ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 31, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Cliff Clark; Roderic Cole, Alternate. Peter Bealo and Dan Lloyd, Alternate were excused.
R. Cole was appointed as a voting member for P. Bealo.
Minutes of June 26, 2008
J. Matthews moved, second by C. Clark, to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2008, meeting.
It was noted that the date needed to be changed in the footer of the minutes. No other changes were noted.
The vote was 4-0-1 (Loeffler abstaining).
#08-19: A request from Alan & Maryellen Pelletier, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (deck) within 3.5 feet of the side property line where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 22 Walton Rd, Tax Map 30, Lot 46 in the MDR district.
Alan Pelletier, 22 Walton Road, was present for the application. He explained that he would like to put new French doors off the master bedroom to a small deck
L. Ordway asked about a hot tub shown on the plan.
A. Pelletier offered that it was already in the back yard and would just be relocated so it could be accessed from the French doors.
L. Ordway noted that the application was to be within 3.5 feet of the property line.
A. Pelletier replied that would be the closest point.
Annemarie Pardo, 22 ½ Walton Road, offered pictures of how close the structures were, noting that her children’s bedrooms were on that side of the house and would overlook the hot tub.
The Board started to review the pictures but it was then realized that Ms. Pardo was not associated with Mr. Pelletier, but was an abutter, and she was asked to wait until abutter comments were requested.
There was a brief discussion regarding the location of the property line and the location of the deck in proximity to that line.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application. There was no one. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application.
A. Pardo reiterated her concerns regarding the placement of a hot tub on that side of the lot with her children’s bedrooms being on that side of the house. She reminded that the setbacks were there to protect abutters, noting that she had moved from Lowell to Plaistow to avoid such things. Ms. Pardo offered that they have been good neighbors since they moved and once they had learned of the Pelletier’s plan to locate the hot tub on this property asked them to reconsider. She suggested that decks and hot tubs were luxury items. Ms. Pardo added that she had consulted with a real estate agent who informed her that this would negatively affect her property value.
It was reminded that the application was for a variance to locate a deck, not the hot tub, as the hot tub would not be required to meet setback requirements according to the Building Inspector.
A. Pardo said that she didn’t understand why they needed a deck or a hot tub on that side of the property. She said that she presumed there would be lights there and it would be a reason for people to gather on that side of the property.
L. Ordway questioned a concrete structure in one of the pictures presented by Ms. Pardo.
A. Pelletier answered that it was an abandoned well.
R. Loeffler asked to confirm that it was not being used.
A. Pelletier replied that it was not.
L. Ordway asked how far it was from the proposed deck.
A. Pelletier responded that it was approximately one (1) foot.
There was a discussion, which included Ms. Pardo, regarding the distance from the Pelletier’s property and structures on the Pardo’s property.
Ms. Pardo presented a three-paged letter from her attorney, Stephen P. Parks, Wyskiel, Boc, Tillinghast and Bolduc, PA., addressing the concerns previous voiced by Ms. Pardo with citations of specific case law he felt applicable to the circumstances.
C. Clark noted that much of the reference in the attorney letter was again to the hot tub, not the deck, which is what the application is for.
A. Pardo reiterated that the ordinance was in place to preserve spacing and that was what she was asking the Board to do. She expressed concern over what might happen should the Pelletiers decide to sell the property as well.
Andres Pardo, 22 ½ Walton Road, offered that the Pelletiers already have their deck and the hot tub in the yard, adding that relocating it closer to their house seemed “mean spirited” to him.
A. Pelletier offered that they were not proposing to bring anything any closer than the existing structures that were already there.
L. Ordway asked if Mr. Pelletier had to comply with the set back how big the deck would be.
A. Pelletier replied that it would be approximately 6’ X 5’.
A. Pardo offered that Mr. Pelletier raised another good point, that he already has an addition that intrudes in the setback. She questioned how much more of the setback she was going to be asked to give up.
L. Ordway asked if the building was already within 3-4 feet of the property.
A. Pelletier replied that it was twenty-four inches.
A. Pardo offered that her survey had shown them to be over her property line.
L. Ordway asked if there were anymore questions or comments. There were none and the hearing was closed.
L. Ordway explained that all the cases on the scheduled for this evening would be heard and then the Board would go into deliberations for each matter, but that once a matter was closed there was no further input allowed. He noted that results would be available in the Department of Building Safety the next morning but that no permits could be issued for thirty (30) days.
#08-20: A request from MPR Realty Trust (Kevin Francis), for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (deck) within 20.50 feet of the front property line where 35 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 4 Ingalls Terrace, Tax Map 42, Lot 42 in the MDR district.
Kevin Francis, MPR Realty Trust, was present for the application. He noted that they wanted to put a deck on the front of the property at 4 Ingalls Terrace and couldn’t meet the 35 foot setback requirement. Mr. Francis offered that he was unaware that he needed a permit and once Mike Dorman (Building Inspector) informed him he immediately filed an application, which is when it was discovered that he didn’t meet the setback requirement. He added that the porch would increase the value of the property as well as add aesthetic value.
He showed pictures of the progress of the property since they had purchased it.
R. Loeffler asked how close this would be to the street in comparison to other structures on Ingalls Terrace.
Dave Wells, MPR Realty Trust, offered that the neighbor’s house was approximately 80 feet away from the street.
L. Ordway noted that Town’s recreation field was in the background of one of the pictures, adding that the spacing was in keeping with the area and the Town Center.
There was a discussion regarding the proposed dimensions of the deck and how it compared to other structures on the street.
L. Ordway noted that there was no real abutter on the right side of the property and asked how close the abutter to the left of the structure was.
Jonathan P. Raymond, MPR Realty Trust, offered that it was approximately 20 feet to the abutter’s property line and approximately 40 feet to their house.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATIONS
#08-19: A request from Alan & Maryellen Pelletier, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (deck) within 3.5 feet of the side property line where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 22 Walton Rd, Tax Map 30, Lot 46 in the MDR district.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a variance to locate a deck within 3.5 feet of the property line at 22 Walton Road.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- The deck is more to relocate the hot tub which is currently located in another part of the yard.
- The application notes a privacy screen but the total distance is to be 3.5 feet from the abutting property for the deck.
- There is a total distance between structures of approximately 16 to 19 feet, where there should be a total of 30 feet (15 feet on each side of the property line).
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- There could be a decrease to the surrounding property values.
L. Ordway noted that when he drove by the property he was struck by how close the structures are to each other and that he believed there could be a decrease in property value to the abutter.
- The application is not contrary to the public interest. The public’s interest is in the separation of structures. The lack of separation already exists in this case.
R. Loeffler offered that the application suggests that there would be an increase in tax revenue by allowing the deck to be built. He suggested that the loss in surrounding property values may offset what ever might be gained in taxable value for this property.
- Mr. Pelletier did not make a clear presentation on what he would lose if he were not able to build the deck where he wanted.
C. Clark suggested that Mr. Pelletier may have been side-tracked but the abutter presenting the pictures in the middle of his discussion.
L. Ordway noted that he did give Mr. Pelletier the opportunity to offer more testimony.
- There is no loss or benefit to the public that might be outweighed by the gain to this individual by granting the new deck.
C. Clark offered that hypothetically the application could be denied and the Pelletiers could still put their hot tub there on patio stones.
R. Loeffler reminded that this application was for a deck, not the hot tub.
C. Clark noted that the abutter was concerned about what could happen if the property were to be sold and questioned if there would be a change based on the a deck or patio stones being the same distance from the property line.
J. Matthews offered that would be nothing different from a real estate perspective.
L. Ordway noted that the deck would be considered permanent.
J. Matthews added that it would be looked at as a place to entertain which could affect marketability, where the deck would affect the property value.
- The application is contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which is to maintain appropriate distances for privacy and safety.
L. Ordway noted there would have to be electrical connections for the hot tub, which could potentially increase the risk of fire.
J. Matthews suggested that the same could be said for an outdoor grill.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 1-4-0 (Ordway, Loeffler, Matthew and Cole dissenting) and the motion to grant was defeated.
#08-20: A request from MPR Realty Trust (Kevin Francis), for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (deck) within 20.50 feet of the front property line where 35 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 4 Ingalls Terrace, Tax Map 42, Lot 42 in the MDR district.
R. Cole moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a variance to locate a deck within 20.5 feet of the front property line at 4 Ingalls Terrace.
L. Ordway summarized the application, noting that they were doing a lot of work to improve the property based on the pictures that were submitted to the Board.
J. Matthews added that it really looked fantastic.
L. Ordway reminded that the applicant stated that he didn’t know of the need for a building permit for the deck. He added that the deck was to be constructed in keeping with the rest of the renovations and that a structure set twenty (20) feet from the front property line would not be out of place or unusual in this area of Town.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- From real estate perspective adding the porch to the front of the house adds value to the property, which can increase the surrounding property values.
- A setback of twenty (20) feet versus thirty-five (35) from the road is not going to adversely affect the public’s interest.
- The house may look unfinished without the addition of the porch to the front, which could decrease the property value.
J. Matthews noted that the existing dwelling was already located in the setback, which would make it impossible to add anything to the front without a variance.
L. Ordway added that the positioning of the house on the lot was a hardship.
- There is no loss to the Town in allowing the porch to be constructed in the proposed location; therefore there is substantial justice in granting the application.
- It is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which is separation as the proposed porch would not interfere with the rights of other properties on this small side street.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the variance request is granted.
Old Business:
L. Ordway noted that at the joint meeting between the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board, this board was invited to submit suggestions to the Planning Board regarding what they see as needing review in the zoning ordinances.
After a brief discussion the following topics were listed to be forwarded to the Planning Board as suggestions for their review:
- Flags and whether or not they fit the definition of a sign. It is the Board’s position that under the current definition of a sign (in Article II) flags are signs and should be subject to the same restrictions and permits.
- Clarification in the ordinances as to whether or not an in-law apartment is rentable and if so, when.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss, Administrative Assistant
| 
