ZBA Hearing Minutes
Address: 523 Main Rd
Date: 10/16/12
Hearing began at: 3:02pm
Members Present: Fred Chapman, Chair, Jonathan Levin, Co-Clerk, Robert Lazzarini, Stanley Ross and Cynthia Weber, Co-Clerk.
Also present: Peter Vallianos, Carol Heimann, Robert McMahon, Ian Jenkins and Donald Torrico
The hearing began with Fred Chapman, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Jon Levin, Co-Clerk, read 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.
The Board noted that all members had visited the property and were familiar with the house.
Peter Vallianos, Attorney for the applicant presented the proposal for what he termed as a modest addition. He stated that there isn’t any proposed expansion of the residential use. Part of the existing space being renovated is already in the setback and Peter stated that the enlargement of the house proposed isare negligible.
It was determined that because of the additional land purchased in 1994, the property lost any grandfathering rights it may have had and is now subject to the 25foot setbacks which will affect the location of the proposed new shed which the applicant was not seeking relief for in this application.
The number of bedrooms will not be increased; the proposal is for a new bathroom and closet. The applicant’s attorney stated that a new septic system was installed in 1996. The Architect stated that the original house was 652 square feet and currently it is 1,532 square feet. The increase in the square footage from 652 to 1,532 (1996) had a special permit.
Fred inquired of the other Board members why this didn’t require a variance. Peter explained that he was told that new case law would allow the Board to approve this proposal if the Board determined that it was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Fred felt that this application should have been a request for a variance because it increased the infringement of the setback. The other Board members explained that a variance is not required under the Gale decision if the Board determines that the project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Discussions ensued about how the Gale case affects this application.
At this point in time the Board closed the public part of the hearing and began their deliberations.
The new, proposed shed will have electricity running to it. The existing shed was an outdoor porch that was enclosed.
The Board made the following findings:
1. The property is located in the Lakeshore District.
2. The property is non-conforming due to a lack of road frontage, lack of minimum acreage and it infringes upon the setback.
3. The additional 8 square feet proposed will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
The Board set the following conditions:
1. None.
A motion was made to approve the project with an amendment to move the shed to meet the 25 foot setback requirement. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
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 hearing concluded at 3:52pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
| 
