FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Allison Burger, Chairman, Russell Maloney, Vice Chairman, Wendy Weldon, Chris Murphy and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also attending were Chris Alley, Joseph Dick, Eve Vincent, Mitch Pennington and Brenda Codding. Allen Healy, Frank LoRusso and Todd Christy were absent.
Ms. Burger opened the meeting at 5:02 PM.
JOSEPH DICK FOR DOUG LIMAN; Article 8 Section 8.3; 34 Blacksmith Valley Rd.; Map 35 Lot 38: Ms. Burger explained there are only four voting members present which will require a unanimous vote for approval. Mr. Dick said he would like to proceed. Ms. Burger opened the public hearing at 5:09 PM. Mr. Dick reviewed the plans to alter two pre-existing, non-conforming structures. The garage roof will be reconfigured and the doors will be changed. A 31 sq. ft. addition is proposed for the main house that is designed to be consistent with the historic character of the building. The changes will not increase the non-conformity of either structure.
Chuck H. Read the Site Review Committee report for the record. Ms. Vincent, representing abutter Barbara Lee had several questions: 1. Does Ms. Weldon have a conflict of interest because she knows the applicant? Ms. Weldon said she is not an abutter within 300 feet of the applicant’s property, has no financial interest in the outcome of this hearing and said she knows all of her neighbors in Blacksmith Valley. 2. Can the contractors be confined to the applicant’s property? Several parked on Ms. Lee’s property for past projects. The Board said this is outside its jurisdiction and should be agreed among neighbors. 3. Can the garage be converted into a barn because of the new doors? The Board responded that there is a clear definition of a barn used for
agricultural purposes in the Bylaws and this specific question should be directed to the Building Inspector if further explanation is needed. 4. Can the work be postponed to the shoulder season so renters do not see or hear the construction? This is also outside the Board’s jurisdiction. It can only enforce the voter-approved zoning bylaws. This should be agreed among neighbors. 5. How can this project be allowed as it is so close to a sensitive wetland? This project is more than 200 feet from the closest wetland edge and therefore well outside the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction.
With no further comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 5:25 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plans as presented and dated as follows: site plan 7/3/12; house plan 10/3/13; garage plan 1/29/15. The motion was seconded and with no discussion passed unanimously with four in favor.
DISCUSSION MITCH PENNINGTON FOR SARAH DUNBAR MORRIS; 113 Hammett Rd.; Map 4 Lot 6: Mr. Pennington thanked the board of its time and reviewed a proposed change to the pool fence design. The Special Permit was issued on 9/24/14. The original fence was a collection concrete retaining walls and stone walls. The new proposal is to have a black chain link fence that meets state code for pool enclosures. He pointed out how the fence will be hidden with brush plantings. The Board explained it does not allow brush planting close the pool enclosure for safety reasons—to not give children the opportunity to climb over the pool fence. Mr. Pennington understood and offered to return with a detailed planting plan. After brief discussion a motion was made to declare the fence
changes as inconsequential. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the revised pool fence as shown on the site plan dated 2/27/15 provided a detailed planting plan is presented and approved at the ZBA’s April 22 meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with four in favor.
DISCUSSION CHRIS ALLEY: 45 Flanders Lane; Map 26 Lot 29: Mr. Alley thanked the Board for its time and explained the prospective buyer would like an interpretation of Article 11 Section 11.6 A, B: There are two pre-existing, non-conforming structures in a buffer zone of a stream and wetland that drains into a costal pond. This is technically defined as a zoning shore zone. The bylaw indicates the maximum allowable addition is 250 sq. ft. in the shore zone. Can this additional square footage for both structures (total 500 sq. ft.) be combined and only added to one of the two buildings? After reading the bylaw (Section 11/6A.2.b.(i).a.) the Board agreed the additional +250 sq. ft. is clearly explained for a singular building and cannot be combined as proposed. Mr.
Alley thanked the Board again.
ADMINISTRATION: The February 25, 2015 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as presented by consensus.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 22, 2015 @ 5:00 PM.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 