Meeting of December 18, 2001

II. OLD BUSINESS

A) Petition of James J. Reilley, owner, for property located at 21 Sanderling Way wherein the following are requested: 1) a Variance from Article II, Section 10-212(F)(2) to allow a gift packing business where products to be wrapped are delivered by tractor trailer truck and shipped out by UPS in a district where such use is not allowed, and 2) a Variance from Article XII, Section 10-1204 Table 15 to allow no parking to be provided for the business where 1 parking space is required for the business. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 217 as Lot 2-1823 and lies within the OR/MV district. This application was re-tabled at the December 18, 2001 meeting to the January 15, 2002 meeting.

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1) Petition of Steven Katona and Marie Wood, owners, for property located at 98 Thaxter Road wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) is requested to allow: a) 24’ x 30’ attached 1 1/2 story two car garage with a accessory workshop on the second floor with a 6’ rear yard where 30’ is the minimum required, b) steps for a deck expansion with a 28’4” rear yard where 30’ is the minimum required; and, c) 32.3% building coverage where 20% is the maximum allowed. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 166 as Lot 33 and lies within the Single Residence B district.

2) Petition of William and Janine St. Laurent, owners, for property located at 24 Kent Street wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(3)(a) is requested to allow 26’ x 36’ two story single family dwelling with a 4’ x 26’ front porch and a 6’ x 8’ back porch on an existing lot having 5,000 of lot area where 7,500 sf of lot area is required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 113 as Lot 39 and lies within the General Residence A district.

3) Petition of Dana S. Levenson, owner, for property located at 90 Curriers Cove wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) is requested to allow a 14’ x 26’ two story addition to an existing attached garage resulting in a 10’ left side yard where 20’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 204 as Lot 15 and lies within the Single Residence A district.

4) Petition of 200 International, LP, owner, for property located at 200 International Drive wherein a Variance from Part 303.04(B) of the Pease Development Authority Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow 3,000 sf of the first floor in an existing office building to be used as an Educational Training Center. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 312 as Lot 3 and lies within the Industrial district.

5) Petition of Seacoast Trust, owner, for property located at 150 Rt 1 By Pass wherein Variances from Article II, Section 10-206 and Article IV, Section 10-401(A) are requested to allow a 5,208 sf one story addition to the right side of the existing medical office building for additional medical office use. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 231 as Lot 58 and lies within the Single Residence B district.

6) Petition of Thomas Vento, Grantor of 1996 Trustee, owner, for property located at 102 Marne Avenue wherein the following are requested: 1) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) to allow an existing non conforming frontage to be reduced to 25’+ as a result of a lot line relocation with the abutter where 100’ is the minimum required, and 2) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(1) to allow the conversion of the single family dwelling to a two family dwelling with 25’+ of frontage where 100’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 222 as Lot 43 and lies within the General Residence A district.

7) Petition of Abby Cohen, owner, and Gary Dellner, applicant, for property located at 44 Pearson Street wherein a Variance from Article IV, Section 10-402(B) is requested to allow an 8’ x 12’ one story shed with a 9’ rear yard where 10’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 232 as Lot 108 and lies within the Single Residence B district.

IV. ADJOURNMENT

Members of the public and abutters should be aware that after the board renders its decision tonight, that a later request could be made to reconsider the decision and/or appeal the decision to the Rockingham County Superior Court. Please note that an abutter/aggrieved party may file a motion to reconsider if they are dissatisfied with the Board’s decision. If you have any interest in finding out whether a motion to reconsider has been filed; you should contact the Planning Department twenty-one (21) days after the BOA decision is rendered. Thereafter, depending on the outcome of the reconsideration request, you are also invited to make inquiries at the Legal Department to determine whether an Appeal to the Superior Court has been filed.