ZBA Hearing Minutes
Date: 2/25/10
Hearing began at: 3:03pm
Members Present: Robert Lazzarini, Acting Chair, Fred Chapman, Clerk, Cynthia Weber, Dean Amidon and Anne Marie Enoch, Alternate
Also present: David Hellman, Attorney for the Mandelbaums and Thomas Thorn (abutter)
The hearing began with Robert Lazzarini, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Fred Chapman, Clerk, read the legal notice and letters from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Board of Health and abutters.
Attorney David Hellman was here to present for the Mandelbaums who were unable to be present. The Architect was also unable to be present. Attorney Hellman apologized for the Mandelbaums absence but they are available via phone if there are any questions David can’t answer.
The site has been survey by Foresight and has determined that it is 2.2 acres. The only non-conformity for the existing home and proposed home is lack of road frontage. The proposed home conforms with all sizes and setbacks, but stands 4 ft higher than the existing home.
R. Lazzarini pointed out the structure marked as an outhouse on parcel 2 (not the parcel before them). He did make a site visit and did not see one there and wanted confirmation that it had been demolished. David noted that the plans were drawn up in 2007 and since then they have done some work on the property which included removing the outhouse.
Cynthia wanted to know how many wells were located on the property and wanted to know if the “out buildings” were actually bath houses. David noted that there is more than one septic system on the property and the cabins/cottages have been decommissioned as dwelling units by the Building Inspector and there are not going to be any accessory dwellings on the property.
R. Lazzarini is concerned about the out buildings being used for sleeping purposes/guesthouses. R. Lazzarini has met with the Board of Health and it isn’t an issue because there are bathrooms in each of them and they are all going into an existing septic system; these septic systems passed Title V when the property was purchased by the Mandelbaums in Dec. 2006. The Board of Health will be requiring that another Title V be performed after construction and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
Cynthia asked about the proposed basement and if any part of it was anticipated to be finished. David is not aware of any plans for that and stated it is intended only for mechanical and storage items. Cynthia noted that there aren’t any windows in the basement plans.
Fred asked why the two lots don’t merge. David stated that each have a dwelling on them and you’d be creating yet another non-conformity.
Anne-Marie asked for confirmation that the existing driveway which now goes all the way down to the lake is going to be changed because the proposed house would be blocking it. Fred asked for the current square footage and proposed. Current is 1,152 and proposed is 2,504. Fred stated that it does significantly increase the non-conforming nature by increasing its size dramatically. R. Lazzarini presented an analysis of the surrounding neighborhood; the sizes of homes ranged from 1420 to 6445 sq.ft. with an average of 2,570. He does not feel that the argument can be made that the proposed structure would alter the character of the neighborhood. Fred Chapman, on the other hand, believes that when estimating the “non-conforming nature”, the whole complex of house and land must
be considered together and doubling the house size increases the non-conforming nature of the complex. He further believes that Sec.IV.E.2.c is the relevant bylaw for judging this application. Discussions among the Board members ensued about the 25% rule, non-conformities and non-conforming “nature”.
Thomas Thorn, abutter asked David Hellman to repeat who the abutters were again, he stated that the abutter listed as the Heinmann’s is incorrect, that is his property. He’s concerned about the close proximity to his property line and access to the latrine which to access needs to cross his property line. He also states that the survey and setbacks shown for the latrine are incorrect. He’s concerned about the gate at the top of the hill (RT 23) that when closed denies the Pedersen’s access to their property (there is a right of way there). He stated there is another gate at the apex which is consistently locked, if there is a fire no one will be getting in and this concerns him because the heavily wooded forests abuts his. R. Lazzarini felt these were civil matters and
not matters for the ZBA. Thomas stated that there is also a police report that shows that the previous contractors that worked on the outbuildings left refuse on his property. R. Lazzarini stated again that this sounds like a civil matter and has nothing to do with whether the Mandelbaums live in the current home or build a new one. David Hellman asked if these concerns were expressed directly to the Mandelbaums; Thomas Thorn stated no, only through the police. David Hellman stated that the gates were installed to help keep their lot private since people were still attempting to get on the property thinking it was still a public boat access. Thomas did state that the problem was taken care of immediately by the Mandelbaums after he made the complaint to the police. Fred confirmed that Thomas wasn’t objecting to the project only to using a reputable contractor that wouldn’t throw the waste on his property. Dean noted that in case
of a fire or emergency the emergency vehicles would either drive through the gate or around it.
As there weren’t any further questions, the Board went into their deliberative phase. The Board made the following finding:
1. The subject parcel lies in both the Lake Shore and Agricultural Residential districts and is non-conforming due to lack of road frontage and the applicable section of the bylaw is Sec.IV.E.2.b.
2. The maximum and minimum setback regulations (see paragraph V.G of the Monterey Zoning Bylaws) of the Lake Shore District apply to this application because the proposed dwellings and disposal system lie wholly within that district.
Fred inquired as to if anyone else was troubled by the existence of all the extra little outbuildings.
The Board agreed to vote to approve the project as submitted. A vote was taken and Fred Chapman abstained from voting stating he was sworn in to uphold the bylaws and did not feel the Board’s interpretation in this matter were doing that and stated that if he voted he would be contradicting the bylaws intentions. The remaining members voted in favor of granting the project. David wanted to make clear that an abstention is a “no” vote.
The Board made the following condition:
1. The applicant must satisfy the requirements of the Board of Health.
The hearing concluded at 4:35pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
| 