APPROVED:

12/4/07 jrl_____________

AGENDA: APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: ANDREW

E. HACKETT/SCOTT HACKETT, 61 Crescent St.,

#224-004

ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Mike Willingham (Vice Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy

Alternates: Lorraine Onorato-Sullivan

ABSENT: Sandra Heaney (away), Susan Colby (alternate)

OTHER: Sheryl Montague (Land Use Officer), John Clark (Police Chief), applicants and public

The meeting opened at 7:02 p.m. Ms. Onorato-Sullivan sat in for Ms. Heaney

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007:

L. Belbin made a motion, second by D. Hardy, to accept the minutes as read.

The motion carried.

APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: ANDREW E. & SCOTT HACKETT

Mr. Bouchard explained that the Board will hear Ms. Montague first and then Mr. Hackett will explain his appeal.

Ms. Montague stated that she has had to back-track on this case which has covered four Code Enforcement Officers. Scott Hackett owns the property and Andrew, his son, lives there. A permit was first applied for on Dec. 22, 2005 and then again in Feb. 2006. Mr. Nebesnik denied a permit on August 17, 2007. Ms. Montague had presented letters written to Mr. Hackett in regard to setbacks. These were sent via certified mail and not picked up. They were later served by the Police Dept. On July 6, 2006, Bob McCormick (the Code Enforcement Officer at that time) was able to go onto the property to check the unregistered vehicles and the setbacks. Ms. Montague has walked the property line an found that markers have been removed. As near as she can figure, the tree house is within 5’ of the front property line. Andrew is living there with no known septic. There have been two complaints received: One from John Greenan on boundaries and the other from Shaun Plankey who had seen Andrew dam a brook across the street to bathe in. On Sept. 11^th, she hand carried paperwork to Andrew and, on Sept. 11^th, he filed for an appeal.

-2-

ZBA Minutes

11/20/07

HACKETT APPEAL continued:

Mr. Willingham asked if a permit has been given and Ms. Montague answered that it has not. He then asked if the structure was up before the request for a building permit was made. Ms. Montague did not know for sure but showed him photos taken April 2006 where the tree house was pretty much done. Ms. Montague continued by saying that the access is by ladder which goes to a swinging bridge without sides.

Mr. Bouchard then asked for Mr. Hackett’s comments. Mr. Hackett stated that he wants to remain on the property as long as possible; that he wants to stay there. As to the damming of the stream, Mr. Hackett said that it was for irrigation and he felt that the brook was within the boundaries of the road. He used rocks that were there. The pooling water goes under the road. He probably has not followed the town and state rules, he added. Mr. Hackett was asked why he is appealing and he answered that he wanted to do everything that he could so as to stay in his sanctuary.

At this time public comment was asked for. There were no comments for the case but one against: Bill Phinney, resident of Crescent St., stated that this has been on-going for some time and that regulations should be enforced. He feels that this should not continue.

With no other comment, the public portion of the hearing was closed.

Mr. Belbin stated that the appeal should be denied. We need to support the Land Use Officer. Mr. Bouchard added that it is a clear violation.

With no other comments from the Board, Mr. Bouchard called for a vote IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE APPEAL. No votes. He then called for a vote IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPEAL. This was carried unanimously.

Mr. Bouchard explained to Mr. Hackett that Ms. Montague will get in touch with him in the next 10 days so as to go forward. Mr. Hackett asked if he could keep his tree house if he moved it and was told that this is up to the Land Use Officer and that he should do as she says.

COMMUNICATIONS:

There was a notice of a wireless service facility hearing in Andover, the Nov./Dec. Town & City, and a DES Shoreland Waiver for Michael & Karen Ahern, #111-61/42.

The latter was for the Boards’ information. Ms. Montague was made aware of this, as well.

OTHER:

Mr. Bouchard mentioned the Bednaz case and asked the Board that, should they have any concerns about a case, to come to him so that we can work together. He revisited the statutes, talked with LGC, and confirmed that the State does not supersede the town decision. He then called Thomas Gilbert, DES, concerning the letter we had received. Mr. Gilbert agreed that the State does not supersede the Town and that he shall emphasize this to Mr. & Mrs. Bednaz.

-3-

ZBA Minutes

11/20/07

OTHER: BEDNAZ continued:

Mr. Willingham thought that the Variance that was denied was for the deck only. Mr. Bouchard explained that both the house and the deck were part of the Variance but only the deck infringed on the setback. Ms. Laferriere, secretary, then informed the Board that the Bednaz’ have presented a new plan to the town, in which the deck proposed is within the footprint of the grandfathered building. Mr. Bouchard acknowledged that it would not need a Variance in that case.

With no other issues to discuss at this time, D. Hardy made a motion, second by M. Willingham, to adjourn at 7:29 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jan Laferriere, secretary