FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Bill Rossi, Chair, Wendy Weldon, Peter Knight, Barbara Armstrong, Frank LoRusso and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also present: David Handlin, John Abrams, Laurel Wilkinson, Roland Kluver, Michael Van Valkenburgh, Chris Alley, Michael Turrell and Gessno Geyer. Allison Burger and Chris Murphy were absent.
Mr. Rossi opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. Alternate member Barbara Armstrong was appointed as a voting member for tonight’s agenda.
JANET WEIDNER, PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN: The Board welcomed Ms. Weidner to the meeting. She thanked the Board for its time and distributed copies of the recently approved Exterior Mechanical Noise Abatement By-law (Article 5 Section 5.9) and the draft amendments to the Wind Turbine By-Law (Article 4 Section 4.2A4). Ms. Weidner invited the Board to comment on both by-laws and welcomed its participation in the public hearing scheduled for May 26 @ 5:00 PM to take comment on the Wind Turbine By-Law. The Board thanked Ms.Weidner for taking the time to brief them.
DAVID HANDLIN FOR BENJAMIN HEINEMAN; MAP 24 LOT 33.1; 26 CYGNET WAY; ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.2A3: Mr. Rossi opened the hearing at 7:10 PM and summarized the petition for a built-in swimming pool. He read a report from the Site Review Committee and one abutter letter from Kathy Logue asking for the Board’s consideration on abating any noise created by pool-related machinery. Mr. Handlin pointed out the pool equipment will be partially underground and in a sound-insulated enclosure – as specified in the Town’s pool regulations.
Mr. Handlin summarized the site plan. A portion of the house is proposed as part of the pool fencing. The Board asked if the windows provide easy access to the pool deck from inside the house – for safety reasons. There was significant discussion on the where the Board’s authority to impose safety features for a pool and how it does or does not intrude upon how home owners live in their homes and act on their inherent responsibilities as home owners with pools.
Mr. Handlin shared a revised plan (Plan B) that also has sight lines from a high traffic room in the house. There was significant discussion on the proposed pool water heating plan and whether or not it complies with the by-law. The total plan is designed to be a “passive solar pool” and includes the following elements: 1. Insulation around the underground shell of the pool. 2. A dark-color pool paint. 3. A retractable, insulated cover that is designed to conserve about 80 percent of the pool water heat loss that would occur if the pool had no cover. 4. Photo-voltaic panels on the roof of the main house to generate supplemental electricity 12 months per year. It is projected that these panels will generate enough power to run all of the pool equipment
during the season and power an air heat pump to boost the temperature of the pool water to the desired level. The electric heat pump will supplement the previously mentioned features that are also designed to passively heat the water. Mr. Handlin summarized by stating this plan goes beyond the requirements of the pool water heating by-law because over a 12-month period the solar panels will generate a surplus amount of power which will be returned to the grid—after running the pool-related equipment.
The Board thanked Mr. Handlin for the thorough presentation. After much discussion the Board explained that it has the authority to ask an applicant to hire an independent outside consultant to analyze a proposal for the Board’s consideration. It felt it needs an expert as the Board is not equipped to calculate the data. It further agreed that “Plan A” should be pursued. The Board and Mr. Handlin agreed it will identify a consultant to work with Mr. Handlin and provide the data needed for it to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the by-law. The Board will provide a list of specific questions that should be addressed.
Mr. Handlin subsequently asked for a continuance to June 9, 2009 @ 7:25 PM to provide time for him to work with the consultant. A motion was made to accept the request. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
ROLAND KLUVER FOR CAROL WEICHERT; MAP 4 LOT 13; 93 PUTNAM ROAD; ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.2A1: Mr. Rossi opened the public hearing at 7:55 PM. Mr. Kluver summarized the plan to construct a new detached guesthouse in a location that meets the minimum 50-foot setback distance from the lot lines. The existing detached guesthouse will be connected to the single-family residence. The guesthouse kitchen will be removed and the space will be converted into two additional bedrooms with a bath for the main house. Mr. Kluver also pointed out the existing garage will be removed.
Mr. Rossi read the Site Review Committee’s report for the record. Mr. Kluver pointed out how the design was modified to address the Committee’s concern about reducing the glass area on the west elevation to minimize light pollution at night. He added the reduced glass area will also help control the amount of heat generated in the hotter summer months. Mr. Rossi also read a letter of approval for the new guesthouse from the Spring Point Architectural Review Committee. The Board pointed out that the addition to the main house that will connect the current guesthouse to the main house meets all setback requirements. With no comment from the audience a motion was made to close the hearing at 8:03 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion
was made to approve the site plan dated 4/6/09 ad the elevations dated 5/12/09 as presented. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH; MAP 17 LOT 3; 186 SOUTH ROAD; ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8.3: Mr. Rossi opened the public hearing at 8:05 PM. Mr. Van Valkenburgh summarized the plan to add a 12’ by 29’ 3 1/4” covered screen porch onto a pre-existing, non-conforming structure that is on a non-conforming lot. The addition will meet the minimum 25-foot setback distance from the lot lines. Its height is less than 13 feet above mean natural grade. After brief discussion among the Board and with no comment from the audience a motion was made to close the hearing at 8:08 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the site plan dated 4/16/09 and the elevations dated 4/20/09 as presented. The motion was seconded and unanimously
approved.
LAUREL WILKINSON FOR PRUDENCE STEINER; MAP 20 LOT 24; 30 CRANBERRY HILL ROAD; ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.2A3: Mr. Rossi opened the public hearing at 8:10 PM. Mr. Abrams summarized the site plan to construct a 20’ X 45’ built-in swimming pool with a detached 12’ X 16’ pool house. The pool house will include a kitchenette; bath/changing room and outdoor shower. The pool equipment will be located in the sound-protected basement of the pool house. The pool will be insulated with high-density spray foam to help reduce heat loss. There will also be a solar pool cover to heat the pool water. A back up propane water heating system is also proposed. Mr. Abrams added the pool fence will meet the specifications and be 4 feet high with a 1” X 2” mesh. It was also moved farther away from the existing deck and is 4’ 8” from the deck. The shrubs will be removed and replaced with low perennials to improve the sight lines from the main house. The pool will be 8 inches higher than the existing
lawn and the water will be at “grass height” – not lower then the existing grade.
Having been present for the previous discussion for the Heineman pool Mr. Abrams offered to replace the proposed propane water heating system with an electric air-source heat pump—as outlined by Mr. Handlin. This pool will also have the same insulating, pool cover and solar panel features as the previously reviewed plan. Mr. Abrams added there will be 24 roof-mounted solar panels (approximately 4.9 KW capacity) to generate electricity for the pool systems.
Abutter Gessno Geyer asked about the pool equipment noise and the impact of the pool on the water table. Mr. Abrams explained the pool equipment will be in basement of the proposed pool house and added only the septic tank will need to be relocated – not the leeching field. The Board reiterated that all pools must be filled from an off-site source. Mr. Geyer thanked the Board and Mr. Abrams and said his questions have been satisfactorily addressed.
The Board commented that the proposed pool house may not have a kitchen or BBQ of any kind – lest it will be considered a guesthouse. Mr. Abrams agreed to remove the BBQ and not have any type of cooking appliance in the pool house. The Board explained that the proposed water heating system is virtually identical the one previously proposed by Mr. Handlin and reiterated its need to obtain the corroborating data from an outside consultant—at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Abrams agreed and said he looks forward to working with the consultant. He subsequently asked for a continuance to June 9, 2009 @ 7:40 PM to allow time to obtain the requested data. A motion was made to accept the request. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
MINUTES & ADMINISTRATION: The March 10, 2009 meeting minutes were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was made, seconded and approved with four in favor and one abstention (Mr. LoRusso). A memo from Town Counsel was distributed outlining a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the necessity of all voting Board members to attend all hearing proceedings on a petition in order to be eligible to cast a valid vote.
With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 
