Free-Form Document

Details
Link Name:	2004-07-28	Description:	
Subject/Title:	July 28, 2004	Subtitle:	
Keywords:		Review on:	
[ ] Default to Printable Version
Attachments
Attach...

Town of Stockbridge
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting July 28, 2004

Members Present: Linda Day, Chairperson, James Murray, Pat Flinn, Tom Schuler

Alternate Present:  David Adler

Chairperson Day called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.  She read the following request and public hearing announcement: A request has been received from Timothy Geller, Project Manager of Pine Woods Affordable Housing Project at 3 West Stockbridge Road, Stockbridge to hold a public hearing regarding updates on the project. The public hearing has been scheduled for July 28, 2004 at 7:00pm in the town hall. The property is in an R-2 zone. Tim Geller then reviewed the following changes to the development plan for Pine Woods Housing since the granting of the Comprehensive permit:

1. The existing main house will be demolished and replaced with a structure approximately equal in size, scope and the exact number of housing units. The structure will be located essentially within the existing building footprint.

2. The development budget has increased; funding sources have remained constant, with increased commitments.

3. Bedroom distribution: two efficiency units (original plan, main house) have been replaced with one-bedroom apartment.

In addition there will be no program changes or changes in the rent or income structures for the project other than those reflected by the above mentioned bedroom distribution change.

Mr. Stephan Green, from Clark and Green architectural firm, then reviewed the architectural plans for the replacement building relative to the previous building and the new surrounding buildings. Including sighting the new building and its elevations.

The Zoning Board of Appeals then reviewed 700 CMR:
Department of Housing and Community Development- Housing Appeals Committee 31.03: Changes in Applicants Proposal:

(1)  Substantial Changes.  If an applicant involved in an appeal to the 
Committee desires to change aspects of its proposal from its content at the time it made application to the Board, it shall notify the Committee in writing of such changes and the Committee shall determine whether such changes are substantial.  If the Committee finds that the changes are substantial, it shall remand the proposal to the Board for a public hearing to be held within 30 days and a decision to be issued within 40 days of termination of the hearing as provided in M.G.L. c. 40B, 21.  Only the changes in the proposal or aspects of the proposal affected thereby shall be at issue in such hearing.

If the Committee finds that the changes are not substantial and that the applicant has good cause for not originally presenting such details to the Board, the changes shall be permitted if the proposal as so changed meets the requirements of M.G.L. c. 40B and 760 CMR 31.00

(2) Commentary and Examples.  The statute requires that an applicant present its application first to a local Board of Appeals before appealing to the Housing Appeals Committee.

If on appeal to the Committee the applicant wishes to make changes in its proposal from its content as originally presented to the Board, the Board should have an opportunity to review changes which are substantial.

Following are some examples of what circumstances ordinarily will and will not constitute a substantial change of the kind described in 760 CMR 31.03(1):
(a)  The following matters ordinarily will be substantial changes:
1. An increase of more than 10% in the height of the building(s);
2. An increase of more than 10% in the number of housing unites proposed;
3. A reduction in the size of the site of more than 10% in excess of any decrease in the number of housing units = proposed;
4. A change in building type ( e.g., garden apartments, townhouses, high-rises);
5. A change from rental property to homeownership or vice versa;
(b) The following matters ordinarily will not be substantial changes:
1. A reduction in the number of housing units proposed;
2. A decrease of less than 10% in the floor area of individual units;
3. A change in the number of bedrooms within individual units, if such changes do not alter the overall bedroom count of the proposed housing by more than 10%;
4. A change in the color or style of materials used;
5. A change in the financing program under which the applicant plans to receive financing, if the change affects no other aspect of the proposal.

The Zoning Board then discussed the changes to the plan described above. Jim Murray made a motion that the changes to the comprehensive permit do not constitute a substantial change. The motion was seconded by Pat Flinn.  The committee voted unanimously to pass the motion.

The Zoning Board of Appeals concluded its meeting at approximately 8:20pm

Minutes are submitted by David Adler