FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Peter Knight, Chairman, Wendy Weldon, Barbara Armstrong, Frank LoRusso, Chris Murphy and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also present: Max McCreery, Eileen Johanessen, Fran and Phil Demurs, John Abrahams (left early). Allison Burger and Russell Maloney were absent.
Mr. Knight opened the meeting at 5:00 PM and explained this is the first of two public meetings that are required to address the Court’s Second Remand Order (revised) dated February 4, 2010 regarding the Sacks pool special permit appeal.
Mr. Knight asked Chuck H. to read the following documents aloud for the record: 1. The second remand order (revised) dated February 4, 2010. 2. A summary of the history of the proceedings that led to the appeal. 3. The specific motion and special conditions that was seconded and voted but, did not receive the required number of votes in favor to pass. The motion and special conditions were read from the February 10, 2010 meeting minutes.
Mr. Knight then opened the discussion to the Board. Mr. Murphy explained his February 10, 2009 motion and conditions. Mr. LoRusso mentioned an alternative location for the pool was proposed by the Board that moved it farther east to the center of the house and lowered it to grade level. This location was rejected by the applicant’s general contractor because of the underground infrastructure that would need to be relocated.
The Board reviewed the following bylaws: Article 1 Section 1.0; Article 4 Section 4.2 and Article 4 Section 4.2A3. After much discussion on the details of the plan as proposed and dated February 10, 2009 Mr. Knight called for a motion.
Mr. LoRusso made a motion to deny the application. Ms. Weldon seconded the motion. With no further discussion Mr. Knight brought the motion to a vote. All five members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The reasons for each vote were stated as follows:
Chris Murphy: Voted in favor of the motion because the application does not satisfy the requirements of Article 1 Section 1. It fails to conserve the unique cultural and scenic values of the Town. It does not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 Section 4.2. This proposal will not preserve or enhance the existing large trees and will not minimize the intrusion of the structure into the character of the existing development in the area. It does not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 Section 4.2A3 (d). The location will interfere with the enjoyment of the view of the natural surroundings of the abutting lot.
Barbara Armstrong: Voted in favor of the motion because of the unique topography of the neighborhood and specifically the Sacks’ property in relation to their neighbors. Also, due to the natural surroundings of the area, the pool as proposed does not meet the requirements of Article 4 Section 4.2 of the Town’s Bylaws and would be a significant intrusion into the character of the existing development of the neighborhood.
Wendy Weldon: Voted in favor of the motion because the pool as proposed will be 14 feet above the natural grade level which impacts Mr. Lip nick’s house unnecessarily. The pool location is not a suitable location as it does not satisfy the requirements of Article 4 Section 4.2 of our Zoning Bylaws. Existing large oak trees would have to be removed. Native plants and shrubs would be removed. The neighborhood is comprised of camps in natural settings with erratic boulders and open vistas. Mr. Sacks has cleared most of his land which dramatically changed the character of the existing development of the neighborhood. This proposal would require the clearing of more oak trees and native vegetation and further change the character of the existing neighborhood.
Peter Knight: Voted in favor of the motion because the pool proposal is not in the character of the neighborhood. The pool and hot tub are sited in an obtrusive location in relationship to neighbor Lipnick.
Frank LoRusso: Voted in favor of the motion because the pool and hot tub are elevated much too high from the existing grade. The hot tub is placed much too close to the Lipnick residence. It could have been placed on the other side of the pool. The Board asked the applicant if he would move the pool to the center of the house. This was rejected by the applicant because it was too much of an inconvenience. Lastly, all things considered the proposal is too much of an intrusion on the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Knight subsequently declared the Sacks application as denied. Chuck H. reminded the Board that they have a second meeting on March 3 @ 5:00 PM to review and approve the final written decision. With no further business to conduct a motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 5:58 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 