ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 5, 2006
8/2/06 _____
AGENDA: CONTINUED VARIANCE: JANICE DELLACROCE & ROGER LUNDSKOG, 27 West Shore Road, #110-008
VARIANCE: SHERING ASSOCIATES LLC, 973 & 974 West
Shore Road, #101-001 & -020
ATTENDING: Jay Meegan (Chairman), Michael Willingham (Vice Chairman), Dan Bouchard, Donna Hardy, Sandra Heaney.
Alternates: Lloyd Belbin, Susan Colby
ABSENT: Linda Lee (alternate- excused), Lorraine Oranatto-Sullivan (alternate – excused)
OTHER: Various public.
The meeting began at 7:03 p.m.
MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2006: Mr. Willingham made one amendment to page 8, 2nd paragraph, 1st line: replace “go” with “run” and replace “building” with “land”.
M. Willingham made a motion, second by S. Heaney, to accept the minutes as amended and the motion carried.
CONTINUED VARIANCE: JANICE DELLACROCE & ROGER LUNDSKOG
Mr. Meegan read the letter received from Jeff Chartier, Superintendent of the Water Dept., in which Mr. Chartier explained that two water line right-of-ways were in effect but, since they have used the one from Crodem Drive, the one through the DellaCroce/Lundskog property is no longer needed.
Mr. Meegan then explained what has happened to date with this property (for the benefit of any who were not in attendance previously) and then went over the hearing procedures.
M. Willingham made a MOTION, second by Mr. Bouchard, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE WITH THE RECEIVAL OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT LETTER. The motion CARRIED.
Ms. DellaCroce explained that the property is long and narrow and, in order to meet the 50’ setback to the river, they will have to infringe on the rear setback. She feels that the project will not lessen values and that the public view will be enhanced in that they store their tools outside currently. The garage will enable them to put the tools inside. Ms. DellaCroce added that the neighborhood has garages on most properties, that the lot is only 1 ˝ acre and is narrow and by the river.
-2-
Zoning Board Minutes
7/5/06
DELLACROCE/LUNDSKOG VARIANCE continued:
Ms. Heaney asked if the garage will have a second story and Ms. DellaCroce answered that it will be 17’ high with a loft for storage.
Mr. Bouchard asked about the issue of the footpath. Ms. DellaCroce explained that there is no special footprint designated. That it is deeded but not specified. They have no problem with people coming across as they do now. Mr. Willingham mentioned that, in previous testimony, the neighbors were only concerned that they be allowed to go through.
Don Martin, representing the neighbors, asked for a copy of the map and of Mr. Chartier’s letter. Ms. Heaney gave him a copy of the map and Mr. Martin was directed to see Ms. Laferriere on Friday for a copy of the letter.
Ms. Heaney asked where the footpath goes and Ms. DellaCroce stated that it basically goes down their driveway. She added that, the further they build toward the embankment in back, the less intrusive it is to the neighbors. Mr. Bouchard asked how far they will go into the embankment, as he was concerned with erosion. Ms. DellaCroce stated that they will only use where there is a slight rise.
Mr. Meegan called for any public comments and neither comments for or against were brought forward.
Mr. Meegan summed up the points that Ms. DellaCroce stated:
1. Special features peculiar to the lot – The parcel is long and narrow.
2. Minimum Variance – By going to the 9’ setback, they are able to meet the 50’ setback to the river.
3. No diminution of value – Feels that there shall be no diminution.
4. Benefit to the public interest – The public view is enhanced by having enclosed storage space.
5. Substantial justice – Most of the neighbors have garages.
6. Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance – Garages are an allowed use in the area.
With no further comments made, Mr. Meegan closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Board then addressed the 6 criteria needed in order to get a Variance.
1. Special features peculiar to the lot - All agreed that this had been met.
2. Minimum Variance - The Board felt that this was reasonable. Mr. Willingham added that considering the river is a better choice. The Board agreed that this criteria has been met.
3. No diminution of value – The Board felt that it will add value, especially by storing their things inside. All 5 agreed to this.
4. Benefit to the public interest – Mr. Willingham stated that it is not detrimental. Ms. Hardy felt that storing the tools inside covers this. The Board agreed.
5. Substantial justice – The Board felt that this had been met.
6. Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance – The Board felt that it is not in that they will be meeting the river setback.
-3-
Zoning Board Minutes
7/5/06
DELLACROCE/LUNDSKOG VARIANCE continued:
The Board felt that the project was better in that the 50’ setback from the river would not be infringed upon and additionally noted that the loft would be used for storage.
D. Hardy made a MOTION, second by S. Heaney, to GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR JANICE DELLACROCE AND ROGER LUNDSKOG AS PRESENTED. The motion CARRIED.
Mr. Meegan explained that there is an appeal time limit of 30 days. Ms. DellaCroce thanked the Board.
VARIANCE: SHERING ASSOCIATES LLC/STEVE HERING
Ms. Laferriere read the application, referral sheet, abutters notified, where the hearing was advertised and stated that neither phone calls nor written responses were received. Mr. Meegan read the letter of agency naming Mr. Hering as the representative for owners, Charles and Linda Vassil.
Mr. Hering distributed plans and then pointed out the 1- bedroom cottage on one lot and the 2-bedroom cottage by the Lake. He explained that the original systems are 50+ years old (there are two systems which Mr. Hering pointed out). The Vassils are looking to combine the systems into one. Neither system is in failure that Mr. Hering knows of. The new system will consist of two biofeed compartment tanks which are pumped to an aerobic treatment section and then to a wastewater alternative and finally to a leach field. The tanks will not be outside the 75’ radius but DES allows this if the tanks are sealed. The applicants shall have to go for waivers from DES. They are grandfathered for what they have right now. Once the new system is in, the old tanks will be emptied, crushed and filled over. Mr. Hering went on to say that the leach field is the place to disperse the water once it has been filtered. He added that the driveway is a proposed drive. There is 106’ from the Lake to the leach field.
When asked if the leach field could go any further back, Mr. Hering stated that they need the 10’ setback and the corner gets too tight to fit it.
Mark Sullivan, abutter, asked how long it will take to complete the project. It was felt that they have a year from the approval of the permit. Mr. Hering mentioned that part of the town approved subdivision was done in 1975 and then again in 1980. The State also approved it.
S. Heaney made a MOTION, second by M. Willingham, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
-4-
Zoning Board Minutes
7/5/06
SHERING ASSOC. VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Hering addressed the six criteria:
1. Special features peculiar to the lot – The physical constraints of the lot. There is no other suitable place to meet the requirements.
2. Minimum Variance – Everything is as far back as they can put it and they have minimized the leach field with the system.
3. No diminution of value – This will have a positive impact outside the area as well as for the abutters.
4. Benefit the public interest – They could keep the existing, the subdivision was approved, and with this, the pollution to the Lake should be eliminated.
5. Substantial justice – They are in an approved subdivision and this allows the owner to get State approval and to improve the impact to the Lake.
6. Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance – It will protect the water and will be done in the best way that they can.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the plan is a vast improvement. He would like to see the process stepped up and done sooner than later as there has been water overflowing there. Mr. Hering stated that they have to get a DOT easement first as the tanks would be partially in the right-of-way. After that, they would go to DES. He feels that DES won’t take long but is concerned about how long DOT will take. Mr. Bouchard asked if they intend on proceeding as quickly as possible and Mr. Hering answered that he believes that the intent is to do it this fall. The cost may have an impact however.
Mr. Sullivan asked if it is possible to give a condition; he would like to have it be no more than two years due to the water coming out, which is a concern. A discussion followed. Mr. Meegan stated that, typically, a project like this is done in the fall with draw down. Ms. Heaney asked if DES does a site visit. Mr. Willingham stated that Mr. Hering is licensed and DES usually only looks at the plan. He suggested to Mr. Hering to let DES know that there may be a problem, which might speed things up a bit.
In regard to Mr. Sullivan’s concern, Ms. Heaney felt that he should keep in touch with the progress and if he sees progress failing, he could complain to the DES. Mr. Willingham asked Mr. Sullivan if he is in favor of the plan and Mr. Sullivan answered that he is.
Mr. Meegan summed up the points made: The physical shape of the lot. They have minimized the leach field and placed it as far back as possible and are to go with the alternative system. It will be a positive affect as the existing system is not functioning properly. It will be of benefit to the neighbors and cause a cleaner Lake. Substantial justice is the need to upgrade and in the spirit of the ordinance, it protects the environment.
With no other public comments, Mr. Meegan closed the public portion of the hearing.
-5-
Zoning Board Minutes
7/5/06
SHERING VARIANCE continued:
The Board determined that all six criteria have been met. They then discussed a time limit. Mr. Willingham felt that by setting a time limit, we could sabotage the whole project if they cannot get the State permits in time.
Mr. Meegan stated that he would like to draft a letter to the owners, with the Board’s permission, as to the concerns of the abutter. Mr. Bouchard felt that we must be careful of the wording though he agrees with sending a letter. Mr. Willingham explained that Mr. Meegan usually drafts a letter which he e-mails to the Board for comment. Ms. Heaney mentioned that we could note the complaint that could go to DES. Mr. Willingham felt that we should be careful with that as there is only one abutter. We might mention our concern to the age of the system and its possible failure. Mr. Meegan added that, having granted the variance, we will be looking to see that it is done. We can revisit this case in a year and report it to the Code Enforcement Officer if the project is dropped. The Board agreed to have Mr. Meegan draft the letter.
S. Heaney made a MOTION, second by D. Bouchard, to GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR SHERING ASSOCIATES LLC AS PRESENTED. The motion CARRIED.
Mr. Meegan reminded the applicant of the 30-day time limit for an appeal. Mr. Hering thanked the Board.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Meegan read the memo from Bob McCormick (Code Enforcement Officer) which updated the progress on the shed at 31 Danforth Brook Rd. stating that the shed has been painted.
Ms. Heaney stated that she understands that a new plan for the cabana on the Lake is being done. She asked when we are to hear the Babcock hearing. It is to be held at the August meeting. Mr. Willingham stated that, with this case and not sitting on the Board, he feels that the Board does not understand the value and strength of deed restrictions. Mr. Meegan stopped the discussion as we are not to discuss a pending case.
The Board then hypothetically discussed a defacto subdivision and what it means. They referred to the Planning Board minutes and hope that the Board understood what the ZBA was looking for. Mr. Willingham stated that, hypothetically, an applicant may not be able to meet the criteria but with deed restrictions they can be met. Mr. Meegan agreed but noted that it is not up to the Board to suggest doing this.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ALTERNATES:
Mr. Meegan mentioned that we have 4 alternates still, instead of 3. A discussion followed. It was pointed out that alternates must re-apply after their 3-year term is up according to the ZBA bylaws. It was felt that a letter should go to Ms. Lee about her 3 years being up and her need to re-apply.
-6-
Zoning Board Minutes
7/5/06
ALTERNATES continued:
A discussion was held as to the rotation of the alternates. It was felt that they only rotate on new cases. Mr. Meegan stated that he sees the alternates as being in the following order: Mr. Belbin (due to experience), Ms. Colby (learning), Ms. Oranato-Sullivan (as she has spoken up when sitting in the audience which eliminates her as an alternate if needed, also learning), and Ms. Lee. Mr. Meegan would like to take them in this order for a bit and then discuss in Sept. about going on a rotation basis so that all alternates can be used.
PARKING ORDINANCE:
Mr. Meegan asked if the parking ordinance has been approved and Ms. Heaney answered that it has. Mr. Meegan explained his concern that all shall have to go for variances as the ordinance still restricts this. It places the ZBA in a difficult position. It was determined that Mr. Meegan should draft a letter to the Selectmen with copies to the Town Administrator, Code Enforcement Officer and Planning Board to explain the problem. The Board will discuss the wording at the August meeting.
DOCK IN THE PEMIGEWASSET RIVER:
Mr. Meegan has learned that a dock has been placed in the river without State and local permits. It was agreed that Mr. Meegan shall draft a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer.
ILLEGAL APARTMENTS:
Mr. Meegan has also learned that, after the denial of a Variance for a 3rd apartment in the property of Mr. Farr on Green Street, the assessor has found that he has 4 apartments there now. Mr. Meegan shall draft a letter for that, as well.
With no other business before the Board, S. Heaney made a motion, second by M. Willingham, to adjourn at 9:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Laferriere, secretary