Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
February 4, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Clifford Snyder, (CS), Shawn Leary Considine, (SLC), Al Harper, (AH); Robert Fuster Jr., (RFjr)
Absent with notification: Robert Fuster Sr., (RF); Ned Douglas, ND
Staff present: Land Use Director/Town Planner Gwen Miller (GM) and Land Use Clerk Peggy Ammendola, (PA)
Peter F. Levin and Elizabeth Jacobs Levin, 175 Walker Street (Map 41, Parcel 17), Special Permit to allow: demolition of a home on a nonconforming lot pursuant to Section 3.3.7(3); reconstruction of the home on a different footprint; and an increase in the home’s habitable floor area by more than 50% pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Section 3.3.7(3).
Presenting the application was Attorney Jeff Lynch. Also present were the applicants.
Attorney Lynch stated that this lot is non-conforming based on a zoning change that took place in September 2003 when the Town of Lenox amended its zoning bylaws. Lots which were in the R 40-30-20 zone were now zoned R1A. The latter zone requires that lots have 150 feet of frontage, and this lot is 145 feet wide, therefore it is referred to a pre-existing non-conforming lot. This is the only non-conformity and the existing home and proposed home meet the required setbacks. The parcel is almost 2 acres. The existing home would be razed and replaced with a larger home that would be considered modest in size compared to nearby homes on Walker St. The proposed home is still in the design phase, but will appear to be single story from the front, but due to the sloping nature of the lot, will be
two stories. The existing home sits atop a sewer line which serves neighboring properties. The new structure will be sited further back than the existing home. A survey plan was presented as well as tax cards of surrounding homes which provides their square footages.
Attorney Lynch stated that the standards for issuing a special permit under Section 9.4.2 are met by the Applicant. He pointed out the differences in the value of the existing home, $293,000.00 with the tax revenue of $3618.85 versus the estimated value of the proposed home of $1,200,000.00 with the tax revenue of approximately $14,796.00.
In closing Attorney Lynch said that under MGL Chap 40a Section 6 Paragraph 1, protection is afforded to single family homes from zoning changes therefore he said the application to build a new home on the lot after demolition should be granted.
There was no correspondence. George Jordan, a resident of 138 Walker, said that he felt the notice was defective regarding Section 3.3.5 of the zoning bylaw. The use of the word “not” was his issue. The actual notice as it appeared in the newspaper and the notice read this evening were compared and found to be the same. The presentation of the application reflected the legal notice. Mr. Jordan said he didn’t actually oppose the project. EB said the Board would look into the issue about the process he questioned. Mr. Jordan also wanted to know what would happen to the materials from the demolition. Mr. Levin said that some would be given to Habitat for Humanity.
CS made a motion to grant the petition requesting a Special Permit to allow: demolition of a home on a nonconforming lot pursuant to Section 3.3.7(3); reconstruction of the home on a different footprint; and an increase in the home’s habitable floor area by more than 50% pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Section 3.3.7(3). RFjr seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve
5-0.
Other business: George Jordan submitted two letters in relation to the Levin petition. One dated January 17, 2015 regarding “Defective Notice” and the other dated January 25, 2015 regarding the postponement of the Levin hearing for two weeks from January 21, 2015. In the latter case, Mr. Jordan argued that the Board did not follow the process, stating that when it was determined that there would only be four members of the five member board available for the Jan. 21st hearing, the Board should have held a meeting to announce that the hearing would be re-advertised and abutters re-notified. (The hearing could not proceed because only 4 members of the Board were available and the Applicant chose to reschedule until five members were available.) In
this matter Mr. Jordan was advised that the proper procedure was followed. With regard to the first letter and claim that the notice was defective, Mr. Jordan quoted the notice and pointed out that the zoning bylaw wording is “increase in the home’s habitable floor area by NOT more than 50%” but the legal notice doesn’t have the word “NOT”. He asserts that he absence of “NOT” changes the notice and he feels that the petition should be re-advertised with a new date and time set. After some discussion it was agreed that perhaps the zoning bylaw should be amended to be clearer, but Mr. Jordan was advised that under MGL this increase in habitable area is considered a “by right” use and MGL trumps the Lenox Zoning Bylaw. GM said that the Planning Board is working with a consultant for clarifying the zoning bylaw and that this would be noted. (Mr. Jordan gave a third document which seemed to be incomplete but related to this
application. In it he suggested that the hearing notice should provide information on “the reasonable dwelling lots that prevail on Walker St.”. He also complained of “UGLY no trespass signs” at Pinecroft which he said are nonconforming.
GM said that the Elm Court applicants have asked if the Zoning Board would like to have a site visit prior to the hearing scheduled for February 18th. The members responded that it would be inappropriate to schedule a site visit before the hearing commenced.
Minutes-January 7, 2015-RFjr made a motion to approve the minutes and EB seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 3-0-2. AH and CS abstained as they were not present at that meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
