PRESENT:    Mack, Chairman; Hawkins; Pelczar; Joslin; Edney, Code Enforcement Officer; Tivnan, Clerk

 

 

Hawkins moved, Pelczar seconded, THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2006 AS PRESENTED. Voted unanimously.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

 

2756: Emily & George Tremblay: (George Tremblay) An appeal for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure by more than 400 sq. ft., Tax Map S16, Lot No. 10, located at 97 Bonney Shores Road in the Shoreline District.

 

Tremblay – My neighbors, the Gardner’s, who live at 99 Bonney Shores Road, are here with me.  My request is to have an exception to the 400 sq. ft.  We are looking to add an addition that is 40’ x 30’ and going back to the 50’ for the State requirement.  The septic design has been approved by the State. Mack – It looks like your addition is going over your new location of your septic tank.  Tremblay - Where they have the holding tank, will be pushed back.  Mack -That would require an amendment?  Edney -Right.  Mr. Gardner – I would ask that you accept this application.  Mack – I forgot to ask you if you wanted to proceed with a four member Board.  Tremblay – Yes. Hearing closed @ 7:07PM

 

2757: associated surveyors for Donna & albert Ducharme: (Rep. Carl Johnson) An appeal for a special exception to allow construction of a roadway and detention area in, and in the protective buffer, of a non-designated wetland (including utilities) and to allow the construction of a common driveway in and within the protective buffer of a non-designated wetland, Tax Map R30, Lot. No. 3 & 4, located on New Road in the Forestry Rural District.

 

Johnson – We have elected to wait until there is a meeting with a full Board.  I do have one technical question.  Regarding the notification, when there is not a full Board, do we need to re-notify the abutters?  Mack – No, because it was notified and anybody that was interested in the case could have come tonight.  It will be publicized in the next agenda anyway.

 

Hawkins moved, Pelczar seconded, I MOVE WE TABLE CASE # 2757 UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING WHEN THERE IS A FULL BOARD PRESENT, PER REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.  Voted unanimously.

 

2758: Robert e. troop: (Rep. Harry Wood) An appeal for a variance to construct a single- family dwelling with a front setback from the shoreline of 50’, 65’ required, Tax Map U20, Lot No. 17, located at 97 Pinnacle Park Road in the Shoreline District.

 

 

        Wood –The Troops would like to replace the structure that is currently on this lot.  This present structure is seven feet from the lake and over three full stories high.  They would like to raze the present dwelling and construct the dwelling that is outlined in red on the plan in your packet. The structure as proposed will be completely behind the 50’ line required by the State of New Hampshire but we can not meet Meredith’s 65’ setback because of the easement that runs across the back of the property and accesses the adjacent property which they also own.  The leachfield is where the garage will be. Mr. Troop owns 5 acres across the street and the plan will be to move the leachfield there.  We have a rendering of the proposed new structure as seen from the roadside. I believe this is in your packet.  The right end is the garage and the left end and several areas along the front of the building are series of screened porches and decks.  The decks are being created there, instead of within the 50’.   We are not asking Meredith to accept a deck which is closer to the lake than the 50’ and we are not asking the State for any approval at all.  We feel this is an improvement over the present situation.  Joslin – The existing deck that is off of the existing dwelling will be going?  Wood -Yes. All improvements will be 50’ from the lake. Mack – What is the height on the lake side?  Wood – There would be a walkout on the front side, but it would not be used extensively because the existing stairways to access the water front would be where they currently are, off the left hand side of the building.  It would be possible that they could come out underneath one of the decks but the presence of the deck itself will tend to mask that lower level.  Mack – What is the height from the ground to the top of the building on the lake side?  Wood – All I can say is that it meets the requirements. Edney - This project has been on the table for more than a year and the current proposal has a far less impact to the shoreline. Hearing closed at 7:20 pm

 

 

deliberations

 

 

2756: Emily & George Tremblay:

 

Mack – I don’t have a problem with this.  Hawkins – This addition will not be as close to the lake.

 

Hawkins moved, Pelzcar seconded, IN CASE # 2756, Emily & George Tremblay, i move an  appeal for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure by more than 400 sq. ft. be GRANTED, as it meets the criteria  for the special exception. Vote 4-0 in favor of the motion.

 

2758: Robert e. troop:

 

Hawkins moved, Pelzcar seconded, IN CASE # 2758, Robert e. troop, i move An appeal for a variance to construct a single- family dwelling with a front setback from the shoreline of 50’, 65’ required be GRANTED,  as it meets the criteria for a variance and is a vast improvement as to what is there now. Voted 4-0 in favor of the motion.

 

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Christine Tivnan

Planning/Zoning Clerk

 

Approved by the Meredith Zoning Board on _______________________, 2006.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      _______________________________

                                                                        John Mack, Chairman