<FCFORMSHEADER>
<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="2001-04-26">

		<subject index="0" >April 26, 2001</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">2001-04-26</field>

		<field id="2000" index="0" type="number">0</field>

		<field id="3999" index="0" type="number">0</field>

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
Approved
Stockbridge Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting

April 26, 2001

Present: Robert Tublitz, Chairperson; James Murray, Ira Bender, John Spencer, William Selke, Linda Day

The meeting was brought to order at 7:00 P.M by Robert Tublitz who chaired the application hearing.

Mr. Tublitz mentioned to public notices published in the Berkshire Eagle on April 10 and April 17. He established ground rules for the meeting.

The Stockbridge Zoning Board of Appeals considered the appeal application of The St. Stanislaus Kostka Province of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception, Eden Hill, 2 Prospect Hill Road, Stockbridge, MA 01262 which institution was represented by F. Sydney Smithers of Cain Hibbard Myers & Cook, PC. This is an appeal to the Board taken under the procedures of the Massachusetts Zoning Act, G.L.c.40A, Sections 8 and 15, and the Stockbridge Zoning By-Laws, Section 7.2.1, by the Marians due to their inability to obtain a building permit from the Stockbridge Building Inspector as received by the Marions on February 28, 2001.  The Marions seek an order from the Board overruling the inspector's denial of the permit and ordering the inspector to issue the permit, or, in the alternative, that the Board issue the permit directly. 

The appeal concerns the proposed construction of a Pilgrim Center at Eden Hill, zoned R-2 Residence 2 acre., for a center containing a religious display area, a room for religious archives, a hall for religious services and conferences as well as support space including rest facilities. The denial pertains to Section 6.14A of the Stockbridge Zoning By-Laws limiting the maximum height of a building to 35 feet. Other issues related to Sections 4.4 and 2.2 pertaining to accessory structures.

Mr. Smithers represented the Marion Fathers. The Board was shown a compiled plan of Marion land and the planned located and schematics of the Pilgrim Center. The denial letter from the Building Inspector was read. A model of the Pilgrim Center was also shown to illustrate that the clerestory of the Center would exceed 32 feet. 

Mr. Smithers explained from his clients' perspective:
1. The 35-foot limitation would nullify the effective use of a religious building. And, the clerestory adds ambient light, grace and grandeur to the building as a religious edifice. 
2. The 35-foot limitation does not apply according to Section 5.4 and Section 5.2 because the clerestory is an appurtenance above the roofline and not intended for human habitation.

Father Walter Dziordz of the Marion Fathers explained the mission of Eden Hill and the importance of the Pilgrim Center to assist the physical needs of visitors. The clerestory will have icons and religious symbols associated with Eden Hill and should enhance the spiritual aspect of the Center to inspire religious fervor and prayer.

Project architect Christopher McMahan of Robinson Green Beretta Corp. spoke about the master plan, the beauty of the grounds and the significance of the Shrine. He explained that determination of the average grade plane used each corner of the building going out from the corner by 6 feet to provide points for determining the average grade line or plot lines from which the average grade of 1018.13 feet was calculated. From this the main roof was measured minus the clerestory because it was felt that the clerestory was an appurtenance. According to Mr. McMahan, an appurtenance would be a structure rising above the roofline, which would be unoccupied space, and performing some function not critical to occupancy, in this case, ambient light.

In response to Board questions, the architect and Mr. Smithers answered that the clerestory adds nothing to the structure and support of the building. The clerestory is a part of the Center roof and its underside is part of the ceiling of the Center's entrance area.

Mr. Tublitz asked why towns have height ordinances and regulations and if zoning ordinances were for the general health and welfare of the community. Responses from the architect and Mr. Smithers were that the regulations were to control bulk density and stories of buildings as well as to keep structures within the same scale as overlying district structures. They felt towns rely on fire and building codes not zoning ordinances for general health and welfare.

It was indicated that the Center would be 46 feet tall from its lowest point to its highest point including the clerestory. Also, it would be 650 feet to the nearest abutting property line and thus blocked no natural light of neighbors.

In addition, Mr. Smithers noted that Eden Hill is a campus comprised of six major buildings but Section 4.4 of the Zoning By-Laws permits only one principal building. Eden Hill already has six and is planning a seventh. This is not an accessory building and thus would not be under nonconforming height or footage plan regulations. 

Building inspector Edward Baldwin felt the building code was taken out of context. The reference point shall be the lowest point within six feet of the lot line where there is a slope. Thus one does not take an average grade. He referenced grade plan definitions under 780CMR 502.0 Definitions. Also, the application was made under A3 use group not the A4 use group for religious purposes.

The Architect responded that A3 was used because it was the most stringent regarding standards of fire safety and number of occupants the building could hold.  Mr. Smithers agreed but nevertheless noted the A3 was for building code use. Zoning pertains instead to use and adjacent use.

Mr. Bender asked how the Center's religious use would be nullified if no clerestory was present. The response was that the clerestory was an appurtenance such as a church spire or heating/air-conditioning unit. Imposing a different interpretation would disallow exempt use for religious purposes and this would have to be overturned. Further, the architect noted that height was taken into consideration when the building was designed. The clerestory was considered an appurtenance. 

Arnold Helfgott and Malvina Harris reside across from Eden Hill. They noted that this is the third time the Marions have come for variances and zoning law exemptions. Why? Mr. Helfgott felt it did not seem reasonable that without a clerestory the mission of Eden Hill could not be fulfilled. He expressed that the Marions should live within the zoning by-laws in their design of the Center.

 Mr. Smithers agreed that the Marions would pay for the consultant services by the Board. But, if such were the case, he would like to know at this time. Town counsel would be retained to assist with definitions and legal interpretations. Mr. Tublitz distributed a letter dated April 25, 2001 from town counsel J. Raymond Miyares of Pickett, Miyares and Harrington, LLP. It explains options for the Board to consider.

A motion was made by James Murray and seconded by William Selke to continue this hearing with a site visit at Eden Hill at 5:30 PM on Thursday, May 24, with the meeting continuing at 6:15 PM at the Stockbridge Town Hall. Motion carried.

Mr. Smithers agreed to forward copies of the Boston University/Newton case to Mr. Tublitz.

In unrelated matters, the Board received various meeting and conference announcements.

A motion was made by John Spencer and seconded by William Selke to approve the minutes of March 15, 2001. Motion carried. 

The meeting recessed at 9:10 PM to be continued on May 24, 2001. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda B. Day