ZBA Administrative Meeting Minutes
Date: 1/28/14
Meeting began at: 1:04pm
Members Present: Jonathan Levin, Chair, Cynthia Weber, Vice-Chair, Stanley Ross, Clerk, Robert Lazzarini and Fred Chapman
Alternates: Anne-Marie Enoch (left at 2:10pm), Ian Jenkins
Also present for parts of the meeting: Jeremia Pollard, Attorney for the Board, Mrs. Kirson, her step-daughter and Scott Jenssen, Contractor
- The Board discussed their budget request for FY15. Last year’s budget was $4,000 and to date only $300 has been spent. The Board had asked for this amount in anticipation of using legal services to help the Board in updating/amending our bylaws. This expense line also covers the postage for mailing notifications to abutters when an application is submitted. Stanley proposed that the ZBA should lower their FY15 request to $1,000. Some members of the Board were uncomfortable with lowering it this much not knowing how much has been spent for the last few years. Fred countered and suggested lowering it to $2,100 which was the budget in FY12. Jon seconded this suggestion. It was unanimously approved to lower the FY15 budget request to $2,100.
- The Board reviewed a draft letter (attached) and summary of proposed bylaw revisions to be sent to the Planning Board (attached). The suggested changes are minor in nature, or correct omissions or inconsistencies in the By-Law as a result of the adaptation of the new By-Law. Discussion about more substantive changes were tabled until a future meeting. The Board approved the draft letter and most of the proposed revisions and authorized the Chair to finalize the letter and revisions and forward them to the Planning Board with the request that the Planning Board schedule a joint meeting to review, discuss and/or hold a public meeting in sufficient time to permit the final approved revisions to be included on this year’s annual town meeting warrant.
At 2:11pm the Board discussed the need to go into Executive Session to discuss ongoing litigation with Town Counsel. Roll call was taken by the Chair. All ZBA members were present. A motion was made by Jonathan Levin to go into executive session, seconded, and approved unanimously. The Board agreed that they would return to an open session.
The Board returned from executive session at 3:19pm
The Board discussed the 3 options available to the Board with regards to the Kirson remand:
1. The Board may take no further action on the remand request and simply inform the courts that the Board stands by their prior decision.
2. The Board can follow the judge’s order and provide more information or
3. The Board can vote to reopen the matter for deliberation and hold an advertised hearing (with notification to all involved parties) to re-deliberate.
The Board asked Jeremia to describe what new evidence was presented at the de novo Court hearing. Jeremia summarized some of the new evidence presented by both sides.
A motion was made to follow the Court’s Order and provide a further statement of the reasons for denying the Kirson application for special permit. The motion was seconded and discussion ensued. The motion passed unanimously to follow the Court’s Order and provide a further statement of reasons for denying the Kirson application for special permit.
Following is the further statement of the reasons for denying the Kirson special permit application:
The Board concluded that the reason the existing dwelling did not conform to the Monterey Zoning By-law then in effect is that the Kirson dwelling was one of six single family dwellings on one legal lot and the Monterey Zoning Bylaws only allow one single family dwelling per legal lot by right. Therefore, the Kirson dwelling and all other dwellings in the 7 Arts complex are non-conforming.
Board members Jonathan Levin, Cynthia Weber and Fred Chapman concluded that the proposed alteration or addition intensifies the existing non-conformity(s) due to the following reasons:
- The proposed project is enlarging the existing dwelling and therefore increasing the non-conformity.
- Any expansion of any of the dwellings on this property is going to intensify the existing non-conformity.
- The expansion of the Kirson dwelling will have the effect of also intensifying the non-conformity by increasing the number of people who could then utilize or visit the expanded dwelling, place a greater burden on ancillary aspects of the dwelling, like access and emergency services and others which arise when there is a more intensive use of property.
- That the purpose of limiting one single family dwelling to each lot was to limit the burdens on one lot to the burdens imposed by one single family and where you already have six single family dwellings any increase in the use of the dwellings creates additional burdens on the lot which the by-law did not intend.
- The expansion of the non-conformity puts added pressure on the site itself which is smaller than the surrounding sites and it’s location with respect to the dirt access roads.
The Board turned its attention to the question of whether the Kirson proposal would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. For this part of the procedure Bob Lazzarini, Jon Levin and Stan Ross recused themselves and did not participate because they had earlier found that the proposal would not be substantially more detrimental. Board members Fred Chapman and Cynthia Weber concluded that the proposed addition or alteration has a substantially more detrimental effect than the existing structure or use to the neighborhood:
- Each of the six properties in the condominium is assigned a unit of land, ranging in size from .113 to .650 acres, to support the residence and to be controlled solely by that owner. The Kirson building unit is .500 acres.
- The previous expansions (by owners other than the Kirsons) on the property are similar to cluster zoning but are more dense than what is usually considered cluster zoning. There is too much there now and more will be even more too much. It will present what is an excessive additional use of the land and the road and the house will overflow it’s three dimensional spacial envelope.
- This property was compared to the entire Lake Buel community and that if all of the houses around the lake pursued similar enlargement, the use of the land around Lake Buel would be overused. The site that harbors this particular structure (on ½ acre) is impacted by the proposed increase far more so than other properties with larger pieces of land. Every inch of land developed around Lake Buel needs to be justified.
- The proposed addition of 1,057 square feet of finished space to the dwelling would result in a total of 2,391 square feet of finished space. The other five dwellings in the parcel average 1,885 square feet. The non-conformity of six dwellings on one lot is thereby increased and intensified by this expansion.
- The presumed increase of occupancy in time periods and numbers of indivisuals impacts the non-conformity by increasing traffic pressures of occupants, home and grounds support and tradespeople. The access roads are grandfathered by the pre-zoning multiple placement on one parcel and subsequent condominium status. The way, therefore, is not obliged to conform to safety features and standards stressed in Monterey’s requirements for actual subdivision status. Not only is the immediate neighborhood of the Seven Arts owners negatively impacted, but the larger community of Lake Buel is negatively influenced by these discrepancies.
- This proposed expansion of a house is on a property where there are six houses on one lot. ~Five of these houses, including the Kirson residence,are sited in a tight jumble which resembles a poorly designed caricature of clustered zoning. ~The greatly enlarged house would significantly erode the already minimal three dimensional spacial envelope which encloses the structure, thus reducing privacy, open space and visual relief within this neighborhood. ~In addition, the likelihood of greatly increased activity, both within and outside the house, will bring further burdens and force the character of the neighborhood to be substantially more out of balance.
While articulating his reasons for denying the special permit, Fred stated that he felt that the contractor laughing at him was disrespectful and due to this he was having a difficult time forming his opinions at this time and was in a quandary on whether or not he should continue. Fred stated that he was disgusted by the events during this meeting, that it seemed as if there were at least four different factions present and would not articulate any further statements to justify his reasons for determining that the proposed addition or alteration has a substantially more detrimental effect than the existing structure or use to the neighborhood.
Fred asked whether the Board members would be permitted the further opportunity to explain, articulate and refine their respective reasons for their decision in the drafting of the minutes of the meeting and the Board Chair acknowledged that any Board member could and should further articulate their individual reasoning in the written decision.
Mrs. Kirson had asked if she could comment and was informed that she could not as this was a public meeting to answer the judge’s order not to deliberate.
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 3:52
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Executive Secretary
| 
