hold case information.

It was noted that the Boa= rd was scheduled for a joint meeting with the Planning Board on April 24, 2006.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:05 pm.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary