Monterey, MA - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7/29/10

Members Present: Robert Lazzarini, Chair, Fred Chapman, Vice-Chair, Dean Amidon, Clerk, Robert Gauthier and Anne-Marie Enoch, Alternate

The hearing began with Robert Lazzarini, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Dean Amidon, Clerk, read the legal notice (which was duly advertised and posted) and letters from the Building Commissioner, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health.

It was noted by Robert Lazzarini that this property has quite the topology. The Gelbard’s are rebuilding in the same footprint and with the same nominal height. The project is within the 40 foot mean water line of Lake Garfield.

Charles Nelson presented the project details. The lock wall system will be from Versa-Lock which is a masonry product. The timber wall currently there is pressure treated and is holding earth and in Charles’ opinion in poor condition. The earth will be excavated first and the only place where there is new construction is on the “curve”.

Fred asked if an alternative to pressure treated material could be used because of its proximity to the lake. Fred also asked how long the project would take and why they weren’t taking advantage of the draw down.

Robert Lazzarini stated that the documents submitted for this current project were not really adequate for the current project. They don’t show setback lines or the 40ft buffer line. Robert noted that the there is a new piece of wall being added which Adrian stated is making the previously square wall, rounded.

The abutters are only concerned about the corner as this wall is right on their property. Charles stated that the wall would be constructed with large brownstones used elsewhere in the project.

Dean noted that if this project weren’t done that the septic and wall would end up in the lake. Fred questioned when the last Title V was performed; when the owners purchased it 6 years ago. The owner stated that she just wants to fix the problem and wouldn’t be doing any of this if she didn’t have to.

A road is being built to bring the heavy machinery down and Charles is working with Dave Dempsey his Conservation Commission project manager.

Charles stated that the wall will be approximately 8-9 feet high. Anne-Marie wanted to clarify that the new construction was because it was the safest most environmentally positive solution.

Fred stated that with all the equipment coming on the property wouldn’t this be a good time to upgrade the septic system? The owner did not feel that this was an expense that could be taken on right now when not needed.

The owner and representative were made aware of the time frames for approval, filing with the Town Clerk and appeal period.

The Board closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and began deliberations. The Board members all concurred that this was an emergency situation.

1. The property is non-conforming because it is undersized, has inadequate road frontage and has structures that infringe on the side and back setback zones.

2. The proposed alterations involve either the removal or reconstruction of structures in their original footprints and to their original height. Therefore these changes do not increase the non-conforming nature of the property.

The board concluded that the request was in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Bylaws and will not be injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to the neighborhood or town. The requested reconstruction will not increase air or water pollution and will not contribute to odor, glare, electrical interference, noise traffic or night operations. The board voted on the project as submitted:

1. The work scope and staging of the complex undertaking should follow that which the contractor and the Conservation Commission had previously agreed to.

2. Rain water and excess ground water in the vicinity of the Gelbard dwelling should be diverted to the front of the house so that it doesn't run onto the neighboring property.

3. Two thicknesses of rubber bladder and one thickness of Geotech cloth should line the septic field behind the new stone retaining wall.

4. The contractor should be mindful of both the right of way (Chipmunk Lane) and Limerock Rd. and make efforts not to restrict traffic on them and to repair any damage their surfaces that the contractor’s use may inflict.

5. The contractor should verify to the Building Commissioner satisfaction that the reconstructed structures and the rip rap laid down do not infringe on the neighbor's property.