ZBA Hearing Minutes
Address: 16 Point Rd
Date: 3/12/15
Hearing began at: 3pm
Members Present: Jonathan Levin, Chair, Cynthia Weber, Clerk, Robert Lazzarini and Fred Chapman
Alternates: Ian Jenkins
Also present: Katherine Chester, Nicholas Arienti, Donald Torrico and Linda Shafiroff
The hearing began with Jonathan Levin, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Cynthia Weber, Clerk, read the legal notice (which was posted for 2 consecutive weeks in the Berkshire Eagle and at the Town Hall) and letters from the Building Inspector, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health.
Nicholas Arienti, representative for the applicant was present to review the proposed project. The applicant is not yet the owner but there is a sale pending contingent upon the approval of this permit. Nick noted that the structure is conforming and meets all setbacks and height requirements but it is on a non-conforming lot due to lack of frontage (approximately 123ft) and lot size (approximately .45 acres). The proposed new structure will be a 2 story and the new height will be below the maximum height permitted in our bylaws and no new non-conformities are being added. Nick stated that no abutters will be adversely affected by this proposal and there aren’t any abutters directly behind this property. A new septic design has been proposed to replace the existing failed
system.
Linda Shafiroff of Creative Building Solutions provided a summary of the proposed new perc rite septic system which meets Title V standards to be installed. Linda stated that any glass that that could have any reflections off it would be indirect as it is facing north which Jon disagreed with and stated it actually faces west and will receive sun when it sets however the house is set back significantly from the lake.
Jon questioned the proposed layout on the lot of the driveway and felt that a significant amount of screening between the lots was going to be removed. Fred inquired about the purpose of the March 10th letter sent by the attorney; he stated he was a little put off and surprised by it and felt that the case was being made prior to the hearing. Nick stated that the intention was simply informative.
At this point the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began their deliberations.
Ian had 3 concerns: 1) the area that loops down near point road is extremely narrow and wonders how the demolition work will affect the neighbors, 2) the change to the elevation/roof height, 3) the protection of the abutters with regards to screening/privacy and 4) the expansion to 4 bedrooms and the potential congestion with the proposed 4 parking spaces.
Cynthia and Bob disagreed with Nick’s summation that most of the homes in that neighborhood are 2 story homes. Fred felt that this location was currently the only spot where light is currently filtering in and thought it would be a shame to block that out by adding another 10 or so feet and he felt that the non-conforming nature was being increased because any house on a non-conforming lot is a non-conforming structure.
Bob felt that it was clear that the density of houses on Point Rd was not going to change. He stated that according to the Assessor’s information the house as it exists now is the 3rd smallest of the 20 properties and the proposed construction would make it the 7th smallest. Bob didn’t feel that an argument could be made that the proposal would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and in fact would make it more conforming with the neighborhood.
Fred did feel that it was more detrimental to the neighborhood but was struggling with whether it was substantial or not; he did feel it was moderately detrimental. He didn’t agree with the rationale that because all the other houses are 2 stories then this one should be too and felt that at some point there had to be a tipping point.
Jon agreed with both Bob and Fred and feels that all things being equal the applicant has been sensitive to the neighborhood and chose not to expand as much as they could have. He also didn’t feel there was a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. It was also noted that none of the abutters were in opposition to the proposal.
The applicant was asked to look into using non-reflective glass providing it was not substantially more expensive. The applicant was also asked to be considerate of the neighborhood and abutters during demolition and construction.
A motion was made to accept the project as proposed. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
The Board made the following findings:
1. The current lot is in a LS District.
2. The current lot is non-conforming due to a lot size smaller than is permitted in the LS district and the current lot has less than the required minimum frontage in a LS district.
3. The current dwelling meets all set back requirements and is otherwise conforming in the LS district.
4. The extension, alteration and reconstruction of the existing nonconforming single family dwelling will continue to meet all set back requirements and will be otherwise conforming in the LS district.
5. A special permit is required under Section 5.1.6 of the By-law because the Building Inspector is not permitted to issue a building permit as a matter of right for the proposed construction solely due to the increase of the height of the new construction to 23.8 feet from the current 14.5 feet.
6. The new height is less than the permitted maximum height of 35 feet in the LS district.
7. The extension, alteration, construction or reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
The hearing concluded at 4:10pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Administrative Assistant
| 
