Town of Plaistow Archive - ZBA Minutes 07-28-11

ZBA Minutes 07-28-11

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

July 28, 2011

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.

Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Paul Boniface; Roderick Cole; James Allen, Alternate and Joyce Ingerson, Alternate. Excused were Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman and Kim Crapo, Alternate.

J. Ingerson and J. Allen were appointed voting members for the meeting.

L. Ordway stated that the order in which the hearings would be present would be changed. He also explained that the deliberative session would be changed; they would go into deliberative session directly after they hear each case.

Minutes of June 30, 2011

L. Ordway motioned, second by P. Boniface, to approve the minutes of the June 30, 2011 meeting.

J. Ingerson asked that a grammatical error be fixed on page three, last paragraph of the minutes; the paperwork shows instead of the paperwork said. She also asked for page four, top paragraph, to be corrected to; the abutters need to be legally notified.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2; (Allen and Cole abstained).

#11-06 A request from Americo & Donna Ferrara for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 5 Red Oak Dr, Tax Map 59, Lot 67-2-5 in the LDR District. The Applicants are the property owners of record.

Present for the application was Americo Ferrara and Donna Ferrara, 5 Red Oak Drive. They explained the following:

They are proposing to build a two-car garage with an in-law apartment
D. Ferrara’s dad will live in the apartment
It will be detached from the house
It will be new construction

The following additional evidence was offered in support of the application:

The entrance will be on the side
It will not be a condominium
The size will be 726 sq ft.
The residence has been owner occupied for over 12 months
The unit will have only one (1) bedroom
Only one (1) person will reside in the unit

L. Ordway explained that when the need for the in-law apartment ceases, they cannot convert the unit into a condominium

They have state approval of adequate septic
The applicant’s provided a picture of parking instead of a sketch

L. Ordway asked if the new construction would be off the garage area.

D. Ferrara replied that it would be at the bottom of the driveway.

All utilities will be off the main house

L. Ordway explained that when the need for the in-law unit ceases, they will need to come in for an occupancy permit before they can have a new tenant.

The unit will be a detached garage
It is not a full acre lot

J. Ingerson asked if this would be the same or separate septic than what they use now.

D. Ferrara answered that it will be a separate septic system. The Board again noted the State approval.

L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board and there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application; there was no one. He asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application.

Present was Maurice and Marie Tremblay, owners of the house next door. They expressed concern that the development was originally approved for eight (8) single-family homes and is now being converted to a separate unattached structure. Maurice Tremblay asked how many feet can a structure be built next to the property line.

L. Ordway replied that the Board could not answer that question. He added that they should ask the Building Inspector that question. He stated that there has been no indication that there are any issues with setbacks.

Maurice Tremblay asked how they can get the answer before the Board votes.

L. Ordway explained that the Board is not asked to consider the structure but whether or not the in-law apartment meets all the requirements.

Maurice Tremblay expressed concern that the septic tank is designed to go over the well that services the eight homes. If the septic pipe ruptures it can contaminate the drinking water.

L. Ordway offered that he understood Mr. Tremblay’s concerns. He explained that since this application is only for a special exception, if the applicant meets all the criteria the Board would have to grant the application.

There was further discussion of the occupancy permit.

Maurice Tremblay said the plans look like the detached unit will be two (2) feet from his property line and it will ruin the appearance of the community; that is why he is objecting to it.

L. Ordway again offered that he understood but added that they need to bring that issue to the Planning Board (PB).

D. Ferrara rebutted noting that if they were interfering with septic or water lines the State (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) would have denied the septic plan.

L. Ordway explained that the State gave them permission to install a leaching field; they have not really determined any of the issues around it.

L. Ordway asked if there was anyone else speaking in opposition to the application and there was no one. The case was closed.

L. Ordway explained the deliberations process to all the applicants; noting that once a case is closed, there can be no additional input from anyone. He added that they will receive written notice of decision within ten (10) business days, but that they cannot do anything for thirty (30) days in case someone wants to appeal the decision.

DELIBERATIONS

J. Allen motioned to grant, second by P. Boniface, and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

There was evidence presented that the application meets all Article VIII requirements without issue
The appearance of the buildings would remain as that of a single-family dwelling
It will not be a mobile home or a condominium
It will be under the 800 sq ft requirement; at 726 sq ft
They have owned the building for more than twelve (12) months
There is only one (1) bedroom with only one (1) person residing in the unit
It cannot be converted to a condominium
There was evidence from the State that septic is adequate
Floor plans for the proposed building and a photo were submitted
The utilities will come through the main building

L. Ordway stated that the Ferrara’s have met all of the requirements for an in-law apartment. He added that there are hundreds of in-law apartments in Town.

There was no more discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

#11-05 Continued from June 30, 2011: A request from Chad Putney and Stephanie Young for a variance from Article V, Table 220-321, to permit a deck to be constructed within 5 feet of the side property line, where 15 feet is the minimum required. The property is located at 115 Main St, Tax Map 40, Lot 78, in the CII/VD District. The applicants are the property owners of record.

Present was Chad Putney. He reviewed the letter he previously submitted to the Board noting the following:

He is requesting a variance from the 15’ setback for a deck in the rear of his home
They propose to remove the current 10’X8’ deck and replace it with a 13’X16’ deck
The deck will set five (5) feet from the property line, same as the old deck, but will set farther back and to the right; he added that the property line is to the left
The same staircases will be moved out to the new size of the deck
They will have some railings and possibly a privacy screen
The deck will be constructed from pressure treated lumber
The neighbors and abutters will not be affected
They have two (2) letters from direct abutters in favor of the application

C. Putney read through the criteria for granting the variance noting the following:

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:

A pleasing deck would enhance and increase the value of the neighborhood
There would be better views from the abutters properties

This use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:

The existing separation of structures would remain

The new deck would not intrude any closer to abutting property than the existing deck does now

An area variance is needed to enable the proposed use because:

The rear entrance is on the left side six (6) feet from the property line; a deck would be needed to maintain an egress
It would be an unnecessary financial burden to move the door
They cannot install a deck elsewhere on the rear of the home; there are no other doors or suitable locations

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:

It would increase the property value
It will give abutters a nicer view to look at than the existing deck
It will allow the owners to enjoy their private property

The values of the surrounding properties will not be diminished because:

It will enhance theirs and surrounding properties by having a new aesthetically pleasing deck

L. Ordway clarified that the deck will continue to be five (5) feet from the property line; the house is five (5) feet; the existing deck is five (5) feet; and the new deck will be slightly longer and wider to facilitate use. This was confirmed

L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board.

J. Ingerson noted that she had just wanted to make sure that all the abutters had been legally notified by raising the question at a previous meeting.

L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application.

A letter from William S. Putman, 117 Main Street, was read. The letter stated that deck has his full support and will be a welcome change from the existing deck.

A letter from Erik and Elizabeth Fairchild, 133 Main Street, was read. The letter stated that the Putney’s have their full support for a variance for the deck to be built.

L. Ordway asked if there was anyone else speaking in favor of the application and there was no one. He asked if there was any speaking in opposition of the application and there was no one.

The case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

J. Allen motioned to grant, second by J. Ingerson, and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

The building is five (5) feet from the property line
The existing deck is five (5) feet from the property line
The new deck will be five (5) feet from the property line
The new deck will be slightly longer and wider than the existing deck to facilitate better use of the back yard
A classic request for a new deck on a small lot

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

#11-07: A request from Pentucket Companies for a variance from Article V, §220-32E A&B to allow a commercial use in a residential district. The property is located at 241 Main St, Tax Map 31, Lot 18-1, in the MDR District. The owner of record is RNK Realty, LLC.

Present for the application were James Lavelle, Licensed Land Surveyor, and Mark Lagasse, Owner of Pentucket Companies.

J. Lavelle explained that this site is the Kidder Wrecking Area off of Main St. South is a used car lot and salvage yard and north is the rest of the Kidder area with various businesses. He explained that they did a subdivision for Kidder of some parcels to separate some of the residential dwellings and created this particular lot in November, 2010. On the lot are existing buildings used for construction storage of vehicles and an apartment building. Pentucket Companies want to continue the commercial use; it was once commercially zoned and was changed to a residential district. It has always been used in a mixed commercial/residential way. He added that they will take down some of the older buildings and are proposing to build a new one for an office and to house some of their equipment. The area previously used for storage is partially ground/pavement mix and will be used for storage of empty containers.

L. Ordway said that storing containers is not a contractor’s yard, he asked for clarification.

J. Lavelle answered that they have equipment to carry the containers to different sites

M. Lagasse clarified that they do have the construction vehicles. He added that they also have some 20’storage containers they rent and use on job sites. He stated that they also have roll –off containers that get filled with construction debris and then get emptied and return to the site. They would be using this site in the same manner they use their 2 Danville Road site.

L. Ordway asked how many containers.

M. Lagasse replied that they have 100 but that no more than five (5) at a time are in the yard. He added that the apartment house has been there and they would like to keep it for the extra income and to offset property taxes. Mike Dorman, Plaistow Building Inspector, has been to the site numerous times and has said this site would be good for this use as they are surrounded by commercial properties. The only residential abutters are Kidder and his son in-law. Across the street is Basement Waterproofing Systems; one of their clients. He added that two (2) mailings have gone out to all the abutters. Once for a PB meeting and the second was for this meeting.

J. Lavelle stated that the property is unique in that everything around it is partially commercial.

L. Ordway questioned if the subdivision back in 201,0 asking if the existing dwelling on the RNK Realty property was part of this lot to begin with, It was confirmed it was. He asked if it is the only single-family lot and was answered that Kidder’s home is a single family.

L. Ordway asked if this property has been continually used as commercial.

J. Lavelle said to his knowledge it has.

It was stated for the record that written permission from the property owner was received.

J. Lavelle went through the criteria the granting of a variance to allow a mixed use in a residential area noting the following:

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because:

The property abuts many commercial uses in the zone so a continued commercial use would not affect those around it.

The variance is not contrary to the public interest because:

It allows for reasonable productive use of the property with minimal impact on Town services.
It will be used as it has been for a long time.

The property use is a reasonable one because:

The property is unique in its setting because it is surrounded by commercial uses and has been used commercially.

A fair and substantial relationship does not exist between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and specific restriction of the property for which the variance is being requested because:

The property is in an area previously zoned commercial

Many commercial uses abutt the parcel

L. Ordway asked how long ago was it zoned commercial. No one knew the answer. L. Ordway recalled that at one time the commercial zoning line was 500 feet back from the Route 125 corridor. He asked how far from that was this property.

J. Lavelle said he would need to look at a tax map, but that it is definitely more than that.

The variance request will not injure the public rights of others because:

It is a similar use with no change in traffic in or out of the site

Substantial justice is done because:

It will return a use previously enjoyed by the property and presently enjoyed by neighboring properties

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because:

It will allow for a commercial use in a commercial area

J. Ingerson asked if there was an apartment building on the site that with current tenants. It was confirmed that there was.

J. Allen asked if the storage containers would be empty. It was confirmed that they would be empty.

J. Ingerson asked if they would be storing construction or landscaping debris or both.

M. Lagasse replied construction equipment; no debris. He added that they are usually emptied before they come back to the site. Rarely they not be emptied first, but then they will remain on the truck and be emptied first thing in the morning.

J. Lavelle stated that if the variance is granted they will be going back to the PB to look at the specific use, the specific treatment for the surface where vehicles are parked and setbacks, etc.

L. Ordway questioned the type of storage containers being used; large containers that go on ships or containers that haul construction debris of the site and into the dump.

M. Lagasse replied both; storage containers and roll-off containers. He has about 100 containers; about 50 are storage and 50 are roll-off. He added that storage containers go out and do not come back very often, remaining on job sites. Usually only the truck comes back to the site.

L. Ordway asked if there were any more 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. The case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

R. Cole motioned to grant, second by L. Ordway. The case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

The property, formerly of Kidder ownership, has been in commercial use for a number of years

L. Ordway commented that it was used before, 25 or so years ago, as an auto recycling business. The history of the lot has always been a commercial use.

They propose to continue this commercial use
The property is surrounded by other commercial properties; Kidder Salvage Yard, Russell K. Thomas Salvage Yard (Chaya Brothers), Basement Waterproofing and a transportation business.
L. Ordway visited the property and it looks like it has been commercial for a number of years.

L. Ordway stated that the property has been commercial for years and it should continue.

J. Ingerson asked why there would be a commercial use in a residential district after the ordinance. She asked if it was because it was pre-existing that they allowed the mixed use. L. Ordway confirmed it was. She asked why they cannot just continue the mixed use.

L. Ordway answered that’s what they are asking to do. He added that they do need a variance for it because it is a residential area.

The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest

It will not because of all of the commercial properties there now.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed

As it has been commercial for years there would be no growth.

Substantial justice is being done

If not granted the Board would be preventing the owners use of the property

Values of surrounding properties would not be diminished

They will not be because they are all commercial; one more commercial activity will not diminish property values
The existing home owners in the area are no present tonight to argue as reduction in their property value

Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship

To deny would be taking the use away from the owner

There was no more discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

#11-08: A request from Pentucket Companies for a variance from Article V, §220-32E A&B to allow a mixed commercial and residential use in a residential district. The property is located at 241 Main St, Tax Map 31, Lot 18-1, in the MDR District. The owner of record is RNK Realty, LLC.

It was stated for the record that written permission from the property owner was received.

Present was James Lavelle, Licensed Land Surveyor and Mark Lagasse, owner of Pentucket Companies.

J. Lavelle offered the following about the application:

The lot was subdivided for Kidder
M. Lagasse wants to purchase it and continue the use on the lot
The lot has an existing apartment house they receive rent for; they want to continue this use
There are three units; it is not known how many bedrooms in each

J. Ingerson asked if there were occupancy permit requirements.

M. Lagasse answered that M. Dorman said going forward when the tenants moved out they would need the permits, but that prior to that, Kidder’s employees were living there previous to the occupancy permits and have been long term tenants.

P. Boniface asked if tenants would share the same driveway as the construction trucks would. It was confirmed that they would be.

J. Ingerson asked if there were any children living there.

M. Lagasse answered that he did not think so. He added that he can find out.

J. Lavelle added that he has seen a woman living there as well as Kidder’s employees. He noted that south on the plan is a used car lot that has a dwelling and is a mixed use; adding that it is common in the area. He clarified for the Board that the other building is a single-family dwelling.

L. Ordway said from a safety point of view, there will be people driving up where heavy construction vehicles are driving in and it could be a potential safety issue. Other Board members stated that it was a concern of theirs as well.

M. Lagasse replied that Kidder has been running trucks and has been for years at this site without incident. He added that Kidder’s equipment use of the property was much greater than theirs would be

L. Ordway stated that it is nice to have the extra rent; but asked if he really wanted to take the risk.

M. Lagasse answered that if he takes over the property he will upgrade the property. He will be building a new building across from it. From a safety and vandalism stand point, it would be nice to have someone on the property. It is a benefit to him.

The Board discussed if he would need new occupancy permits and it was decided they would not be needed until the tenants turned over.

M. Lagasse explained that they are looking to go that route; to go through the planning process and get a new building up and then hopefully relocate some of the tenants. Then they can rehab that piece of property. He added that M. Dorman has been in the apartment and would be able to offer more about them.

The Board discussed the issue of children living on the site and the safety concerns of it.

M. Lagasse said he wants to rent to employees; for commercial use.

L. Ordway asked M. Lagasse to tell him about Pentucket Companies.

M. Lagasse stated that he is the sole owner. It started out a small one man business and has acquired some equipment over the years. They have struggled along but have continued to grow. He added that they supply the Town of Plaistow with seven trucks during the winter; snow plowing and salting operations. They also plow for the State of New Hampshire.

J. Allen asked if they would have a sand and salt storage area on the property.

M. Lagasse answered that they do not use sand. He explained that all the salt goes into a twenty (20) foot storage container. It stays dry and will not leak out. When working for the State or Town they load from their own yard. He noted that they did not use an entire twenty (20) foot container in their yard last year.

L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board; there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition of the application; there was no one. The case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

P. Boniface motioned to grant, second by R. Cole, and the case was open for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

The site contains a three-unit apartment building; used to house Kidder employees. Pentucket wants to continue this use

They want to put new buildings on the site

Having residents on the site will bring security to the site and equipment

It is a long standing use on the property and should be continued.

The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a variance noting the following:

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest

Public interest is one of safety; they want to make sure no one on the property will be hurt by heavy equipment
Testimony was heard that they would be renting to employees, not families with children

J. Ingerson clarified that her concern was that children on the site could be a safety issue, not that he should not rent to families with children. She added that he could get in trouble if he says that. He had insured the Board that he would probably only rent to his employees, not that he doesn’t want to or can’t rent to families.

The Board discussed putting a restriction on it, or recommending the apartments not be rented to families. It was decided that families looking at the property would assess the safety of their family; it is their responsibility.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed

L. Ordway explained that the ordinance states no residential use on a commercial property; this property has both. He added that the spirit of the ordinance cannot be observed.

R. Cole asked if they would be allowing something that has been going on for many years. It was confirmed that they would.

Substantial justice will be done

It would be if they allowed them use of the building for rental income

Values of surrounding properties would not be diminished

They are not diminished because there are existing residential uses in commercial properties; the Kidder property being an example.

Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship

It would as it is a building that would fall to wreck and ruin

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

#11-09: A request from Kirk and Sara Walsh for a variance from Article IV, §220-321, to allow a Quonset style vehicle enclosure to remain where erected within 4’ of the sideline setback, where 15’ is the minimum required. The property is located at 5 Center Cir, Tax Map 40, Lot 46, in the MDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.

Present was Kirk and Sara Walsh, 5 Center Circle.

K. Walsh explained that they are requesting a variance on an existing tent enclosure being located within the side yard setback. He stated that three(3) years ago they bought the house as a foreclosure and redid the whole inside of the house. In the last year they have started working on the outside of the house. They replaced the old driveway and in the process found out that the driveway was over the lot line; their neighbor had the property surveyed. They went back and looked at the mortgage paperwork to see where the lot lines where and there was nothing given to them by Countrywide. They went to the Town and got a stamped survey that shows where the lot lines are. They cut the driveway back six (6) inches with a wet saw. When they put the Quonset Hut up it was just at the end of the driveway. K. Walsh presented pictures to the Board. He said they removed an unrepairable tool shed from the back yard, cleaned up and leveled the yard. They put up the Quonset Hut in the only place they could put it. They understand they are in the wrong with the setbacks as they are today. The enclosure offers a visual buffer for the neighbors, but there are also trees and a fence that obstruct the view of the hut and you cannot see the hut from the road. He stated that they keep two (2) cars and two (2) ATV’s in the hut that would be out in the open without it. The hut is 20’x27’. They have a pool and a deck in the back yard. He stated that they went to the Conservation Commission to make sure the back of the hut was 35’ from the brook in the back of the yard.

L. Ordway asked if they obtained a permit before they constructed the hut.

K. Walsh answered no; he did not know that he needed to get one.

J. Ingerson noted that this issue was just discussed by the PB because it was indecisive if the huts were considered a permanent structure like a shed. It was determined by the PB that they were considered a permanent structure.

L. Ordway asked if after the PB votes that it is a structure, do they need to bring it to the Town.

J. Ingerson replied no because it falls under the description of a permanent structure.

L. Ordway asked when the ruling was made.

There was more discussion on the issue. J. Ingerson thought the PB discussed the issue within a few weeks ago. L. Ordway said it is important to know when the structure was put up in relation to when this became a building permit requirement.

L. Ordway discussed other places the hut may be erected on the Walsh’s property. It was decided that there was no other place to put the hut on the ½ acre lot.

K. Walsh stated that although the home is in the MDR district, the neighborhood was constructed many years ago when zoning set backs were not as restrictive as they are today. He added that the 15’ side yard setback put both him and his neighbor in restriction. He said it is very difficult to put any free-standing structure up without zoning relief. He noted the following criteria:

The structure does not diminish the value of the property as they are all over Town.
The variance would be beneficial to the public because the tent provides a visual screening from the vehicles that would otherwise be out in the yard. He added that the hut is not visible from the road.
Granting the variance for the hut would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or his abutters.

L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board; there were none. He asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of the application and there was no one. He asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition the application.

Rick Pierce, 7 Center Circle. He stated that he lives on the left side of the Walsh’s property. He is concerned about how close the hut is to his property line; it is approximately 1’ from the line. He would like them to move it over the 15’ or remove it. He presented pictures to the Board with the survey stakes shown.

L. Ordway asked R. Pierce how close the hut is to his house.

R. Pierce replied roughly 20’, but he is guessing.

L. Ordway asked if there was any one else to speak in opposition of the application and there was no one. The case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

R. Cole motioned to grant, second by L. Ordway, and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

There is no other place on the property to put the tent
It is placed at the end of the driveway where it would be most useful in parking cars
Next to it is the leaching field, pool area and the street; which curves around the lot
The property is well maintained
Pictures show trees lined alone the driveway, which in L. Ordway’s opinion means that it has been an area of contention for the 25 to 30 years it took for the trees to grow to their current height
They heard no evidence that the wetlands are directly behind the tent structure but pictures indicate that 5’ to 10’ behind the structure the wetlands appear to begin which would preclude moving the tent back or even to the side 15’
The applicant’s sawed the driveway to make it 6” from the property line
To use the structure as a garage they might be able to move it over a few feet but not enough to make the 15’ requirement

The Board looked at and discussed the pictures, noting that the house is not even in compliance.

L. Ordway stated that it was not fair to the neighbor to have to look at the tent structure every day. He added that there is nothing in their ordinance that prevents them from being erected and the home owners did nothing wrong in erecting the structure as there were no know permit requirements at the time.

The Board discussed the building permits. J. Ingerson stated for the record that they based that decision on the fact that the huts fall under the description of a permanent structure; not that they are getting popular. She added that he didn’t know about the permit and the Board needs to decide if he can leave it up or not.

J. Allen suggested a camouflage color.

R. Cole stated that they would be trying to legislate esthetics.

J. Ingerson asked if there was a shed there at one time.

L. Ordway clarified yes, a dilapidated tool shed. He did not know if it was where the tent is now.

R. Cole read documentation that the shed was where the tent now is.

L. Ordway noted that a 20’x27’ tent is about the same as a two-car garage.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

#11-10: A request from Kirk and Sara Walsh for a variance from Article IV, §220-21, to allow a Quonset style vehicle enclosure to remain where erected 45’ within the wetland buffer, where 75’ is the minimum required. The property is located at 5 Center Cir, Tax Map 40, Lot 46, in the MDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.

Present was Kirk and Sara Walsh, 5 Center Circle.

L. Ordway asked where the wetlands are in reference to the structure.

K. Walsh replied it is directly behind the structure. He added that the Conservation Committee came out to the house last week and had a meeting. They formed a letter which states that the committee findings did not object to the structures location and has suggested that additional stone be placed to ensure adequate infiltration; which he said he would complete.

L. Ordway asked how deep the property is from the front of their house to the end of the property.

K. Walsh replied approximately 200’. He added that from the front of the property to the front of the structure is 100’, from the front to back of the Quonset is 27’ and from there to the wetlands he believes is 45’. He stated that when they (Conservation) came out they could not see another place for it either.

J. Allen noted that Conservation stated in their letter; if the hut is allowed to remain then crushed stone should be expanded so that approximately 8” of stone extends beyond each side of it.

K. Walsh said he has already done this on the sides and he will do it on the remaining sides as well.

L. Ordway asked if the tree line is along the side of the structure or is it just in the front of the driveway. He was answered that it goes down the side yard.

They discussed the neighbor’s fence noting that it is six feet from the property line in the back and maybe four feet towards the front.

K. Walsh stated they have no future plans to build permanent structure in the huts place.

L. Ordway asked if there were any further questions from the Board and there were none. He asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of the application; there was no one. He asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to the application.

Present was William Query Jr., 137 Main St. He presented a surveyor’s map to the Board. He pointed out his property on the map and showed them the wetlands. He explained that he is not concerned that the applicants bulldozed that back of his property and built an earthen berm back there; but he is concerned that this thing (the hut) has suffered catastrophic failure two years in a row and there are cars, ATV’s, gasoline and oil etc… stored in the paper shed. He noted the following:

The hut has blown over
It is not small; 20’x27’
It is a big eye sore and is noisy in the wind
There was a lack of due diligence on the applicants part in putting it there
He is concerned the hut will fall down again this winter
There was a 4X6 wooden structure in the back partly on his property at one time
The hut was erected at night, he woke up to it the next morning
When there are no trees he can see right through the property

The Board and W. Query Jr. looked at and discussed the map further noting where the wetlands and property lines are.

L. Ordway asked if there was any flooding from the stream.

W. Query Jr. answered that it can get very high but he has not seen it flood; there are water marks indicating that it has flooded in the past.

L. Ordway asked the applicants if they wanted to rebut to what W. Query Jr. said.

K. Walsh stated that when they flattened out the land and took down the shed M. Dorman was out there and saw what they were doing. The land was sliding into the stream and at M. Dorman’s request they built a boulder wall. He did not realize it was W. Query’s property.

L. Ordway stated that W. Query Jr. accepts that, but his issue is seeing the hut from his property, wind damage, and storing vehicles that could pollute the wetlands.

K. Walsh said his gasoline and motor oils are stored in his basement, and any car work he does is done at his parent’s home in Methuen where he has a lift. All he does is park the cars, two ATV’s and a trailer for the ATV’s in the hut.

L. Ordway asked how far his (W. Query’s) house is from the back of the tent.

K. Walsh replied 300 feet. He said what is before the Board is was this accepted through conservation; and Conservation said he could keep it up.

L. Ordway stated that Conservation was not that clear; there were stipulations.

J. Ingerson said they (Conservation) had no comment on the setback.

L.Ordway asked if there was any one else speaking in opposition and there was no one. The case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

J. Ingerson motioned to grant, second by L. Ordway, and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the case noting the following:

The tent is an eye sore
There is 300’ from the abutter’s home and garage to the back of the Walsh’s property
The Conservation Committee wants additional drainage and to make sure there is no erosion going into the brook

L. Ordway stated that it is his point of view that this is an eye sore issue as much as anything else. These structures are flimsy; what happens in a hurricane is unknown at this time. He added that they are allowed in Town and that the Conservation Committee had no major problems with allowing the structure to remain.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 2-3-0 (Cole, Ingerson and Allen dissenting); the motion was denied.

There was no further business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Laurie Pagnottaro

Recording Secretary