FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Chris Murphy, Chairman, Wendy Weldon, Vice Chairman, Allison Burger, Frank LoRusso, Russell Maloney and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also attending were Diane Tillotson, Donald Poole, Tony Orphanos, Jeremy Mayhew, Thomas Bena, Walter Teller, Joanna Cole, Jonathan Cole, Janet Weidner, Virginia Jones, Clarissa Allen, Chris Alley, Jessica Ruddy, Remy Tumin, Greg Ehrman, Andy Goldman, Warren Doty, Mike Kelly, Laura Roebuck, Jim Belushi, Lenny Jason, Jr., Holly and David Handlin, Sergio Modigliani, Elizabeth, Susan and Adam Zoia, Alysa Emden, Anne Mayhew, Jonathan Mayhew, Tom Tate, Jan Buhrman, Diana Barrett, Anne Luzzatto, Chuck Sullivan and John Abrams. Allen Healy and Barbara Armstrong were absent.
The meeting came to order at 5:00 PM. The site visits for this meeting took place on July 24. Mr. Murphy appointed Alternate Russell Maloney as a voting member for the evening’s agenda. He also mentioned the meeting is being recorded by Thomas Bena. He added Mr. Iscol’s hearing will be opened at 5:10, run until 5:30 and temporarily adjourned so the Board may hear the other scheduled Special Permit applications. The Board will reopen the Iscol hearing when the other cases are concluded.
DIANE TILLOTSON FOR ABUTTER KEN ISCOL; Article 9 Section 9.9: The abutter’s appeal seeks a response to possible Chilmark Zoning Bylaw violations that were originally brought to the Building Inspector’s attention on April 20, 2012. The appeal is for the construction project on the property owned by Adam D. Zoia c/o Zoia Properties, LLC at 18 Point Inner Way; Assessors Map 33 Lot 114.
Mr. Murphy opened the hearing at 5:10 PM and explained to the public that this is not a hearing about large houses. It is an appeal asking for the Board to intervene on several specific questions about the dimensions of certain structures in Mr. Zoia’s development project and whether or not they meet the Town’s zoning specifications.
Ms. Tillotson summarized the history of the project and said the appeal was filed because of the Building Inspector, Mr. Jason’s lack of enforcement. She added that several of the items outlined in the appeal have been satisfactorily corrected. The only remaining open questions for the Board are: 1. Will the Board permit the Iscol’s to retain an independent surveyor and engineer to confirm the as-built dimensions of the work on Mr. Zoia’s property and specified in the appeal – at their expense? 2. Will the Board revoke the Building Permit for the pool house? Ms. Tillotson stated she does not believe a 2,300 sq. ft., two-story detached bedroom with an indoor pool is a permitted accessory structure as defined in the Town’s zoning bylaws Article 4 Section
4.1H and thus, requires a Special Permit.
At the conclusion of Ms. Tillotson’s statement the hearing was adjourned and then reconvened at 5:55 PM with the following discussion.
Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Jason for his rebuttal to Ms. Tillotson’s comments. Mr. Jason referenced his letter dated July 21, 2012 that responds to the original request issued on April 20. He corrected his response about the auxiliary generator. His letter states the generator has been relocated. The facts are a new generator location has been approved that meets the minimum 50-foot setback distance from the lot lines but, the generator has not yet been relocated. Mr. Jason continued by saying there is no definition for a detached bedroom in the bylaws. We’ve been building detached bedrooms before the Zoning Act and Town Bylaws were enacted. There is no definition or no size restriction that has been
established by me or my predecessors. He added this type of structure is not a guesthouse because it has no kitchen. It has a bathroom and bedroom. He said the Town’s Board of Health has signed off on the “detached bedroom”. He added in the 1980’s the Town successfully defended a challenge that a two-story potter’s studio was not a permitted structure by right. There are numerous permitted accessory structures throughout Town that are not “sheds” or “garages”.
Regarding the concrete walls outlined in the appeal, Mr. Jason said the wall next to the barn or garage was higher than four-feet above mean natural grade and has been cut down to a height below four feet. Mr. Alley of Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn was asked to measure the structures in question. He took measurements which prompted the heights of the barn wall and another wall to be corrected as previously outlined.
Mr. Jason responded to the question of whether or not the indoor pool requires a Special Permit by stating he thinks it may have something to do with Massachusetts Law. There are several other indoor pools in Chilmark without Special Permits.
Mr. Murphy said we are bound by the current Zoning Bylaws. Some may need updating but, for this case we can only use Chilmark’s voter-accepted bylaws as a guide.
Mr. Murphy explained to Elizabeth Zoia that she did not need to comment but, was free to do so. Ms. Zoia asked the camera be turned off before giving her statement. She then stated her family was issued permits for everything built on their property. The permits were not refuted within the allowable timeframe. Some mistakes were made during construction and they were corrected. We are also open to and support any bylaw amendments that may come forth in the future. Ms. Zoia asks that her family be allowed to live in peace without further harassment.
Mr. Murphy then invited Jill Iscol to comment. Ms. Iscol said there has been a breach of trust between her family and the Zoia’s. When questioned we were assured on numerous occasions by Mr. Zoia that everything was legal and the contractor, Mr. Tate said everything is being built to Town bylaws. After seeing the concrete walls so close to the lot line it was necessary to make sure there were no other zoning violations.
Several other members of the public commented on the same issues that were raised regarding accessory structures and the timing of the appeal that was filed.
Mr. Murphy concluded by stating the Board has been merely asked to affirm the Building Inspector’s decisions and conclusions or overrule them. He added that the Board has several questions to investigate and needs to retain special counsel. This will take time and it is not sure it can choose a specific date for the continued hearing. Chuck H. said when the Board is ready a continued hearing date and time will be re-advertised and the abutters re-notified in writing. Ms. Tillotson agreed. A subsequent motion was made to continue the hearing to a future date to be determined. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with five in favor.
RYAN BUSHY AND JOHN ABRAMS FOR BLUE SKY MV, LTD; Article 4 Section 4.2A3; 41 Cobbs Hill Road; Map 11 Lot 23.3: Mr. Murphy opened the public hearing at 5:30 PM. Mr. Abrams summarized the plan to remove the existing kidney-shaped 31’ X 61’ built-in swimming pool and 9’ X 12’ Jacuzzi and replace the pool with a rectangular 30’ X 60’ pool, pool deck and pool house. The existing pool water heating system will be upgraded as needed to comply with the current zoning bylaw along with other pool specifications. The updates to the current pool are: the water filtration system will be changed from chlorine to a saline system; a stand pipe will be installed with the Fire Chief’s approval; the propane water heating system will be changed to an electric
heat pump with photo-voltaic panels installed on the garage roof to supplement the power needs; the pool equipment will be housed in a sound-insulated shed.
The Board discussed the location of the current pool and said it is not an ideal location as outlined in the Bylaws. Mr. Abrams said the current location is what’s proposed. The Board asked if modifications could be made to have the existing pool comply with the current pool specifications and safety features. Mr. Abrams said if this application was denied by the Board, no upgrades or safety measures would be added to the existing pool – such as closed circuit cameras or alarms on gates. Mr. Abrams then offered if this was approved, he would relocate the footbridge to have a straight line of sight from the pool to the main house with camera surveillance.
After much discussion and with no further comment from the audience a motion was made to close the hearing at 5:46 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as shown on the site plan dated 7/25/12 with the following special conditions: 1. A closed circuit camera system will be installed at the pool and seen inside a high traffic room in the main house. 2. An audible alarm system shall be installed on all pool gates and sounded in the main house in a manner that complies with MA. Building Code Section 780 CMR 421.10.1 alarm specifications 9.1. 3. The foot bridge from the main house to the pool will be relocated and provide a minimum of a five-foot wide line of sight from the main house to the pool. This line of
sight shall be maintained in perpetuity. 4. The Fire Chief shall approve the stand pipe location before a building permit is issued. The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed with four in favor and one opposed (Mr. Murphy).
CHUCLK SULLIVAN FOR LINDA SCHAPIRO; Article 8 Section 8.3; 20 Quitsa Lane; Map 33 Lot 39: Mr. Murphy explained that the Board will not open the hearing until it receives a report from the Site Review Committee as required. Mr. Sullivan agreed and requested the hearing be postponed to August 22, 2012 @ 5:30 PM to provide time for him to meet with the Site Review Committee. A motion was made to accept the request and seconded. With no discussion the motion passed unanimously with five in favor.
CHRIS ALLEY FOR ARTHUR ROBINSON; Article 4 Section 4.2A3; 4 Hammett Lane; Map 8 Lot 57: Mr. Murphy opened the public hearing at 6:38 PM. Mr. Alley summarized the plan to construct a built-in swimming pool with required four-foot high safety barrier and a detached, sound-insulated shed for the pool equipment. The pool will not have an auxiliary water-heating system. He added the pool is a part of the entire re-development of the lot and reviewed the overall site plan. The pool’s location is within direct sight of the proposed new single-family residence. The floor plan has a direct line of sight from the kitchen to the pool. The Board pointed out the hedge as shown may block the sight line from the house. And said the pool fence
should be at least four feet from the stone wall.
After brief discussion and with no comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 6:55 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the site plan hand-dated 7/25/12 and the floor plan and line of sight from the house dated 5/2/12 with the following special conditions: 1. The planned new principal dwelling has the same orientation and clear line of sight as shown on the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. There will be a minimum of four feet of clear space between the stone wall and pool fence. 3. The Fire Chief shall approve the stand pipe location before a building permit is issued. 4. The pool equipment shall be in a sound-insulated enclosure. 5. The owner shall return to the ZBA if
a pool water heater is to be installed. The motion was seconded and with no discussion passed unanimously with five in favor.
ADMINISTRATION: The June 27, 2012 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as presented by consensus.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 