ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
October 27, 2011
Call to Order: 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Present were – Larry Ordway; Chairman, Joyce Ingerson; Alternate and James Allen; Alternate. Paul Boniface was absent and Kim Crapo; Alternate, was excused.
Also present was Laurie Pagnottaro; Recording Secretary
L. Ordway appointed alternates J. Ingerson and J. Allen voting members for the meeting.
L. Ordway also asked that a recommendation be made to the Board of Selectmen that Joyce Ingerson and James Allen be appointed full time sitting members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Minutes of July 28, 2011
L. Ordway moved, seconded by J. Allen, to approve the minutes of July 28, 2011. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
#11-12: A request from Kirk & Sara Walsh for a variance from Article IV, § 220-21 to allow a Quonset style vehicle enclosure to be erected 37’ within the wetlands 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 owners of record.
Present for the application was Kirk Walsh, 5 Center Circle, and Peter Bemis, Engineer.
L. Ordway explained that because there were only three members sitting on the Board and for a case to be granted there needs to be three affirmative votes, it is their right to ask for a postponement until a later date when the Board will have five (5) sitting members.
P. Bemis asked if another member might arrive late.
L. Ordway replied he did not know. It was decided that they would have a fifteen (15) minute recess to see if another Board member might arrive.
The Board reconvened at 7:20.
The applicants decided to proceed with the hearing.
P. Bemis handed out an exhibit to the Board that they had submitted with the application. He read a letter submitted to the Board with the application written by Kirk and Sara Walsh. It included, but is not limited to, the following information:
- They propose to erect a tent-style enclosure within 37’ of a wetland
- The property was subject to a variance petition in July, 2011
- The Zoning Board of Adjustment (The Board) granted a variance for a side yard setback and denied a variance for a setback from a wetland setback requirement
- The applicants feel the Board’s decision was made based on aesthetic reasons rather than the wetland issues
- They propose to erect the enclosure eight (8) feet further away from the wetlands than the previous proposal
- They propose to install a crushed stone apron around the enclosure
- They propose to remove the excess crushed stone near the 25 foot wetland buffer and add three (3) 6’-8’ white pine trees with bark mulch
- They have two cars they wish to keep sheltered with the enclosure
- They do not have the financial means to build a permanent structure
- They would like to erect the 20’X27’ tent-style enclosure they already own
- The house was constructed before the zoning setbacks were strict and would itself be in violation of the requirements
- They have nowhere to place the tent without some relief from the Board
- The variance is sought from article IV, §220-21
- Similar tent-style enclosures are permitted in the MDR District in Plaistow and will not diminish the surrounding property values
- They removed an old tool shed and stabilized the grade adjacent to the wetland
- Plaistow Conservation Commission inspected the property in July (2011) and made the recommendation (which were submitted to the Board) to improve the drainage apron around the enclosure.
- They will accept the condition that no storage of fuel or oil other than that contained in the vehicles will be permitted in the enclosure
L. Ordway stated that they did not have the report from the Conservation Commission; he recalled that the Conservation Commission was not in favor of the enclosure.
K. Walsh replied that the Commission was in favor. He stated that if they were granted the side yard setback then the Conservation Committee felt it was fine as long as they added eight (8) inches of crushed stone on the left side of the tent.
P. Bemis gave the Board a copy of the Conservation Commission’s report and read it to the Board. The letter was dated July, 27, 2011 and included the following:
- 5 Center Circle is a small lot with a small yard that was filled in many years ago; the current buffering requirements were not in place at the time of the fill
- The septic tank is also in the rear yard, underground, in the space between the Quonset Hut and swimming pool. This would make the movement of the hut nearly impossible and certainly not enough to noticeably reduce the buffer encroachment
- The fill provides for a level rear yard that is approximately 18” to 24” above the level of the intermittent stream. There were no signs of any erosion anywhere along the bank of the filled area
- Our main concern about the hut is that it adds to the amount of impervious surface on the site which in turn concentrates the runoff from its roof. The Quonset Hut has been placed on crushed stone which helps to mitigate the runoff
- We have no comments about the side yard setback
The letter made the following recommendations:
- If the hut is allowed to remain then crushed stone should be expanded so that approximately eight (8) inches of stone extends beyond each side of the hut to help with runoff. The rear of the hut is okay as it is
- The banks should be monitored by the owners to ensure erosion does not become a problem and should provide some type of stabilization in the event erosion does occur after a bad storm or stormy season
- Grass clippings and other yard debris should be properly disposed of and not dumped into the buffer area which is present along the entire bank of the filled area
P. Bemis stated that the exhibit they submitted to the Board does show the crushed stone apron around the enclosure and they have also increased the buffer, moving the structure forward the maximum the lot would allow.
L. Ordway noted that in their presentation they mentioned the requirements which are the first 25’ is a no disturb area and the next 50’ is a no structure area. He asked how many feet they were from the wetlands in their original presentation, and how many feet will it be now.
P. Bemis answered that it was originally 45’ within the wetland buffer and now they have reduced it by 8’ putting the hut 8’ further away from the wetlands than before. He added that in that 8’ zone they will add the trees and mulch to provide a real buffer.
L. Ordway asked what they will do with the leaves that are already in the stream bed.
P. Bemis replied that that would be an acceptable condition to remove the debris.
L. Ordway asked if the hut is presently erected.
P. Bemis replied no, that it was taken down as required.
L. Ordway noted that a Quonset Hut is considered a permanent structure. If they do not qualify for this they also would not qualify for a brick and mortar structure. He added that based on the July, 2011 meeting notes there is no other place for the hut to go and because the septic is in the back yard it precludes them from entering from the other side.
L. Ordway asked what the size of the tent is.
P. Bemis replied 20’x27’.
J. Allen asked if they could move it any further to the right.
P. Bemis answered no. He added that they have moved it forward and just have enough room to get in and out of the door.
J. Ingerson asked how close the tent is to the house.
P. Bemis replied that it is 14’ from the corner of the house. He added that there is an existing driveway already there.
J. Ingerson asked how close the hut is to the neighbor’s yard.
K. Walsh answered that it was the same as it was before, they only moved it vertically.
L. Ordway reminded that Board that they did already grant the side yard variance.
P. Bemis stated that they cannot shift it to the left anymore; they want to add crushed stone to the left as well. He added that this is the best proposal.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application and there was no one. He asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition of the application.
Present to speak in opposition of the application was William Query, Jr., 137 Main Street.
W. Query Jr. presented a map of the properties to the Board. He pointed out the brook, his land and the applicant’s property. He also presented pictures he took the day before from his property of the applicants property and he pointed out to the Board that you can see that the structure is still up and they only took down the paper off the walls. He noted that the structure fails every year. He pointed out a blue chemical shown in the pictures and discussed how with crushed stone a spill would go right into the earth and contaminate the brook.
J. Allen asked when the pictures were taken.
W. Query Jr. answered yesterday (October 26, 2011) afternoon about 4pm. He noted the size of the structure adding that it is too big for the property; encroaching on both the neighbors and the wetland.
J. Allen asked if these pictures were taken from his (W. Query’s) property.
W. Query Jr. replied yes and added that he had not used zoom. He discussed the size of the structure further noting the two quads (All Terrain Vehicles) and snow blower contained within the structure frame.
P. Bemis responded to W. Query Jr’s concerns stating that although he recognizes his concerns, he does not see the issue relative to the windshield washer fluid but has still recommended to K. Walsh to not have it in the enclosure. He added that they can change the petition and make it a permanent structure if that is what the Board wants. They will put in a foundation and a garage. They already own the hut and would like to erect it, but if they Board would grant relief only with a permanent structure then that is what they will do. He feels it is important to focus on the fact that they cannot put the structure any place else on the lot.
L. Ordway asked what the size of the lot is.
P. Bemis replied 15,000 square feet. He added that it was created back in the 1960’s probably pre-zoning. He suggested that as a compromise they may allow the Quonset Hut to be put up for a period of one (1) year until the Walsh’s can save the money to build a more permanent structure.
L. Ordway reminded him that they would have the same issues with a permanent structure.
P. Bemis responded that yes the same issue would be there, but they feel the variance issue is worthy and they have shown a natural buffer between the structure and the resource area. He added that they are doing the best they can with what they have to work with and he would suggest that if there maybe some creative way to grant the relief that they may consider that.
There was no further discussion and the case was closed.
L. Ordway explained the deliberations process noting that no further input could be given. He added that they will be notified in writing within ten (10) days. If granted they cannot proceed with plans for thirty (30) days in case someone would like to appeal the decision.
DELIBERATION:
#11-12: A request from Kirk & Sara Walsh for a variance from Article IV, § 220-21 to allow a Quonset style vehicle enclosure to be erected 37’ within the wetlands 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 owners of record.
J. Ingerson moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the application as noticed and the case was opened for discussion.
L. Ordway offered a summary noting the following:
- The Walsh’s came before the Board on the July, 2011 meeting with a proposal for a Quonset Hut and at that time they were 8’ closer to the wetland.
- At that time the Board reviewed the lot plan and determined that there was no other place on the lot for the hut.
- They heard evidence from abutter W. Query Jr. that there were chemicals stored on the property were the hut would be
- There is still evidence the steel frame is erected.
- The area is permeable and W. Query Jr. is concerned about chemicals contaminating the wetland
- The applicants are willing to compromise to allow the Quonset Hut be allowed to be erected at least over the winter; that includes putting down a concrete pad.
J. Ingerson asked L. Pagnottaro to read back the applicants response to L. Ordway’s question if the structure was presently erected.
L. Pagnottaro read “No, it was taken down as required”.
J. Ingerson inquired as to whether it was this discussion that they wanted the hut only store their cars. She noted that they have two all terrain vehicles and a snow blower present in the pictures. She noted that it makes it hard for her to make a decision when there is conflicting information.
L. Ordway stated that the issue is that the lot is 15,000 square feet; it is a very small lot built back in the 1960’s. Putting a 20’x27’ structure in addition to what is already there is over using the property. He understands the applicants have already invested in the larger structure but the Board does not deal with monetary considerations. They could sell the structure. He added that even with a smaller structure they would not meet the requirement as 75’ brings them right up to the back door of the house.
The Board reviewed the requirements for granting a variance noting the following:
- THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
L. Ordway suggested that public interest in this case is the water quality and being far enough away that any spills will not contaminate the wetlands.
- THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED
L. Ordway offered if it were only a few feet it would be okay, but it is 25’ to 28’; it is too much given the size of the lot.
- SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE
L. Ordway stated that the gain to the general public is the quality of the water. He added that as much as an applicant can say there will be no issues, they have seen that there is already an issue with anti-freeze shown in one of the pictures. That is an indication that something may happen.
- THE VALUES OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE NOT DIMINISHED
L. Ordway does not feel that a Quonset Hut would diminish surrounding properties.
- LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
L. Ordway feels there would be no unnecessary hardship as the vehicles shown in the pictures are vehicles they applicants could live without. He added that there are alternative to storage sheds.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-3-0 and the motion to grant the variance was denied as it is contrary to public interest and the land is overused.
Other Business
Letter from Daniel J. Poliquin; Chairman of the Board of Selectmen
L. Ordway informed the Board that a letter was received from BOS Chairman, Daniel Poliquin. He read the letter to the Board which stated the following:
This memo is a reminder that all committees/commissions are created/supported/serviced by the Board of Selectmen, and therefore all requests are to go through the Town Manager or Interim Town Administrator who in turn will bring them before the Board of Selectmen. At no time are requests or directives to be given directly to members of staff or department heads. This also includes any requests for web postings, Facebook or other IT related items.
There is no other business before the Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurie Pagnottaro.
| 
