ZBA Hearing Minutes
11 Seven Arts Rd
Date: 12/15/11
Hearing began at: 2:10pm
Members Present: Fred Chapman, Chair, Dean Amidon, Vice-Chair, Cynthia Weber, Clerk, Robert Lazzarini and Stanley Ross
Also present: Scott Jenssen, Bottomline Builders, Roz Halberstadter and Kyle Pierce
The hearing began with Fred Chapman, Chair, explaining that the legal notice (which was posted for 2 consecutive weeks in the Berkshire Record and at the Town Hall) and letters from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health were read at the first hearing on November 30th.
Scott Jenssen, contractor for the Kirson’s presented the project to the Board of appeals. The current house is on piers but the proposed house will have a ½ unfinished basement to be used for storage and the other ½ will house utilities in a crawlspace. There is a shed currently located in the 25 foot setback which will be removed and therefore remove the setback issue. Scott stated that in 2007, Scott appeared before the ZBA with a larger project and it had been approved but due to unforeseen circumstances the owners were unable to proceed with the construction and their permit expired which required them filing again here today.
The current septic system is in working condition for the current house. Foresight Engineering is working on a new title v compliant septic for the proposed house.
Fred stated that he read the master lease for this condominium and asked if the proposed location of the septic would be within the parameters of the Kirson’s property therefore not requiring permission from the other owners.
The current and proposed square footage was discussed. Scott asked if the issue here today was the setback or the fact that there is more than one dwelling on the lot and the Board replied “both”. Scott stated that he’d just like to reiterate that this has come before the Board 4 years ago and the permit was approved then for a much larger proposed project.
Roz asked how much distance there would be between the proposed project and the Regenstreich house (corner of house to corner of house). The Board stated it would be almost 100ft. It was asked if the addition was going to be closer to the shared road and Scott reviewed the plans with Roz.
It was agreed that this is one lot with multiple dwellings on it. At this point the Board closed the public portion of the hearing and began their deliberations.
Fred felt that there wasn’t clarity on the subdivision of this property, Maggie Leonard stated that there is a Form B application in the Planning Board files that she is not sure whether or not the subdivision was ever completed or not. If this Form B went through then Fred stated you couldn’t consider it one parcel anymore. The Board of Assessors has this as one lot and everyone agreed to use the Assessor’s information since it is unclear what the status of the Form B is.
The Board voted on whether the applicant would fall under “B” or “C”: Dean stated “C”, Bob L and Stan said “B” and Cynthia and Fred both voted “C” which states that any proposed increase can not be more than 25% than the existing square footage. This means that this project would be limited to an increase of 240 square feet of habitable square footage. The Board asked if the Kirson’s would be amenable to submitting a smaller scale project or withdraw without prejudice and reapply and the Board agreed to waive the filing fee otherwise the Board would have to deny the request. Scott couldn’t speak for his client but felt that they may fight the decision the Board has made to have it fall under “C”. Scott asked
that the hearing be continued so that he could speak with his client to determine what they’d like to do.
The Board made the following findings:
1. The property under consideration is non-conforming due to it being situated on the same lot with five additional dwellings. Therefore, the proposal was not allowed as of right. [IV.E.2.2.3]
2. The current house and proposed addition meets all the setbacks.
3. The Board found no evidence that the property had been recently sub-divided contrary to the statements in the applicant’s own application as well as in the findings from the Monterey Planning Board. The property’s ownership had been re-organized into a condominium format but that had no bearing on this application.
4. The proposal would increase the habitable square footage at least 120% (approximately since figures varied somewhat). A divided Board found that this would result in an increase in the “non-conforming nature”. [IV.E.2.b]
5. Therefore, by a vote of 3 – 2 it was determined that section IV.E.2.c applies. The Board found that the resulting structure would be somewhat larger than the average size of house in the neighborhood. Nevertheless the resulting structure would be clearly more than 25% greater in total habitable square footage [IV.E.2.c.3]
The hearing will be continued to Tuesday, December 20th at 2pm so that Scott could speak to his clients to determine how they would like to proceed.
The hearing concluded at 3:19pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
| 
