Town of Plaistow Archive - ZBA Minutes 06-28-12 - See 7/26/12 Minutes for Changes

ZBA Minutes 06-28-12 - See 7/26/12 Minutes for Changes

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

April 26, 2012

Call to Order: 7:00 P.M.

Item One:

ROLL CALL: Present were – Larry Ordway; Chairman, Paul Boniface, Jim Allen and Tim Fisher; Alternate. Roderick Cole and Joyce Ingerson were excused.

L. Ordway appointed T. Fisher a voting member for the meeting.

Minutes of May 31, 2011

L. Ordway motioned to accept the minutes of the May 31, 2012 meeting, second by J. Allen.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

L. Ordway explained to the applicants that there are only four members sitting on the Board tonight; all cases heard need three affirmative votes to be granted. He explained that they have a right to ask for a postponement until there are five voting members sitting on the Board. He asked that each applicant tell the Board if they would like to postpone their hearing when their case is called before the Board.

The Board decided to hear each case and deliberate immediately after each hearing.

L. Ordway explained that the Board will go into deliberative session after each hearing when their decision will be made. There can be no further input for the case during this deliberation time. The applicant can wait to hear the decision but it will be mailed to them within 14 days. If granted the applicant cannot proceed until 30 days has passed to allow others to appeal the decision.

#12-10: A request from Eric Neff for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 8 Hill Raven Rd, Tax Map 53, Lot 25 in the MDR District. The property owner of record is Sharon J. Neff-Mattozzi.

Present for the hearing is Eric Neff. He explained that they would like to build an in-law apartment on his mother’s property that he will occupy. He added that she is elderly and he needs to be closer to help care for her.

The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a special exception. The following was noted:

The in-law apartment will be built over a new garage
The entrance will be on the side
It is a single family / modular home
The size will be 792 sq. ft.
The home has been owner occupied since 1962
The in-law unit will have one bedroom
One person, Eric Neff, will occupy the unit
The owner, Sharon Neff-Mattozzi, is Eric’s mother
Two existing sheds will be torn down
The applicant has submitted septic approval and a floor plan
The utilities will run on the same meter
The applicant will need an occupancy permit to rent the unit if the family member moves out

Present to speak in favor of the application was Raymond Szczpinski, 10 Hill Haven Rd. He stated for the Board that he is in favor of the application.

There was no one present to speak in opposition of the application and the case was closed.

DELIBERATION

#12-10: A request from Eric Neff for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 8 Hill Raven Rd, Tax map 53, Lot 25 in the MDR District. The property owner of record is Sharon J. Neff-Mattozzi.

J. Allen motioned to grant the request from Eric Neff for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 8 Hill Raven Rd, Tax map 53, Lot 25 in the MDR District. The property owner of record is Sharon J. Neff-Mattozzi. The case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the hearing noting the following information:

Eric Neff is moving into the unit to care for his elderly mother
They will build a new garage with an in-law apartment over it
It unit will be under the 800 sq. ft. requirement
The utilities will all be under the same meter
They have state septic approval and a floor plan

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

#12-11: A request from Michael W. Carey for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 23 Greenough Rd, Tax Map 16, Lot 15 in the LDR District. The property owners of record are Michael W. and Cheryl Carey.

Present for the hearing was Michael Carey. He explained that he would like to build a 799 sq. ft. in-law apartment over an existing garage. His son, Josh Carey, will live in the unit. His son has been laid off from work and they want to help him out.

The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a special exception. The following was noted:

The entrance will be in the back with a deck
The unit will be built on top of an existing three bay garage
The home is a single family home owner occupied for 25 years
The unit will be 799 sq. ft.
The unit will be one bedroom occupied by only the owners son
State septic approval has been submitted
A floor plan has been submitted
The utilities will all be on the same meter
The applicant will need an occupancy permit to rent the unit if the family member moves out

There was no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application and the case was closed.

DELIBERATION

T. Fisher motioned to grant the request from Michael W. Carey for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 23 Greenough Rd, Tax Map 16, Lot 15, in the LDR District. The property owners of record are Michael W. and Cheryl Carey. The motion was second by J. Allen and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the hearing noting the following information:

The applicant is helping the son who has fallen on hard times
They are building a 799 sq. ft. in-law apartment over an existing garage
The entrance will be in back with a deck
They will use knee walls to keep the unit just under the 800 sq. ft. requirement
They have septic approval and a floor plan

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

#12-12: A request from James & Maryann White for a variance from article V, §220-32I to allow a deck to be built 20 feet from the side property line where 25 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Sunrise Terr, Tax Map 15, Lot 14 in the LDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.

Present for the hearing was James & Maryann White. M. White explained the following to the Board:

They would like to build a deck in the back of their house off the family room / sliding door.
They need a variance because they are 5 feet to close to the property line if they center the deck off the family room / slider
They have a small lot
She provided the Board the floor plan and a transparency to show them both the proposed plan and how the deck would look if they stick with the ordinance
If they stick with the ordinance plan the deck might cover part of their septic and would not line up with the sliding door
There is a pool in the back yard
The proposed deck will be 16 feet x 16 feet
The deck will be 2 feet from the edge of the house on each side
The house is 18 feet from the property line
3 steps will come off the deck in the rear of the deck

A letter of support for the application was received from Roger & Pamela LeMire, 25 Sunrise Terrace. The letter was read to the Board and stated that they are in support of the application.

A letter of support for the application was received from Marion Hyde & Thomas Tingle, 29 Sunrise Terrace. The letter was read to the Board and stated that they have no objections to the building of the deck and are in full support of the variance.

There was no one present to speak in opposition of the application and the case was closed.

DELIBERATION

P. Boniface motioned to grant the request from James & Maryann White for a variance from article V, §220-32I to allow a deck to be built 20 feet from the side property line where 25 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Sunrise Terr, Tax Map 15, Lot 14 in the LDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record. The motion was second by L. Ordway and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the hearing noting the following information:

The deck will be 16 feet x 16 feet off the rear of the house
It will be centered on the family rooms sliding doors
It will be 20 feet from the property line
There are many decks in the area that would require a variances

The Board stepped through the requirements for the granting of a variance and noted the following;

The variance is not contrary to the interest of the public

Most homes in the area have decks that require variances; it is not contrary to the public interest.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed

The 2 feet the applicants have come in from the house shows that they are trying to observe the ordinance.

Substantial justice would be done

Yes, if they allow the applicants appropriate use of their property.

The values of surrounding properties would not be diminished

A deck would increase the property value.

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

It is a small lot; it would be difficult to build the deck without a variance.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

RE-HEARING – GRANTED 5/31/12

#12-07: A request from Jeffrey & Sandra Peabody for a variance from Article III, §220-13B to permit a commercial vehicle, greater than 1-ton capacity, to be parked at a residential parcel. The property is located at 37 Forrest Street, Tax Map 49, Lot 2 in the LDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.

Present for the hearing was Jeff & Sandra Peabody. J. Peabody explained that the Board must have misunderstood the size of the truck; thought it was bigger than it is.

The Board reviewed the pictures that were submitted of the truck and the garage it will be parked in.

S. Peabody and J. Peabody stated the following:

Only the tractor would be on the site; the rig does not come home
The tractor does fit in the garage
It will not be parked outside at all
He only drives the truck on Forrest Street for a ½ mile round trip each day

J. Peabody stated the other issue the Board has was the amount of time the truck would be on Forrest Street and it affecting the neighbors.

L. Ordway clarified what was meant by the statement that the Board needs to look out for other neighbors in the area. He explained that when they grant a variance it goes with the property. If the applicant was to sell his property another truck owner could move in and not be as courteous as the applicant would be. That is why the Town has the ordinance; to prevent commercial operation in residential area. This is the issue the Board needs to decide on.

J. Peabody asked if they needed to notify the whole Town to do this.

L. Ordway replied no. He explained the variance again noting that if the Board grants the applicants the variance it may be fine for now. If they sell the house the variance goes with it and the new owners may not be as contentious as the applicant would be.

J. Peabody stated that they have no plans to sell their home.

A letter of support for the application was received from Mary LeBlanc, 35 Forrest Street. The letter stated that she has no problem with J. Peabody parking his truck at 37 Forrest Street.

There was no one present to speak against the application and the case was closed.

DELIBERATIONS

J. Allen motioned to grant the request from Jeffrey & Sandra Peabody for a variance from Article III, §220-13B to permit a commercial vehicle, greater than 1-ton capacity, to be parked at a residential parcel. The property is located at 37 Forrest Street, Tax Map 49, Lot 2 in the LDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record. The motion was second by P. Boniface and the case was opened for discussion.

L. Ordway summarized the reasons for the re-hearing noting the following:

There was confusion regarding the size of the truck and if it could fit into the garage.

L. Ordway noted that the Board saw pictures that prove the truck will fit into the garage

There was confusion regarding how many people should have been notified.

L. Ordway noted that he has clarified what he meant when he said the Board needs to look out for the neighbors. He explained that the issue before the Board is whether to allow a commercial operation in a residential area; the variance goes with the property after it has been granted.

The Board discussed whether they could put a condition on the approval for the variance and how it would be enforced.

J. Allen amended his motion to include the condition that the truck must be stored in the garage whenever it is not in use.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-1-0; L. Ordway voted against the application.

DELIBERATIONS

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING

#12-04: A request from Patrick M. Connolly, LLC, for an appeal of an administrative decision of the Planning Board that deemed a proposed use to be a Contractor’s Yard and therefore not a permitted use in the ICR District under Article V, §220-35.G. The property is located at 15 Newton Road, Tax Map 66, Lot 28 in the ICR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING

#12-05: A request from Patrick M. Connolly Contracting, LLC, for a variance from Article V, § 220-32I and allow the use of an existing garage for commercial purposes. The garage exists 25.10’ from a residentially used parcel, which requires a 50’ setback. The property is located at 15 Newton Road, Tax Map 66, Lot 28 in the ICR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.

L. Ordway explained that they heard this case during the May 31, 2012 meeting and the Board decided it was a contractor’s yard and declined the application. The applicant has submitted an application for a re-hearing and needs to prove there is new evidence or that the Board has erred procedurally.

The Board read through the application for re-hearing in order to decide if there is any new evidence or errors which would allow them to grant a re-hearing. The Board noted the following in regards to the 10 considerations submitted by the applicant:

There was talk of trees being removed but it was not germane to whether it is a contractor’s yard. The Board did not consider the removal of trees to be an issue of consequence in their decision.
The Board did ask questions about the construction of the garage but it also had no impact on their decision to call the use a contractor’s yard or to allow the garage to be used for commercial purposes.
The Board stated they never questioned the applicants original intent for the property; it still has no impact on the Boards decision to call the use a contractor’s yard or allow the garage to be used for commercial purposes.
The web-site was discussed in terms of why a business would put something on their web-site they were not planning to do. They are however in the roofing business and have trailers with ladder and other equipment and the Board considered it to be a contractor’s yard.
No one on the Board questioned the licensing of either surveyor; James Lavelle or Dan Johnson.
The Board has no problem with how the property has been maintained. The difference between four and five years is incidental and had no impact on the Boards decision.
The Board recalled the applicant proposing to drive equipment on an access way beside the garage next to the abutter; they are not sure what the trees have to do with this issue.
The Board felt the trailers with ladders constituted a contractor’s yard; having a contractor’s yard in a residential area would be an injustice to the abutter.
The Board had decided that all the noise and activity on a contractor’s yard would be a detriment to the abutter’s way of life.
It is the Boards job to decide what a contractor’s yard is when there is no definition. In this case they had decided it was a contractor’s yard. The Board will recommend to the Planning Board to define a contractor’s yard.

The Board agreed that the only new information presented was the Google Earth picture and decided that it was not substantial enough to grant a re-hearing. They also decided there were no procedural errors. The Board reviewed the pictures that were submitted by the abutter at the hearing on May 31, 2012 and discussed further whether the site was a contractor’s yard.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 0-4-0 U/A. The reason stated for denial was there was no new evidence; all evidence presented in the request for a re-hearing was considered at the May 31, 2012 meeting.

Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA

There is no other business before the Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.

Approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on ______________________________________

_______________________________________

Larry Ordway, Chairman