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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="2001-10-16">

		<subject index="0" >October 16, 2001</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">2001-10-16</field>

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

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

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
UNAPPROVED
Stockbridge Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting

October 16, 2001

Present: James Murray, Robert Tublitz, Ira Bender, William Harris, and Linda Day

The meeting was brought to order at 7:03P.M. by Chairperson James Murray. Mr. Murray informed the Board that notice of the meeting had been advertised. An application was submitted by Philip F. Heller & Associates for Selina Lamb, LTD for Ray E. and Elizabeth A. Newton for property at 21 Prospect Hill Road, Stockbridge, MA and who is seeking a variance from Section 6.18c, to allow a Morgan style fence and keel style gates running along the front line of the owners' property, approximately 540 feet, set back approximately 20 feet from the traveled way of Prospect Hill Road, to be maintained at a height of 5 feet, one foot higher than the 4 feet allowed under the zoning by-laws.

Mr. Heller is representing Selina Lamb. Ms. Lamb stated she was representing the Newtons. Although no written statement to support this was introduced, Mr. Heller stated such could be produced if requested by the Board. 

Mr. Heller reiterated the information in the first paragraph. He stated the Planning Board was inaccurate in implying that the construction continued despite the workers being told to cease. According to Ned Baldwin, the building inspector informed the construction workers of the Stockbridge by-laws. As they had only one more section to complete, they elected to install this last section even though they were told it would have to eventually come down.

Ms. Lamb explained that the house sits on historic property with the main building close to the road. She described the fence and noted it was being constructed as a safety issue to protect the Newton children. Ms. Lamb distributed photographs of other fences on the road and in town that were as high or higher than the one for which the variance is sought.

Mr. Heller felt the criteria for granting a variance were met. The request stems from a unique circumstance. The feature of the property is its 9.6 acres with a house sitting as a pre-existing non-conforming structure close to the roadway. Also, there is a hardship because the Newtons have two small children and the high fence is for safety. A black mesh fence will be constructed on the house side of the fence so the children cannot climb through the slats. The mesh wire is considered "invisible" fencing. Lastly, the Newtons have paid $37,131.45 for the cost and installation. The fence design is compatible to the house and neighborhood. It does not distract from the visual appeal of the neighborhood.

Mr. Heller also stated that section 1.3 of the by-laws is to secure safety of citizens. This is what the fence does for the family. If the Board grants no variance, the contractor will take down the fence. Also, with regard to this particular land issue, Mr. Heller felt each case was independent and would not set a precedent for the Board.

Mr. Murray read the letter from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There were no letters from abutters although Mr. Baldwin stated he had received one written and several oral complaints. Also, when Mr. Baldwin spoke with the installers, Walpole Fence Co., they informed him that they usually contacted the town in which they were working to see if they needed a permit and if they adhered to town by-laws. In this case they did not do so because Ms. Lamb gave them a set of plans. Ms. Lamb explained she did not know the by-laws relating to fences; she had overlooked them. Mr. Baldwin commented that some people in town had already been told to reduce fence heights to meet by-law requirements.

Mr. Bender noted that wire fencing as planned by Ms. Lamb and the Newtons is also not permitted by the by-laws. Other Board members expressed concern about visibility and safety. 

A motion was made by Mr. Tublitz and seconded by Mr. Bender to continue the hearing at the town hall following a site visit by the Board. The continuance will be on Thursday, November 8 at 4:30 P.M. Motion carried 4-1(William Harris opposed).

It was agreed that the Board would meet at the site at 4:00P.M. prior to the continuance of the hearing.

Mr. Heller said that on behalf of the applicant he would waive any time limits with regard to Board time constraints in responding to this variance application.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda B. Day