FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Bill Rossi, Chair, Wendy Weldon, Chris Murphy, Peter Knight, Frank LoRusso, Barbara Armstrong, Allison Burger and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also present: Kris Horiuchi, Mark Lanza, John Johannessen, Phil and Fran Demurs, Kristen Maloney, Don Reese, Eileen Johannessen, Max McCreery, Jonathan Lipnick, Derrill Bazzy, John Abrams, Sarah and Bob Nixon, David Zeilinger, Chris Alley, Angie Francis, Edward Mayhew, Janet Weidner, Jim Feiner, Mildred Mayhew, Kathy Bega and Bart Thorpe.
Mr. Rossi opened the meeting at 7:00 PM.
KATHY BEGA AND BART THORPE DISCUSSION; Lichtenberg Tennis Court Special Permit and Conditions; Map 20 Lot 53: Ms. Bega reviewed the plan to bring the 4-foot high pool fence into compliance as conditioned in the Special Permit issued for a tennis court on November 12, 2008. The Board unanimously approved the fence plan and agreed Mr. LoRusso will inspect the fence after it is installed. The pool fence alarm will also be tested at the same time to make sure it is in working order.
ROLAND KLUVER FOR DOUGLAS SACKS; Map 24 Lots 209, 216; Article 4 Section 4.2A3: Mr. Rossi opened the continued public hearing a 7:10 PM. Before proceeding the Board expressed its concern for Roland Kluver and asked Ms. Horiuchi to please send its best wishes to him for a swift recovery.
Ms. Horiuchi summarized the revised site plan that moved the pool’s location approximately 15 feet farther east. The raised terrace was lowered one foot and the size of the pool-level patio was reduced by approximately 30 percent. The Board asked if this plan was certified by a licensed surveyor. The previous plans that were presented on 10/14/08 were inaccurate as they did not have the abutting houses properly sited in relation to the pool’s location. Ms. Horiuchi confirmed that this site plan dated 2/5/09 has been certified by Vineyard Land Surveying and Engineering. Mr. LoRusso asked if they had a computer-generated elevation view of the pool and terrace from Mr. Lipnick’s property – as requested on the February 2 site visit. Ms. Horiuchi said they do not have
this drawing.
Ms. Horiuchi reviewed a landscape site plan dated 2/10/09 and said the mature trees will be 14’ to 18’ above finished grade. The Board asked for clarification purposes if the natural grade is approximately 22 feet above sea level and if the terrace is 34 feet above sea level. These elevations were confirmed as close. The natural grade slopes from 25 feet down to 22 feet above sea level.
The Board asked if the proposed trees will screen the pool wall at installation. Ms. Horiuchi referred to site plan L1.2 that demonstrates the height of the trees to be planted. She added that the pool terrace will be about the same height as the second floor windows on Mr. Lipnick’s house.
The Board asked which trees in the existing natural buffer to Mr. Lipnick’s property will be removed for construction. Ms. Horiuchi said she does not have a surveyed plan of the proposed work area to determine this and added any deciduous trees that are removed will be replaced with evergreens for year-round screening.
Mr. Lanza commented as follow up to the October 14th discussion the pool will not be visible from public land across the pond (Land Bank property). Ms. Horiuchi presented several photos taken from the four corners of this lot to demonstrate this point. The Board agreed.
The Board mentioned that at the last meeting, the possibility of moving the pool closer to the front and center of the house was discussed as an option and asked whether or not this is possible. The construction manager for Mr. Sacks’ contractor Colin-White reviewed a field construction diagram with all of the underground systems that are in place and would make this move difficult to execute.
With no other questions from the Board Mr. Rossi read a summary of the correspondence received from several abutters. The discussion was then opened to the audience. Mr. Lipnick read a statement for the record and handed the floor to Messrs. Abrams and Bazzy of the South Mountain Company.
George Brush’s letter (attorney for Mr. Lipnick) was read aloud for the record. Among many things it pointed out the proposed pool terrace is approximately 14 feet above grade. Mr. Abrams read Section 4.2 of the By-Laws and emphasized segments pertaining to site preparation guidelines. Specific points were made regarding the proposed pool’s impact on existing large trees, the view of the natural features as well as vistas, water views and the character of the existing development. He added that the abutting neighbor’s existing vegetation screens the pool from the pond. If this were eliminated the pool would be visible from the pond. He closed by saying the current proposal in no way satisfies the by-law. It may be inconvenient to relocate the pool. The by-law
however is not about inconvenience.
Mr. Rossi asked Ms. Horiuchi to address what will happen to the pool’s backwash water. Ms. Horiuchi explained there is a drainage system for all the gutters and they can make a provision to have the pool water diverted into the drainage system. She added that no chlorine will be used to treat the pool water. A salt-based filtration system will be used.
The Board asked why the hot tub was not placed on the other end of the pool—farther from the neighbor’s lot. Ms. Horiuchi explained that it was a design consideration and that 600 square feet has been eliminated from the raised terrace.
The proposed water view protection agreements for the three most affected abutters were discussed. The applicant agrees to abide by the special conditions outlined in the special permit dated May 13, 2008 as conditions of the permit and not as easements. They agree with the written protection for Map 24 Lots 206 (McCreery) and 208 (O’Keefe). They will agree to an oral “handshake” agreement for water view protection for Map 24 Lot 218 (Gadd). The applicant does not agree with a written water view protection special condition for the Gadd property because the pool in no way is visible from this parcel. The house screens the pool.
The Board asked Ms. Horiuchi which trees along the common border with Mr. Lipnick will be removed for the pool construction. Ms. Horiuchi could not identify specific trees because the work zone has not been formally surveyed.
Mr. Bazzy asked for the pool’s distance from the Lipnick house. It was estimated to be 90 feet.
The Board discussed that its role is to make sure an application meets the requirements of the by-law.
Mr. Lanza summarized how the proposed plan addresses and meets all the requirements of the Town’s by-law and its special pool conditions. He added that the terrace has been reduced in size by about 30 percent, the pool was moved an additional 15 feet to the east and it was lowered by one foot—from the previously approved plan. He pointed out this raised patio and terrace could be built by right without a pool. He therefore did not think its height is at issue with all of the additional screening included in the plan. He concluded that the applicant is here tonight to address the language for the water view protection special conditions. All other aspects of the plan have been satisfactorily addressed.
After brief discussion a motion was made to close the hearing at 8:40 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made by Mr. Murphy as follows: Approve the plan as presented tonight with the following special conditions: 1. The height of the pool lip is no more than 22 feet above sea level as shown on the Vineyard Land Surveying site plan dated 2/5/09. 2. No existing trees that are within 55 feet of lot # 215 (Mr. Lipnick) and within 90 feet of lot # 220 (Mr. Walsh) shall be disturbed. Further planting in these areas will be allowed as shown on the site plan dated 2/10/09. 3. The previous water view protection conditions (as outlined in the May 13, 2008 decision) shall apply with the following exceptions: The Gadd property
(lot # 218) will be excluded from the written condition and the water view for the remaining two lots (206 and 208) will be protected by a deed restriction as outlined in the special permit. 4. The Town’s standard pool conditions will be met. 5. All surface water runoff shall be contained on the Sacks property (Map 24 Lots 209, 216). 6. The May 13, 2008 special conditions regarding pool construction and planting dates, pool-side amplified speakers and no back up fossil fuel source for the geo-thermal pool water heater shall remain. 7. This special permit supersedes and nullifies the special permit dated May 13, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rossi. The Board asked for an explanation of the 22 feet above sea level requirement. Mr. Murphy outlined that the existing natural grade in the pool’s proposed location is about 22 feet above sea level. This condition would essentially lower the pool to grade level – as most pools are designed. The Board emphasized that the water view protection conditions will be recorded as a separate covenant to the deed. With no further discussion on the motion Mr. Rossi called for a roll call vote. It was as follows: Murphy and Rossi in favor; Weldon, LoRusso and Knight opposed. Mr. Rossi declared the motion did not pass and this is the Board’s final action on this petition. No further motion or
vote will be taken.
TOWN OF CHILMARK BEACH COMMITTEE; Map 29 Lot 9; Article 6 Section 6.6 and Article 8 Section 8.3: Chuck H. informed the Board the applicant submitted a request in writing for a continuance to March 10, 2009 @ 7:10 PM to allow more time to obtain the required letters of consent. A motion was made to accept the request. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
HUTKER ARCHITECTS FOR SWORDFISH ENTERPRISES, BEACH PLUM INN; Map 21 Lot 70.4; Article 8 Section 8.3: Mr. Rossi apologized for the delay and opened the public hearing at 9:07 PM. Ms. Francis outlined the plan to alter a non-conforming structure and its use at the Beach Plum Inn. The applicant would like to relocate the first floor laundry to another site; maintain the existing first floor kitchen and common area; renovate the structure to accommodate two bedrooms and bathrooms on the second floor -- in lieu of the apartment. The bedrooms will be rented as part of the Beach Plum Inn. This changes the use of the structure that was granted a Special Permit to be built and used as an owner’s apartment. The capacity of the non-conforming Inn increases from 11 rooms
and 22 overnight guests to 13 rooms and 26 overnight guests. This is still below the maximum allowed capacity of thirty overnight guests. Lastly, the applicant seeks to amend the conditions of the Special Permit issued by the ZBA on March 16, 2001 to Baywolf, LLC, Craig Arnold dba The Beach Plum Inn to accommodate the proposed changes.
Mr. Alley explained the proposed changes have been approved by the Board of Health.
The Board asked why the apartment was not removed when the Nixon’s purchased the Inn as outlined in the special permit issued in March 2001. Ms. Nixon explained they thought it was Mr. Arnold’s responsibility to remove it upon sale. Mr. Rossi explained that this application is under Article 8 Section 8.3. The Board will consider the proposed change and determine whether or not the change is more detrimental to the character of the neighborhood than the current structure and use. The Board clarified that the structure will have a mixed use. The first floor will be used by Inn guests and staff for events and communal gathering. The second floor will be rented as overnight lodging at the Inn.
Mr. Rossi read the letters received from abutters for the record. Mr. Feiner summarized the growth of the Inn. The Inn had a capacity for 10 guests and one owner on a substandard lot when his parents owned it. The Darrow family expanded the Inn to 11 rooms. Mr. Arnold added the garage apartment and two cabins for staff use. He summarized that any expansion makes the result more detrimental to the neighborhood and asked when the expansion will stop.
Ms. Weidner explained that her family did not object to the apartment because of the extenuating circumstances. This proposal however is very different. It will add two more guest rooms and four additional overnight guests to the Inn’s capacity. This is a permanent expansion. The apartment was a temporary expansion as outlined in the special permit. She added she was told NStar had to cut several trees on her property without her permission to repair a power outage. After checking with NStar she discovered someone else cut the trees.
The car traffic impact of added Inn capacity was also discussed. The Board asked if a second means of egress for the proposed structure and its use is required by code. Ms. Francis said she will check on this.
The Board took a straw pole vote and did not seem inclined to favor the proposal because the Inn’s capacity seems to have reached a maximum agreeable level. After discussion the applicant asked for a continuance to March 10, 2009 @ 7:40 PM to meet with the neighbors and revise the plans accordingly. A motion was made to accept the request. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
MINUTES & ADMINISTRATION: The January 13, 2009 meeting minutes were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was made, seconded and unanimously approved.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, March 10, 2009 @ 7:00 PM. The site visits will take place on Monday, March 2, 2009 @ 3:00 PM.
With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 
