FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were Wendy Weldon, Chairman, Allison Burger, Russell Maloney, Joe Chapman and Chuck Hodgkinson. Chuck Sullivan, Reid Silva, Chris Alley, David Schuster, David White, Billy Smith, Blake Middleton, Kris Horiuchi, Tony Orphanos, Allison Manning, Patrick Ahearn, Tim and Cathy Carroll and Jack Taylor also attended. Allen Healy, Frank LoRusso, Chris Murphy and Joan Malkin did not attend.
Ms. Weldon opened the meeting at 4:00 PM and appointed Alternate Joe Chapman as a voting member for the evening’s agenda.
CHRIS ALLEY FOR BOB VILA AND DIANNA BARRETT; Article 8 Section 8.3, Article 11 Section 11.6A2c and Article 6 Section 6.11B2; 183 State Rd.; Map 33 Lot 115: Ms. Weldon asked Mr. Alley if he would like to proceed with only four eligible voters. An approval would require a unanimous decision in favor. Mr. Alley thanked the Board and said he would like to open the hearing. Ms. Weldon opened the public hearing at 4:06 PM. Mr. Alley reviewed the site plan dated 7/22/18 to construct a 217 sq. ft. addition to the pre-existing, non-conforming house. He outlined the proposed work under each of the three bylaws as follows:
Under Article 8 Section 8.3 the addition will be 24 feet from the east lot line. This is 6 feet closer than the current dwelling’s non-conforming setback distance of 30 feet.
Under Article 11 Section 11.6A2c, 24 sq. ft. of the addition will be within the Nashaquitsa Pond shore zone.
Under Article 6 Section 6.11B2 the total living area on the 8.8-acre parcel exceeds the 4,950 sq. ft. amount allowed by right. The current living area on the lot is 5,437 sq. ft. The proposed total living area with the addition will be 5,654 sq. ft. The maximum amount of living area allowed on this parcel is 7,450 sq. ft. The project is in the Quitsa Pond Coastal District.
Mr. Ahearn reviewed the Plan A2.0 dated 7/3/18 with more detail. He proceeded to explain how the project complies with each of the 13 criteria under Article 6 Section 6.11B2. The following is a summary of the Board’s assessment for each attribute: 1a. The addition is sited on an area currently used for circulation and at an exterior deck. It has been approved by conservation commission. 1b. The project retains natural buffer areas or, where that is impracticable, provides sufficient landscape screening; and the project does not cut into existing buffer areas. It has been approved by conservation commission. 1c. The project has minimal exterior lighting and exterior glazing added to the structure. 2. The project does not impact the existing natural landscape by utilizing land currently covered
with decking and /or bluestone. 3. The project does not add any new lawns, recreational facilities, and its impact on any natural landscape is minimized. 4. The project makes use of existing flattened areas covered with existing decking and or / bluestone. 5. There are no new roads added to the project. 6. The proposed addition ridge is below the existing ridge height and the average height of the existing tree lines. 7. The addition to the existing structure is sited behind fields against the backdrop of adjoining woodlands. 8. The addition does not affect any existing scenic points, water courses, large trees, historic spots, traditional stone walls, or any community assets. 9. The project will follow all standard means of construction to maintain water quality. 10. The project follows the current Massachusetts Energy Code Standards. The property is supplying all power needs via rotating solar panels. 11. The project follows the current Massachusetts Standards. 12a.b. The
project does not fall into the Massachusetts NHESP area. 13. The project does not impact any current historical or archaeological resources but if any are found will follow current approved standards.
The Site Review Committee report was read for the record along with an email supporting the project from abutter Adam Zoia. After discussing the site visit observations and with no further public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at 4:15 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the petition under all three bylaws and site plan dated 7/22/18 with the condition that the built-in pool safety enclosure be brought up to current bylaw specifications during construction of the kitchen addition. The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed unanimously with four in favor.
CHUCK SULLIVAN FOR STEVEN GALANTE AND LEANNE COWLEY; Article 8 Section 8.3 and Article 12 Section 12.6B; 18 Blacksmith Valley Rd.; Map 35 Lots 12, 13, 15: Ms. Weldon asked Mr. Sullivan if he would like to proceed with only four voting members. Mr. Sullivan requested the hearing be postponed to November 28, 2018 @ 4:15 PM so the owners could attend the hearing. A motion was made and seconded to accept the request. The motion passed unanimously with four in favor.
DAVID SCHUSTER; Article 8 Section 8.3; 141 North Rd.; Map 8 Lot 19: Mr. Schuster mentioned he would like to open the hearing tonight. Ms. Weldon opened the public hearing at 4:25 PM. Mr. Schuster reviewed the plans to reconstruct a pre-existing, non-conforming 5’ X 10’ shed that is 5 feet from the northeast lot line. The reconstructed shed will be 8’ X 14’ and located ten feet from the northeast lot line. The roof ridge height of the reconstructed shed will be approximately 11 feet above mean natural grade. It will have no power or water service. The project is in the North Road Roadside District. The observations made during the site visit were discussed—particularly the tree that is now
growing around the corner of the existing shed. The Site Review Committee report was read for the record. With no public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at 4:30 PM. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A second motion was made to approve the petition and plans as presented and hand-dated 10/24/18. The motion was seconded and with no discussion passed unanimously with four in favor.
REID SILVA FOR THE YARD, INC.; Article 8 Section 8.3 and Article 6 Section 6.6; # 6 The Yard; Map 26 Lot 95: Mr. Silva asked the hearing to be opened to which Ms. Weldon did so at 4:36 PM. Mr. Silva reviewed the site plan dated 10/1/18 and explained under Article 8 Section 8.3 the applicant seeks permission to allow the expansion and alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming use. The use will change from an artist’s dwelling to an office and rehearsal area. He added under Article 6 Section 6.6 the altered structure will be 11.8 feet from an interior lot line and less than the minimum 25-foot setback distance from this lot line. The Yard is the abutter within 100 feet of the proposed structure under this bylaw.
Abutter Billy Smith said he has no problem with the performing arts and use while saying the plan relocates some of the noise sources farther from his property. His only concerns with the entire project (both # 6 and #7 The Yard) are the increased water drainage and water runoff from the Yard to his property and, with the concern that his water well is not compromised in any way.
Mr. White said they are increasing the capacity of the campus with a similar theatre with increased seating from 100 to 120. He added all structures will be conditioned for year-round use and be ADA accessible. The permeable parking surface area will be expanded to accommodate more parking (from the current 40 cars to a total 60 cars). An extensive re-landscaping plan was also reviewed that will act as screening for the direct abutters. They also plan to install a 40,000 gallon below grade fire water tank that will be filled from an offsite source. There will a full basement foundation and the roof water will have gutters draining into cisterns.
Several letters of support were read from abutters and other members of the community.
Mr. Silva added the wastewater will be served by one centralized septic system. All subsurface wastewater will be treated and pumped to a leaching field located between the performance center and the “front yard”. Surface water runoff will be collected in a catch basin with overflow channeled to a bio-swale.
Mr. Carroll asked how the water drainage will be handled on the road abutting his family’s property as it currently freezes in the winter. He also asked about light pollution into the night sky.
The Board discussed that this (and the next petition) might be required referrals to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and asked the applicant if that was discussed. Mr. Middleton said the Building Inspector thought it is a mandatory referral. After brief discussion the Board requested the hearing be continued to November 28, 2018 @ 4:20 PM to provide time for the applicant to obtain a formal opinion from the Building Inspector on the MVC referral question. The applicant agreed. A motion was made to continue the hearing to November 28 @ 4:20 PM pending the final MVC referral decision. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with four in favor.
REID SILVA FOR THE YARD, INC.; Article 8 Section 8.3, Article 6 Section 6.6 and Article 6 Section 6.11; # 7 The Yard; Map 26 Lot 91: Mr. Silva also requested the hearing be opened. Ms. Weldon opened the public hearing at 5:40 PM. Mr. Silva reviewed the plan under three bylaws as follows:
Under Article 8 Section 8.3 the applicant seeks permission to allow the expansion and alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and use. The structure is currently and will continue to be used as a 4-bedroom dwelling and dance/performing arts theatre. The current structure ranges from 3.7 feet to 16 feet from the east lot line. The closest part of the addition will be 16 feet from the east lot line.
Under Article 6 Section 6.6 the southeast corner of the addition will be approximately 3 feet from the interior south lot line and less than the 25-foot minimum setback distance. The east part of the addition will be range from 16 feet to 19.4 feet from the east lot line. The renovated portions of the existing structure will be the same distances from the east lot line as the current structure.
Under Article 6 Section 6.11 the total living area on the lot will increase from 1,281 sq. ft. to 3,569 sq. ft. The proposed living area is + 471 sq. ft. above the amount requiring a Special Permit. The maximum living area requiring a Special Permit and allowed for the 1.39-acre parcel is 5,597 sq. ft. The project is in the Middle Road Roadside District.
Ms. Horiuchi reviewed a detailed landscaping plan of native trees and understory that is designed to mitigate headlight glare for the neighbors. Mr. Carroll asked if screening could be added near the Middle Road entrance and the parking area. He also raised concerns with water runoff from the expanded shell area for seating and accessibility while adding there is currently water draining from the west side of the driveway onto his property.
Mr. Silva reviewed his written responses on how this project complies with the 13 criteria under Article 6 Section 6.11 as follows: 1a,b,c: The site is adjacent to Middle Road and a portion of the development is within the 200’ Roadside district. The proposed work is at the limits of the district and there will be very little visibility of the new buildings from Middle Road due to the existing residence in the “Front Yard”. The site review committee reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposed project would have a minimal impact on the roadside district. 2: The additions and new construction have been designed to be largely within existing cleared areas, and to also protect and preserve significant trees on the site. 3: The project has been designed to minimize the alteration of existing vegetation
and significant trees. The proposed addition and new construction is generally on level or disturbed ground currently used for parking and gathering areas. 4: There will be no significant grading adjacent to the buildings and additions, however the parking area will be graded to create a more efficient and safe parking and traffic flow condition. 5: The existing roadway entrance will not change, the parking area in the rear of the site will be reconfigured as mentioned above but will still be located in the same general area. 6: Views of ridges and hills will not be affected by this project. 7: The project is located within wooded area and the buildings will not be sited in proximity to fields. 8: These features are protected as described above. 9: The storm water for this project will be collected with surface catch basins and disposed of with subsurface drywells with overflow bio-swales and retention basins. 10: The proposed project includes the incorporation of a solar array to
offset energy demand on the site. 11: The addition will be wood frame construction to match the existing structure. 12 a,b: The project is not located within NHESP habitat. 13: There are no known historical or archaeological resources in proximity the proposed additions.
After further discussion the Board reiterated its request to continue the hearing to November 28, 2018 @ 4:25 PM to provide time to investigate the Martha’s Vineyard Commission referral question with the Building Inspector. Mr. Silva agreed. A motion was made to continue the hearing to 11/28 @ 4:25 PM to allow time to investigate the MVC referral questions. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with four in favor.
ADMINISTRATION: The draft September 26, 2018 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as presented by consensus.
The Board reviewed the latest draft of the pool bylaw amendments (Article 4 Section 4.2A3) with some additional agreed edits. Chuck H. will send this edited version to the Selectmen to initiate the Planning Board’s bylaw amendment process for voter consideration at the April 2019 Annual Town Meeting.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 6:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, CAS.
| 