ZBA Hearing Minutes
Date: 10/16/07
Hearing: Brown – 24 Point Rd
Hearing began at: 4:00pm
Members Present: Cynthia Weber Chair, Fred Chapman, Dean Amidon, Robert Lazzarini, and Robert Gauthier (Clerk)
Also present: Sarah Steiner from Creative Building Solutions, Edward & Rochelle Brown and Attorney Dennis Downing, Susan Cooper (alternate ZBA member observing), Mr. & Mrs. Paul Gelbard (abutters)
The hearing began with Cynthia Weber, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Robert Gauthier, Clerk, read the legal notice and letters from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Board of Health and abutter Paul Gelbard.
Attorney Dennis Downing, representative for the Browns, presented the proposed project. The Browns home is an existing single family 4 bedroom residence. There will not be a change of use but rather a change of structure under the Monterey Zoning Bylaws. The existing first floor and deck are in the 40ft setback. The enclosed first floor existing area would remain the same. In the proposal a roof and screening would be added to the existing deck. Sarah Steiner explained that the current house is in disrepair, with a rotting foundation and that the Browns intend to add a roof and screen in the porch.
Attorney Downing stated that if the board has problems with the proposed roof on the deck, they would be willing to forgo the roof. The board stated that based on the Monterey Zoning Bylaws the roof on the deck is absolutely out of the question. The Browns were asked how old their septic system was, Sarah Steiner provided their current Title 5 which stated that the system was installed in 1978. Fred Chapman questioned why the Board of Health did not require a new septic system be installed. The builder stated that the current Title 5 was passing.
Abutter Paul Gelbard (disclosed that he is an acting attorney) stated that he is surprised by the petition. He objects to the encroachment of his property. Mr. Gelbard stated that about 30 years ago there was an addition to the back of the house that was built in the setback. Mr. Gelbard read comments from ZBA members from the minutes of his ZBA hearing, asking the board to follow the same guidelines.
Robert Lazzarini stated that the word “footprint” does not appear in the Monterey Zoning Bylaws. Dean Amidon asked how many people were notified within 300 feet of the project, Sarah stated that there were 14 people notified. Attorney Downing stated that there was a letter sent from the Burns (an abutter) but it was not received at the Town Hall. Attorney Downing was asked to confirm that the proposed roof on the deck would be removed; he did. No new construction will be added in the 40 ft setback.
At this point the evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed and the board began deliberations.
Fred Chapman stated that if the owners are proposing a change that involves tearing down the existing building in the 40ft setback that they should be responsible and build it elsewhere and pull back out of the 40ft setback. Fred would ask that they redesign so that they would no longer be in the 40ft. He thinks this is an egregious proposal and he’s not sure if they can modify the plans without having the owner reapply. Cynthia stated that there would need to be a condition regarding the change in plans and possibly a new set of plans being submitted. Fred does not believe that the proposal meets any part of reconstruction, he believes it is new construction. He believes that it increases the non-conforming nature and should fall under section “c”.
A motion was made to take a vote if the application should be filed under section “c”. Robert Gauthier read the Monterey Zoning Bylaws aloud prior to the vote. The board voted 4 to 1 in favor of keeping the revised proposal under section “b” and that the changes did not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure.
The board voted to accept the application as it was made with the following conditions:
1.~ The Special Permit is granted~as presented: without roofing or any structure added to~the~deck~in~the~lakeshore setback.
2.~~ The intrusion into the side setback is to be eliminated.
3.~~ Corrected plans are to be filed with the Application.
4.~~ The number of bedrooms is limited to four
The board decided on the following findings:
1. The property is non-conforming but grandfathered
2. The lot is undersized
3. The parcel has inadequate road frontage.
4. The structure is non-conforming. It intrudes into the fifteen foot side setback and into the forty foot lakeshore setback.
Cynthia Weber, Robert Lazzarini, Dean Amidon and Robert Gauthier voted in favor and Fred Chapman abstained from voting.
The hearing concluded at 5:22pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, ZBA Secretary
| 
