FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Bill Rossi, Chair, Frank LoRusso, Chris Murphy, Rodney Bunker, Peter Knight and Chuck Hodgkinson. Absent were Barbara Armstrong, Wendy Weldon and Michael Halbreich. Also present: Laurie Jacobs for Stephen Mormoris, Julie Jaffe, Peter Breese and Geoffrey Kontje for Douglas Sacks and Ellen Biskis with Kent Healy. Sacks abutters Mason Walsh, Fran and Phil Demers, Emily Gadd and Kathy Coe also attended.
Mr. Rossi opened the meeting at 7:00 PM with the following agenda:
- Laurie Jacobs for Stephen Mormoris: 33 Quenames Rd.; Map 11 Lot 56.
- Julie Jaffe: 95 Stonewall Rd.: Map 32 Lot 70.
- Peter Breese for Douglas Sacks: 11 Chappaquoit Rd.; Map 24 Lots 216 & 209.
- Ellen Biskis and Kent Healy: 55 Old Woods Rd.; Map 26 Lot 5.
NEW CASES
LAURIE JACOBS FOR STEPHEN MORMORIS: Laurie Jacobs summarized the plan for a 790 sq. ft. two bedroom guesthouse with attached garage and pointed out the roof ridge was under 24 feet and the location for the guesthouse met all setback requirements—as indicated on the certified septic plan dated 7/21/05. It was pointed out that there was no comment from any abutters except one (unidentified) who phoned to ask where the guesthouse was sited. After describing its location the abutter had no objection and hung up.
There was discussion on the need for a total of two garages on this lot. Ms. Jacobs responded that the owner wished to have a garage with direct access to the guesthouse during inclement weather. It was pointed out that the total living space is 790 sq. ft. this excludes the garage space. It was further discussed that while the guesthouse meets all setback requirements it is a large structure because of the attached garage space, which will be somewhat visible from the road.
Results of the site visit were also discussed after which Mr. LoRusso made a motion to approve the plan as presented dated 7/8/05 and septic plan dated 7/21/05 with two conditions: 1. The applicant will present an extensive landscape-screening plan for approval by the ZBA Chairman before starting construction. 2. Both garages on the lot -- the garage with the main house and the garage with the guesthouse -- will never be turned into living space by the current or any future owners. Mr. Murphy seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor.
JULIE JAFFE: Ms. Jaffe summarized how she and her husband replaced an old shed with a slightly larger new shed in the same location as the old one without realizing it was a setback violation. It was pointed out that the ZBA has received letters of consent from the two abutters within 100 feet of the structure – as specified in Article 6 Section 6.6. Mr. Knight made a motion to approve the current shed and location. Mr. Bunker seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor.
PETER BREESE FOR DOUGLAS SACKS: Mr. Rossi asked if there was anyone in the audience present for the Sacks application. There were five abutters in attendance. Mr. Breese continued by briefly summarizing the history of this project and the sequence of changes that brought him to the ZBA for a Special Permit. He proceeded to review the plans and construction to date.
There was significant discussion about the site visit among the ZBA members. It concentrated on the fact that the main house is less than ten feet from the lot line, that the owner chose to make the proposed changes and additions to the structure – some of which were less than ten feet from the lot line – even though there is a great deal of open building space that can accommodate the 50 foot setback requirement on the 3.1-acre lot.
Abutter Mason Walsh identified himself as the closest abutter whose lot is seven feet away from the house. He continued by pointing out the entire structure lies within the 50 foot setback and he can hear every word spoken from the deck. He did not think it was fair to increase the use of this structure. Mr. Breese pointed out that the plan does not increase the interior square footage. The Board pointed out that the roof level deck, the additional deck platforms and covered area and the two dormers has the potential to increase outdoor use of the structure.
Abutter Fran Demers asked if there was a long-term plan that includes new structures or additional expansion of any of the existing structures. Mr. Breese said yes there is a long-term plan that is still in a rough conceptual stage.
The Board summarized the by-law Article 8 Section 8.3 and pointed out it requires the ZBA to consider both the applicant’s wishes and their impact on the neighborhood and abutters – both current and future owners.
Mr. Rossi proceeded to read two letters from abutters that support the applicant’s plan. The Board then asked Mr. Walsh to outline his specific objections. They were as follows: The entire structure is non-conforming. It would be easier to go along with this project if we knew what was also coming in the future. He does not like the current plan because the main house will get more use and create more noise. The elevated deck is less attractive than not having one. People will use it at night.
The Board asked why the applicant is choosing to tear down the structures that are farthest from the lot line and improving the non-conforming one. Mr. Breese explained it is more appealing to restore an old camp rather than throwing it away. Mr. Walsh responded by stating the plan is a rebuilding not a restoration.
The Board concluded that the plan is asking too much given the structure’s location and added that the applicant is welcome to restore the interior of the camp. They also understand that Mr. Sacks’ vision for the house has changed.
After outlining the Board’s options to Mr. Breese he requested the ZBA continue the hearing to September 13 to provide time to consult with his client and solidify the long-term plan. Mr. Murphy made a motion to accept the request and continue the hearing to 9/13/05. Mr. Bunker seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor to continue.
ELLEN BISKIS AND KENT HEALY: Both Ellen and Kent summarized the plan for replicating the Captain Stephen Flanders house at 155 South Road. After discussion the Board summarized by stating the design is very attractive. The by-law however, specifies that to obtain a Special Permit under Article 6 Section 6.3 the historic house must be pre c. 1850, the house at 155 South Road was built in 1865. Additionally, the plan indicates that this will not be a replication because several features have changed. They concluded that the applicant’s plan and house location meets the by-law’s requirements “A” and “B”. They concluded however, that to gain approval for a 28-foot high roof they must choose a pre 1850 home and bring a more detailed plan that replicates that
house without compromising the architectural design.
Upon further discussion the applicant requested the hearing be continued to September 13. Mr. Murphy made a motion to accept the request and continue the hearing to 9/13/05. Mr. LoRusso seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor to continue.
OTHER BUSINESS
The June 14, 2005 minutes were reviewed. Mr. Murphy made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Bunker seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor.
Mr. Murphy made a motion to adjourn. Mr. LoRusso seconded and the ZBA meeting adjourned at 9:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson
| 
