Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
October 5, 2011
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Robert Fuster (RF); Shawn Leary Considine, SLC;
Ned Douglas, ND; Cliff Snyder, (CS)
Staff present: Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA; Peggy Ammendola, Landuse Clerk, PA
Thomas A. Hoadley, 21 Church Street (Map 43, Parcel 167), Variance from Sections 5.2.4 Signs or in the alternative Section 5.2.6.
Making the presentation was Mr. and Mrs. Hoadley. The Hoadley’s have had a banner to bring attention to their gallery for 2.5 years. Their business is located in a former residence that is significantly set back and hidden from view when approached from down hill. The new layout of the sidewalk from the recent renovation of the Historic District has further reduced the visibility of their business and they feel that this additional signage is imperative for the success of their business.
Signage in the Historic District has been under scrutiny for some time and this summer many violations were brought forward and fines were levied. The Hoadley’s banner was a violation as its size plus the size of their sign exceeded the size allowed in the Zoning Bylaw. As a result of the fines, signs in the District have become increasingly controversial and the Board of Selectmen has asked the Planning Board to review the Bylaw as it relates to signage. The Planning Board has responded and has scheduled public meetings for October 11 and October 18, 2011.
SLC made a motion to continue the hearing to November 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm to permit time for the Planning Board to weigh in on the subject of signage in the District. ND seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0.
Eric and Wendy Federer, 21 Kneeland Avenue (Map 43, Parcel 34), Special Permit Section 3.3.5 to alter and extend a nonconforming single family structure.
SLC will write the decision.
Presenting the application were the following:
Eric and Wendy Federer and their attorney, Lori Robbins
Rob Hoogs of Foresight Land Services who represents the Federers
Additionally the following were also present:
Jeff Vincent, Superintendent of the Lenox Department of Public Works
Attorney Jeff Lynch who represents David Fisher and Pam Kueber of 25 Kneeland Ave. and Tim and Katie Doherty of 22 West St., abutters who oppose the Petition.
The Fishers
The Dohertys
Alison Sneider
Carolyn Butler
Mary Jo Piretti
Jerome Connoy
Ms. Robbins provided to the Board copies of the Bylaw relative to curb cuts.
Elevations and a site plan were presented to the Board by Ms. Federer. She showed drawings of the house as it exists and as it would look with the proposed additions. She and her husband have a sales agreement to purchase this property from Carolyn Butler. The sale is contingent upon the ZBA approval of this petition. Ms. Federer stated that there are actually two lots. The Federers mailed letters to all of the abutters to the property to invite them to a meeting to discuss the proposed project and subsequently had the meeting to present their plans and answer any concerns the neighbors might have. This resulted in five letters of support.
Rob Hoogs of Foresight Land Services provided more detail on the site plans and architectural plans. An existing terrace will be replaced with a deck and screened porch in rear. The four bedroom home will remain a four bedroom home, but the bedrooms will be larger. The home is non-conforming as to the side yard on the north side as it is located about 10 feet from the side yard. The existing garage and portion of the front porch are non-conforming to the front setback of 35 feet. Mr. Hoogs explained that the house is actually set back 50 feet from the travel way, due to the unusual nature of the depth of the right of way, but the property line is set back between 25 to 27 feet from the property line, less than the 35 foot setback required.
The existing garage is 25-27 feet and the porch is 34 lor:#000000;">Jeff Vincent, Superintendent of the DPW, stated that there would be no impact to the town water or sewer and did not feel that the addition would increase the storm water impact. He said that he was comfortable with the curb cuts. A letter from Mr. Vincent dated October 3, 2011 with his opinion was placed in file.
In anticipation of the opposition raising as an issue that the proposed project would require a variance, Ms. Robbins wanted to summarize the findings required and emphasized that the zoning bylaw allows by special permit an expansion of a pre-existing non-conformity even where you are creating a new non-conformity.
Ms. Robbins made reference to the following:
Town of Lenox Zoning Bylaw Section 3.3.5 allows by SP even where you are creating a new non conformity
In the event that the Building Commissioner determines that the nonconforming nature of such structure would be increased by the proposed reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change, the Board of Appeals may, by special permit, allow such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change where it determines that the proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
MGL Chapter 40a Section 6
Pre-existing nonconforming structures or uses may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting authority or by the special permit granting authority designated by ordinance or by-law that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Ms. Robbins stated that a recent case in the Appeals Court clarifies this issue and makes it consistent with the zoning bylaw. She said that if you are creating a new non-conformity which is extending into the setback all you have to find is that new non-conformity is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non conformity.
The new non-conformity is no more than 25 feet according to Ms. Robbins.
Correspondence
The following letters of support were read into the record:
1.) Ms. Madelyn Yucht, 15 Kneeland Avenue (This is the most directly effected abutter.)
2.) Richard an Ruth Billeter, 42 West St.
3.) Aldona and Russell Gorman, 37 Sunset Ave.
4.) Sarah Hancock, 21 Sunset Ave.
5.) Herbert and Ruth Ann Fish, 18 Yokun Ave. They have endorsed the proposed project, but their only concern is an existing issue of water runoff. They have spoken to Jeff Vincent and understand that this project will not significantly affect the water run off, but hope that increased water run-off could be averted with appropriate consideration with the proposed new construction.
Public Comment
Attorney Jeff Lynch argued that this proposal is more detrimental to the neighborhood because of the scope of the expansion and that it is not in keeping of character of this 1950s home. He calculates that the addition is approximately 3900 square feet, which is considerably more than the 50% that is allowed. His calculations included the two story decks and new porch.
Points made by Mr. Lynch included, but not limited to:
1. This proposal does not serve community needs
2. Changing to a looped driveway does not increase safety, increases traffic flow and will be located in the right of way.
3. More impervious surfaces add to the drainage issue.
4. Change in character due to the size of the addition.
5. The higher value of this home with the addition would result in higher value, which increases the tax base, but the tax base of the other homes will drop.
Mr. Lynch feels that there are new non conformities are being created with this proposal relating to the second curb cut and parking. Also he argues that the existing south side is conforming, with a brand new expansion proposed, therefore a variance would be required for a new non-conformity. Section 3.3.4 of the Bylaw addresses this.
Site visit
Pam Kueber said that she feels that her home will be the most impacted and calculates that the additions to the subject property would result in a home of 7,000 sf. This, she feels, would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Ms. Butler said that originally when she bought the house there was parking in front, an “L” shaped driveway.
Alison Sneider asked about habitable space. She feels that it does not include screened in porches, and disputes that with the addition the total square footage would be 7,000 sf.
Ms. Robbins said that she had the architect prepare an analysis of the total habitable space and the results are that the existing square footage is 2650 and with an addition of 1535 sf, the increase is 57 %. The total would be 4195 habitable square feet.
Rob Hoogs said that the Impact Report for coverage purposes indicates the addition would be 1655 sf so the total square footage would be 3933 sf for a 12.7 percent of lot coverage.
Jerome Connoy, an abutter who lives directly across the street from the subject property, feels he is most affected visually by the expansion and he does not view it as an overwhelming change He did question the reasoning to have the garage remain on the right, as he does not feel that the look is pleasing. The three garage effect is not in character with the other homes on Kneeland and gives an impression of being a duplex. He suggests some landscaping soften the looped driveway. Mr. Connoy asked that there be some consideration to the neighbors for construction related vehicles.
Mr. Federer said that this is not intended to be a garage, but would be used as an office or storage. They thought that leaving it as is would provide a visual balance.
The Board asked that at the next meeting there be clarification on the second curb cut and for additional information on the construction access and schedule. Also more visual displays were requested. MA will inquire of the Building Commissioner the definition of habitable area.
RF made a motion to continue the hearing to November 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm and to have a site visit on October 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm ND seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
