ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 30, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Larry Ordway, Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Loeffler and Clifford Clark. Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman was excused.
Minutes of July 26, 2007
L. Ordway moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2007, meeting. The vote was 2-0-2 (Loeffler and Clark abstaining).
L. Ordway explained the significance of a four-member board and asked if anyone wish to request a continuance. There were no requests at that time.
#07-15: A request from Steven Rugoletti, for a variance from Article V, §220-32I, to permit a shed to be located within 3.9 feet of the rear property line, where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 12 Stanwood Ave, Tax Map 41, Lot 50 in the MDR district. The applicant is the owner of record.
It was noted that a letter giving David Brackett to act on behalf of the applicant, Steven Rugoletti, had been received. D. Brackett asked to have the matter continued in light of the fact that there would only be a three-member board for this matter, as P. Bealo would be recusing himself.
C. Clark moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a continuance in the matter of case #07-15. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
#07-13: A request from the Town of Plaistow, Board of Selectmen, for an appeal of the administrative decision of the Planning Board, regarding the interpretation of “accept for consideration” in reference to when a plan is protected from zoning changes. There is no plan reference for this application; the question is regarding when a building cap becomes applicable under the Town’s elderly housing ordinance.
A letter from Town Manager Jason Hoch, acting on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, requested that the related matter be continued in light of the four-member board.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a continuance in the matter of case #07-13. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Staff noted that this would be the only notice regarding the continuance of both these matters and all interested parties were to note the new hearing date of September 28, 2007.
#07-16: A request from Mark and Lori Jillson for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to permit the construction of a deck within 8 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum set back. The property is located at 5 Stanwood Ave, Tax Map 41, Lot 42 in the MDR district. The property owner of record is Lori Jillson, fka Lori Poliquin.
Mark and Lori Jillson were present for the application.
M. Jillson offered that they would like to build a deck off the side of their home that would increase the enjoyment of their property. He explained that his property was deep and narrow, as many of the houses were built when his neighborhood was developed.
Pictures were offered and Mr. Jillson approached the Board to explain what they were looking at in the pictures. The pictures showed the house and where the 20 foot wide deck was proposed to go.
M. Jillson noted that the deck would extend ten feet beyond his house and fill in an alcove, clean up the area, as well as cover over a well head currently being protected from curious children by a pile of rocks.
L. Ordway asked how far this structure would be from the closest structure on the abutter’s property.
Tony Somma, 7 Stanwood Ave, offered that it would be about forty feet from his home.
M. Jillson offered that it was not a distinct property line between him and his neighbor and they often overlapped their grass mowing.
P. Bealo reviewed the sketch of the lot and noted that there appeared to be no place to locate a deck on either side or the rear of the house without being in the setback.
M. Jillson confirmed that was the case, adding that many homes were built that way in the past to offer more privacy for the home.
L. Ordway asked why the deck was proposed to be twenty-feet, a huge deck, when it appeared that eleven feet would square off the alcove and provide for a good sized deck.
M. Jillson replied that once a table and chairs were put on the deck, with room for people to push back away from the table, and a grill was added there was much room to more than about five people.
L. Jillson reminded that the additional width also helped to cover the well head.
M. Jillson added that the well head would be just inside the twenty foot mark.
R. Loeffler suggested that there were ways to cover well heads without having to build larger decks, adding that covering the well head was a convenience.
M. Jillson explained that he would like to cover the well head for safety, but would be leaving it accessible so it could still be used if needed.
P. Bealo noted that if the deck was constructed even with the house it would still be in the setback.
M. Jillson added that the steps for the deck needed to set on the back and set away from the house so as not to block the way to access the basement, in case something such as a boiler needed to be replaced.
R. Loeffler suggested that the deck would look aesthetically better closer to the house.
L. Ordway asked the applicant to tell the Board what they could “live with” for a deck if the Board denied the application.
L. Jillson noted that the original plan was for an eighteen (18) foot deck and they added the extra two feet to cover the well head.
M. Jillson replied that they might be able to get by with an eighteen (18) foot deck, which would mean a ten (10) foot variance.
P. Bealo offered that he used to have a dug well on his property and everyday he used to worry that someone would fall into it. He added that this would be a reasonably aesthetic manner to cover the well head.
R. Loeffler asked how long the applicant’s had owned the property.
L. Jillson replied that she had owned the property for twenty-three (23) years.
R. Loeffler asked Mr. Somma how long he had been an abutter.
A. Somma answered that he had lived there five (5) years.
L. Ordway noted that the construction plan called for a six (6) foot high privacy fence.
M. Jillson explained that they added that for the protection of their neighbors.
R. Loeffler inquired if the fence was right on the deck.
M. Jillson confirmed that it was.
L. Ordway asked how wide the planned steps were.
M. Jillson replied they were proposed to be 36 inches.
There was a discussion on the construction diagram provided with the application.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application.
A. Somma offered that they Jillsons had always been good neighbors and that he had no problem with them building a deck. He added it would probably increase property values.
Bob Lang, 10 Stanwood Ave, stated that he told thought the Jillsons to be good neighbors. He added that there house was well set back from the front property line and anyone would have to strain to see the deck. Mr. Lang noted that he had a large deck and he enjoyed every inch of it.
There was a brief discussion of a portion of the tax map that showed the parcel lots in this neighborhood.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application. There was no on and the hearing was closed.
L. Ordway explained the way the hearing and deliberations would be handled, noting that all matters would be heard and then the Board would take a short break, returning to deliberate each matter.
# 07-17: A request from Diane Allen for special exception from Article V, §220-32B to permit a daycare in the CI district. The property is located at 16 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 87 in the CI district. The owner of record is Paul F. Lavallee, II
Diane Allen, applicant was present for the application.
It was noted for the record that written permission had been received from the property owner permitting Ms. Allen to make the application. It was further noted that there was not a formal list of requirements for the granting of this special exception as there is for an in-law apartment or a home occupation, and the applicant would still have to gain the approval of the Planning Board before opening the day care.
D. Allen explained that she would like to put a day care on the property located at 16 Danville Road. She offered a site plan that showed where parking for employees and for dropping off children would be as well as a fenced in play yard area to the rear of the property. D. Allen noted that there was a well on the property and they had State approval of the septic for the use. Ms. Allen added that they were planning for twenty-four children and would obtain all proper State and Town licenses and permits.
R. Loeffler asked if there would be anyone living in the house.
D. Allen replied that there would not, noting the there were the areas for the children and some offices.
It was noted that if there was to be any combined use (residential and commercial) that a variance would be required.
D. Allen offered there wasn’t enough room for someone to live there as well as have a day care.
L. Ordway asked if there would be a sign and if it would be lighted.
D. Allen replied that her sign would comply with the sign ordinance.
There was a discussion regarding the surrounding buildings and other uses.
R. Loeffler asked if Ms. Allen planned to buy the building or lease it.
D. Allen replied that she was planning to own the building. She added that the backyard was perfect for kids and it was a good location as it was in the commercial district without having too much commercial around it.
C. Clark inquired as to what the hours of operation would be.
D. Allen replied that they would be open 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She noted the designated parking for the dropping off and picking up of children.
L. Ordway asked how many employees there would be.
D. Allen answered there would be five (5) and noted the employee parking on the plan.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
DELIBERATIONS (Note: The Board decided to not take a break)
#07-16: A request from Mark and Lori Jillson for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to permit the construction of a deck within 8 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum set back. The property is located at 5 Stanwood Ave, Tax Map 41, Lot 42 in the MDR district. The property owner of record is Lori Jillson, fka Lori Poliquin.
R. Loeffler moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the application for a 7 foot variance (8 feet to the property line, where 15 feet is the minimum).
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- Age of the property and the location of the house being well set back on the lot
- Existing surface well head that the applicants would like to have covered by the deck
- Privacy fence included for the protection of the neighbors
- Support of the closest abutter and another neighbor
P. Bealo reminded that any other place the deck would be located would still be in a setback.
The Board reviewed the application for a variance with the following findings:
- There would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values as property enhancements usually increase property values
- The public interest it not a factor in this application as the public has little interest in a residential deck provided that it is not intrusive
- There is a hardship in the property as to the location of the house on the lot. Building on any side of the dwelling, aside from the front, would mean intruding in the set back
P. Bealo said that although he didn’t directly ask he assumed that the septic was in the front of the property.
- There would be substantial justice in allowing the homeowners better use of their property
- It would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance., which is the separation of structures, as there would still be forty (40) feet of separating between structures on abutting properties
P. Bealo added that the pictures showed the lot to be well treed.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the variance was granted.
# 07-17: A request from Diane Allen for special exception from Article V, §220-32B to permit a daycare in the CI district. The property is located at 16 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 87 in the CI district. The owner of record is Paul F. Lavallee, II
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Clark, to grant the request for a special exception to allow at day care at 16 Danville.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- The day care would be for twenty-four (24) children
- There was designated parking for employees and well as for the picking up and dropping off of children
- The backyard would be fenced off for a play area
- It would be making good use of the property
There was no further discussion on the motion, other than to note that the applicant would still need to obtain Planning Board approval. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the special exception was granted.
Staff posed a hypothetical question to the Board regarding Home Occupations
Scenario 1: A home occupation special exception is granted by this Board. As part of that application a floor plan of the residential dwelling is submitted. The applicant at a later date decides to relocate the office within the same dwelling and still not exceeding 25% of the living space, would this Board require that applicant to reapply or can the applicant submit a new floor plan to be verified by the Building Inspector.
The consensus of the Board was that it would be sufficient for the applicant to submit a new floor plan to be verified by the Building Inspector.
Scenario 2: A home occupation special exception is granted by this Board. As part of that application a floor plan of the residential dwelling is submitted. The applicant then decides that they would like to expand the living space of their dwelling unit and applies for a building permit to do so, with the eye towards relocating the home occupation to the newly expanded living space, does not change the nature of the business, and keeps within the 25% of the living space requirement. Can that applicant also submit a new floor plan for review by the Building Inspector.
There was discussion regarding this scenario. Concern was expressed regarding expansion of a business beyond the scope intended for a home occupation. It was noted that the key was the 25% ratio of home occupation to living space and the staff could always refer an applicant that they felt no longer fit the criteria to this Board for a determination.
L. Ordway adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
