FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Allison Burger, Frank LoRusso, Chris Murphy, Wendy Weldon, Russell Maloney and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also attending were Reid Silva, Sergio Modigliani, Michael Barclay and Sydney Bachman. Allen Healy and Barbara Armstrong were absent.
The meeting came to order at 5:00 PM. Mr. Maloney was appointed a voting member for the day’s agenda. The site visits for this meeting took place on November 14.
MICHAEL BARCLAY; Article 4 Section 4.2A3; 1 Osprey Lane; Map 25 Lot 117.2: Mr. LoRusso explained that his wife owns a parcel of land that is within the 300-foot abutter radius of Mr. Barclay’s property. He added that the outcome of this hearing will have no material impact on him and did not think his participation is a conflict of interest. The Board asked if Mr. Barclay if he had any objections. Mr. Barclay had no objections to Mr. LoRusso’s participation. Mr. LoRusso opened the public hearing at 5:10 PM.
Mr. Barclay summarized his informal discussion with the Board at the September 28th meeting. He asked if Town Counsel provided an opinion on how to interpret the pool specifications in the amended pool bylaw. Chuck H. summarized a phone call he had with Ron Rappaport as follows: Any building specifications that are explained in the bylaw -- whether they refer to sections of the Commonwealth’s building code or are clearly articulated within the bylaw – are absolute and do not establish a minimum acceptable specification that may be made more stringent by the ZBA. On the other hand, where a criterion is vague or not clearly specified the ZBA has the authority to define the requirements as it sees fit for each case.
Mr. Barclay presented his plan to construct a 53’ X 13.5’ in-ground swimming pool with the required four-foot high safety fencing. The pool is in a location that meets the minimum 50-foot setback distance from the lot lines. The pool fencing complies with MA. Building Code 780 CMR 120.M105 that governs pool barriers. The pool will have a key-operated, automatic safety cover. The pool equipment will be located in the adjacent garage. The pool water will not have an auxiliary heating system. The water filtration system will be non-chlorine based. The pool will be filled with water from an off-site source.
The Board read a letter from abutter Bonnie Waitzkin regarding the pool’s water source for the record. The bylaw clearly states that a pool must be filled from an off site water source. The Site Review Committee’s report was also read for the record.
The Board had concerns with the safety aspects of the proposed location of the pool fencing—especially in the sections that are within the privet. They thought a child could use the privet bushes to scale the fence. It also had concerns with the house being used as a portion of the barrier. Mr. Barclay offered to secure the lower sashes of the windows, install alarms on the doors and install a retractable pool safety cover.
After further discussion and with no comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 5:35 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the application and Site Plan dated 10/24/11 with the following special conditions: 1. The distance between the pool safety fence and the stone wall will be increased from 4 feet to 5 feet. 2. To prevent a child from climbing through a window and gain access to the pool the lower sash on all first-floor house windows that are inside the perimeter of the pool fencing shall be permanently fixed so they cannot be opened. 3. All house doors that are inside the perimeter of the pool fencing shall have an alarm as specified in the Commonwealth’s building code for pool barriers. 4. A key-operated, automatic pool safety cover shall be installed. 5. Any tree limbs that might allow a child to climb over the safety fencing shall be removed. 6. The portions of the fence that runs
along the driveway and along Osprey Lane shall be clear of the existing privet or any brush. The motion was seconded and with no discussion approved unanimously with five in favor.
REID SILVA FOR FRANK V. SICA; Article 4 Section 4.2A3 a.-h.; # 60 and # 68 Prospect Hill Road; Map 20 Lot 32 and Map 14 Lot 26: Mr. LoRusso opened the public hearing at 5:40 PM. Mr. Silva summarized the plan to construct a 20’ X 40’ built-in swimming pool with a geo-thermal heat pump water heating system and the required four-foot high safety fencing. The plan also includes an 8’ X 74.5’ lap pool; a 24’ X 10’ pool house with a bar, shower and storage shed; a 24’ X 8’ mechanical/electrical shed and an 8’ X 8’ hot tub.
Mr. Silva reviewed the topography of the two lots and explained the pool’s location is on a plateau and placed to avoid a depression in the land contour. Mr. Modigliani explained the owners would like the pool within the shade trees to avoid direct exposure to sunlight. He added the mechanical equipment will be housed in an enclosed shed that is also partially below grade. The Board expressed some concern over the direct sight lines from the house to the pool. There was also concern over whether or not the solid fencing along the side of the social pool facing the house will further obstruct the sight lines. The Board further questioned whether an accessory structure may be built on an abutting vacant lot that is taxed as a separate parcel of land. The structure needs to be an
accessory to a primary structure.
Letters from two abutters were read for the record. Neither voiced any objections to the proposal. One letter asked if the construction could not take place during the summer between July 1 and September 15, 2012. The email response from the owner was read for the record which said he is happy to abide by their request.
After further discussion the Board concluded it needs more information that more clearly demonstrates the sight lines from the house to the pool; an additional site visit is in order and they asked Mr. Silva to consider merging the two abutting lots into one larger lot to establish the pools as accessory structures to the main house. Mr. Silva asked for a continuance to December 14 @ 5:15 PM to provide time to get more information. A motion was made to accept the request. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with five in favor.
ADMINISTRATION: The October 26, 2011 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as amended by consensus. The December meeting will take place on December 14th @ 5:00 PM with the site visits on December 13th @ 3:00 PM. With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 6:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 