MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, David Jarvis, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw and Ronald Fussell.
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Martin and Scott O’Neill.
7:30 David Jarvis moved to accept the minutes of January 23, 2014 as presented.
Ron Fussell seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
The Board received a request from George Martin owner of Ms. Piggys’ Boston Road to renew his special permit for an Adult Entertainment establishment for one (1) year.
A representative of the Board contacted the Monson Police Department to verify they would have no objections to the renewal of the special permit for one year.
Frank Carey moved to renew the special permit for an adult entertainment establishment for one (1) year. The conditions of the special permit issued November 29, 2004 remain in effect and apply to the renewal of the special permit.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
7:45 Case No: A – 2014 Public Hearing for Karen Frickenhaus and C. Howard Johnson 13 Lakeshore Drive for a variance from the dimensional requirements of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for front setbacks in a Rural Residential zone.
Following comments from Chairman David Beaudoin regarding the powers and purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the time constraints the Board must meet to set a public hearing and render a decision, the manner in which the hearing would be conducted, the rights of all concerned, introduction of members of the Board and reading of the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of February 11, & 18, 2014 the applicants made a presentation to the Board.
C. Howard Johnson stated he appreciated that serving on a Board such as this can be a thankless task at times because the decisions the Board has to make can have a momentous effect on peoples’ lives. He stated the addition of a garage and garden shed on their property would make their every day lives much easier.
Karen Frickenhaus stated the Board has copies of the survey and is aware of the topography of the property. There is an extremely steep slope from the house down to the water and it is not possible to build a garage and small garden shed without a variance because the only somewhat level land is at the front of the property. The existing house is located 28.3 feet from the front property line. It is proposed to construct a 16’ x 24’ garage that would be 15 feet from the front property line and a small 10’ x 14’ garden shed that would be 15.5 feet from the front property line. The thicker black line on the plan identifies the front property line although there is a paved area in front of the driveway before you reach the traveled way. Ms. Frickenhaus stated they have been
working on a construction project for their house for quite a long time and had temporary units to store the equipment. For various reasons the construction has taken much longer than anticipated and they have had to remove the temporary storage units and rent off-site storage for their possessions. The proposed garage is a 16’ x 24’ single bay pre-constructed building that would be setback as far as possible to accommodate the 24’ length set on a bed of gravel. The garden shed is a 10’ x 14’ smaller version of the garage set on a bed of gravel that is setback as far as possible without disturbing the rip rap that was placed to stabilize the hill when the dam washed out. Ms. Frickenhaus stated she hoped the Board would realize that they have tried to locate the buildings as far back as possible taking into consideration the environment and the topography of the property.
Present and speaking in favor of the variance was David Koziol 32 Pulpit Rock Road. He stated the applicants’ maintain their property and was in favor of the variance for a garage and garden shed.
John Smith 48 Lakeshore Drive the applicants’ are good neighbors and he was in favor of the variance for a garage and garden shed.
John Field 83 Lyman Barnes Road Brimfield stated he owned vacant land across the street from the property in question and was opposed to anything that does not meet the bylaws.
David Beaudoin stated he has concerns regarding the 15’ setback because of parking vehicles in the driveway. He stated he drives a truck that is 19’ long and would not be able to park in the applicants’ driveway without protruding into the road.
Karen Frickenhaus stated the front property line on the plan does not reflect the actual traveled way. There is a paved area at the end of the driveway before the roadway.
David Beaudoin stated the surveyed plot plan shows the proposed garage located 15’ from the front property line and speaking as one member of the Board that presents problems with parking a vehicle safely in front of the garage. Winter with the added challenges of snow would only exacerbate the problem.
Howard Johnson asked Mr. Beaudoin to clarify if he said a truck cannot park there.
David Beaudoin stated he said an average length truck would not safely park there.
Ron Fussell stated the existing house is non-conforming and he would find it difficult to vote in favor of any new construction as close to the road as proposed, his preference would be to see it moved back closer to the existing house.
Howard Johnson stated it would double the cost to have to do that. There are homes on Lakeshore Drive that are closer to the road.
David Jarvis stated the homes already exist, if those property owners were to come before the Board for any new construction the concerns of the Board would be the same. He stated he built a garage on his property that has a 10 foot footing with rebar because of topography similar to that of the applicants’ property
Howard Johnson stated they had given a lot of thought to the layout proposed aesthetically, concern for the environment and the smallest building that would work for them.
Ron Fussell stated the applicants must weigh the hardship of not having a garage with the hardship of moving it back in order to park a vehicle safely in the driveway without extending past the front property line.
David Beaudoin stated the applicant has the option of withdrawing the application without prejudice or proceed with the hearing for a decision based on the plans presented.
A third option was presented to continue the hearing to allow the applicants’ to go back to the drawing board to re-configure the layout of the garage and shed to move it as close to the existing house as possible.
Howard Johnson and Karen Frickenhaus made a written request to extend the time for the conclusion of the public hearing to March 27, 2014 and then the time within which a decision shall be made until 90 days thereafter.
David Jarvis move to continue the hearing as requested.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
David Jarvis moved to adjourn at 8:45 P.M.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
