Skip Navigation
Click to return to website
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10/09/07
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were:  Bill Rossi, Chair, Peter Knight, Frank LoRusso, Barbara Armstrong, Rodney Bunker, Wendy Weldon, Chris Murphy and PersonNameChuck Hodgkinson.  Also present:  Bob Labaree, PersonNameMoira Fitzgerald, PersonNameKate Warner, PersonNameBob Green, Gary Harcourt, Kent Healy, Emily Bramhall, Audrey Hazel, Peter Rose, PersonNameGary Maynard, Chris Alley, Bob Andrews, Mollie Callagy, PersonNameKristen Reimann, Ian Warner, Bob Skydell, Joseph Forte, Sam Mandell, RaeAnn Mandell, Mark Brefka, Rob McCarren, Helena Price, Leigh Collins, Ellen Kaplan, George Sourati, Mike Seccombe, Jack Hobby and Scott McDowell.     

Mr. Rossi opened the meeting at 7:00 PM.

MINUTES:  The September 11, 2007 minutes were reviewed.  A motion to approve the minutes as presented was made, seconded and approved with four in favor and one abstention (Mr. Murphy).

CARLY LOOK FOR PATRICIA WILKS; MAP 4 placeLot 15; Article 4 Section 4.2A3 and Article 6     Section 6.6:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 7:10 PM and outlined the Town’s proposed swimming pool water heater by-law amendment.  Ms. Look summarized the revised site plan dated 10/6/07 that was staked out for the 10/1/07 ZBA site visit.  All structures met the 50-foot setback requirement from the lot line because the abutting neighbor within 100 feet of the structures did not consent to the original plan.  Ms. Look also mentioned that there are two options for the pool equipment location and the Spring Point Architectural Review Committee has not yet approved the plan.  After discussion the applicant requested a continuance to November 13 @ 7:10 PM to allow more time to prepare the final recommendation and obtain approval from the Spring Point Association.  A motion to grant the request was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

MOIRA FITZGERALD FOR BOB LABAREE; Map 21 Lots 36, 37; Article 6 section 6.6 and Article 11 Section 11.6A2(i)a:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 7:28 PM.  Mr. Labaree summarized the plan to renovate the existing detached bedroom in the shore zone and rotate it 90 degrees to accommodate solar panels.  Even though he and his wife own the abutting lots within 100 feet of the structure he presented the required letters of consent for the record and file.  After brief discussion the hearing closed at 7:35 PM and a motion was made to approve the plan as presented and dated 10/9/07 with the condition that the Conservation Commission must also approve the plan.   The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

AUDREY HAZEL FOR KENNETH GOLDSTEIN, TRUSTEE; Map 24 placeLot 204; Article 8 Section 8.3 and Article 6 Section 6.6:  Mr. Rossi opened the continued hearing at 7:40 PM and reminded the applicant that Ms. Armstrong is the fifth voting Board member.  Ms. Hazel summarized the site plan and proposed changes to the existing house and requested the proposed garage that is less than the required 50-foot setback distance from the lot line be withdrawn from the application without prejudice.  The owners want to re-consider the garage’s location and will return to the board at a future date – if necessary.  After brief discussion a motion was made to approve the plan as presented and dated 8/6/07 with the condition that the garage is not a part of this approval.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

EMILY BRAMHALL; Map 8 placeLot 49.1; Article 4 Section 4.2A4:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 7:55 PM.  Ms. Bramhall summarized the proposed plan for building a windmill that is approximately 114 feet high (to the top of the blade), 105 feet from the north lot line and approximately 220 feet from the west lot line.  Mr. Rossi read the site review committee report, a letter in support of the windmill (Shea), a letter opposed to the windmill (Price) and Mr. Healy’s letter endorsing the windmill’s anchor system.  Mr. Rossi then asked for comment from the audience.  Mr. Hobby representing the Spring Point Association said Ms. Price has contacted the Association to voice her objection.  Abutters Christina and PersonNameGary Maynard both spoke in favor of the windmill and location.  Attorney Ellen Kaplan representing Ms. Price and Mr. Collins explained her clients have an approved building site for a house on their abutting lot and added the final location of this house site should not be affected by the placement of the windmill.  She added that Ms. Price has no objection to the windmill – just its location.  She concluded that the tower should not interfere with an abutter’s right to enjoy their property.  Its location should jointly benefit the owner’s desire for a windmill and have the least impact on an abutter’s enjoyment of their property.  She added that while the tower will be 105 feet from the Price’s lot line the cables and support pads will be 40 to 60 feet from their property.

The Board discussed whether or not the location should be at least the maximum height of the windmill away from an abutter’s lot line – the proposed site is 105 feet from the lot line (this is the height of the turbine) and the maximum height of a blade is 114 feet above grade.  After review the Board pointed out that this is not a specified requirement of the by-law.  

Ms. Price asked if it were possible to move the windmill farther away from her lot line.  She added that she felt as if she were bearing the brunt of the changing vista caused by the windmill without receiving any benefits.

Mr. Collins (Ms. Price’s husband) said he visited Mr. Harcourt’s property to view his 85-foot high windmill.  He concluded that from 100 feet it looked “close”; at 300 feet it seemed much better.  He summarized by saying sometimes good things have both good sites and bad sites.  He requested that the applicant move the windmill another 50 feet farther away from his lot line so they could build their home wherever they wanted and meet the minimum 50-foot setback distance from the lot line.  The current approved house site is 204 feet from the lot line.

Ms. Bramhall commented that her land slopes down into a valley and if the site were moved 50 feet back the windmill would not be high enough.  Mr. Harcourt added that the blade must be at least 30 feet above any obstructions within 500 feet of the windmill to work effectively.  Additionally, this alternate spot would be in a location that is unstable and could not support the windmill’s stay system.  The location is a “tree stump burial area” that was created when Ms. Bramhall’s field was cleared.  Ms. Bramhall added that she has met with the Price’s engineer, real estate agent and attorney at the site to discuss the proposal.  

After discussion the Board concluded the proposed site is approximately 309 feet from the Price’s approved house site with existing, natural screening.  With no further comment from the audience the hearing closed at 8:40 PM.  A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

CHRIS ALLEY FOR EAST HOUSE LLC; Map 32 placeLot 64; Article 8 Section 8.3:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 8:45 PM.  Mr. Alley and architect Peter Rose summarized the site plan to demolish an existing house that is in the shore zone of a non-conforming, 2.2-acre lot.  A new house will be built in a location that is outside the shore zone and meets the minimum required 35-foot setback distance from the lot lines.  A new garage will also be built in a location that also meets the setback requirements.  Mr. Rose added that the existing area of the house is about 2000 sq. ft. and the new house and related structures will have a total of 4000 sq. ft. of space.  There will be no living space below grade.  The flat roof that is 13 feet above grade will have natural grasses planted on top.  Mr. Alley mentioned the Board of Health and Conservation Commission have approved the proposed plan.  The Board commented that the plan is bringing the structures into conformity.  With no comment from the audience the hearing closed at 8:50 PM.  A subsequent motion to approve the site plan and elevations as presented and dated 10/9/07 was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

CHRIS ALLEY AND GARY MAYNARD FOR ROSEMALLOW FARM TRUST; Map 24 placeLot 33.2;   Article 4 Section 4.2A3:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 8:55 PM and explained the Town’s proposed new by-law amendment about swimming pool water heaters.  Mr. Maynard said they plan to tie the pool water heater into a geo-thermal system.  He continued to summarize the site plan and pointed out sight lines from the kitchen, screened porch and mud rooms.  After discussion the Board commented that there seem to be locations on the site that have better sight lines from the main rooms of the house – than the proposed location.  They explained the Board’s position and concern for child safety.  Mr. Maynard pointed out that all of the rooms are oriented toward the water view and the grade drops off toward the water.  After discussion Mr. Maynard requested a continuance to November 13 @ 7:25 PM to consider alternative locations.  A motion to accept the request was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

KRISTEN REIMANN FOR JOHN CALLAGY; Map 33 placeLot 76.1; Article 4 Section 4.2A3:  Mr.  Rossi opened the hearing at 9:12 PM.  Mr. LoRusso recused himself from the hearing as an abutter and Ms. Armstrong was appointed as fifth the voting member.  Mr. Rossi proceeded to explain the Town’s proposed by-law requiring a non-polluting, alternative energy source for swimming pool water heaters.  He added that he will confirm with Town Counsel whether or not the Callagy’s proposal will need to comply with the by-law before the Special Town Meeting vote on        October 29.  Ms. Reimann summarized the site plan for a 10’ X 70’ built-in lap swimming pool with insulated equipment shed.  Mr. LoRusso commented from the audience as an abutter that he has no problem with the pool siting and asked if the equipment shed will be sound proof.  Ms. Reimann added that the shed will have insulation and be partially below grade.  After brief discussion and no further comment from the audience the hearing closed at 9:22 PM.  A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented and dated 10/9/07 with the following conditions:  1. The pool will meet all of the Town’s standard built-in pool conditions.  2.  The Fire Chief shall approve the location for the stand pipe before construction begins.  3.  The architect will return to the ZBA and present a specific plan for the pool water heater that meets the Town’s proposed by-law amendment.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

BOB GREEN; Map 3 placeLot 34; Article 4 Section 4.2A4:  Mr. Rossi opened the continued hearing at 9:25 PM and reminded the applicant that Ms. Weldon is the fifth voting member.  Mr. Green summarized the proposed new location for his windmill.  Mr. Rossi read the site review committee report approving the location, a letter of consent for the new site from abutters Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and Ms. Pratt.  The Board agreed that the new site is better than the original proposal.  With no further comment from the audience the hearing closed at 9:28 PM.  A subsequent motion to approve the plan as presented and dated 10/9/07 was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

LIFESTYLE DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR 74 NORTH RD. LLC; Map 3 placeLot 2; Article 8 Section 8.1:  Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 9:31 PM.  Mr. LoRusso disclosed that Mr. McCarron is also his attorney for matters that involve the Town.  He added that he has no financial interest in the outcome of this case.  The Board agreed he should be allowed to remain as a voting member for this hearing.  Mr. McCarron summarized the events that have taken place since the last vote on May 9, 2006 and subsequent appeal.  He added that the applicant is presenting a revised plan for the property as directed by the addressStreetLand Court.  Mr. Rossi asked Mr. McCarron to summarize the new reservation policy.  The following are the key points:  1. There will be no distinction made on the property between members ad non-members.  2.  Members will have preferential room reservation rights and pay no nightly fee for the room.  3.  Unreserved rooms will be made available to members and non-members alike on a first come first served basis.  He added that there are approximately 500 rooms already reserved for next season among the general public.  Mr. Brefka commented that the new owners plan to continue operating the placeInn with no changes – 100 % public usage – until membership increases over the next few years.  The company will make a gradual transition as membership numbers and usage increases over time.  He added that this policy will remain open for future refinement by the company.  The target is to recruit a total of 1800 world-wide members who will have access to a total number of 45 properties.

Mr. Murphy asked how far in advance a member can reserve a room.  Mr. Brefka said he did not know but added the placeInn currently takes reservations one year in advance and reserves special events up to two years in advance.  Mr. Murphy continued and asked if there will be any member policies that will apply to the general public.  Mr. Brefka said he did not know.

Mr. Rossi read the Blueberry Inn’s reservation policy for the record and concluded the new owners are proposing to operate the placeInn as in the past and there does not seem to be a change in use.  After brief discussion Mr. Brefka offered to develop a set of covenants for approval by his attorney and Town Counsel that satisfy the previously proposed special conditions from the May 9, 2006 motion.  The Board agreed.  The hearing closed at 9:55 PM.  A subsequent motion was made to reject this application because it does not propose a change in use from the placeInn’s current use.  The Board also accepts Mr. Brefka’s offer to provide a list of mutually agreeable covenants for the placeInn’s future use that will be reviewed with Town Counsel and the Board as outlined earlier.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.                         
   
With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted by PersonNameChuck Hodgkinson, CAS.