Free-Form Document

Details
Link Name:	2004-11-08	Description:	
Subject/Title:	November 8, 2004	Subtitle:	
Keywords:		Review on:	
[ ] Default to Printable Version
Attachments
Attach...

	FINAL
STOCKBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Meeting Minutes for:					Board Members in attendance:  
November 8, 2004 					Linda Day 		William Selke
7:00 PM						Patricia Flinn 		John Spencer
Stockbridge Town Hall					Thomas Schuler
							
Note: This meeting is a continuation of the hearing of Thursday, November 4, 2004.




DORDICK APPLICATION

“An application has been submitted by Attorney Roscoe N. Sandlin representing Jonathan and Vera Dordick of 26-28 Ice Glen Road, Stockbridge, MA who is seeking a variance from the provisions of Section 5.5 of the zoning bylaws to permit construction of a fence, which surrounds a pool, within the fifty-foot setback distance.  The property is in an R-4 zone.  The hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals has been scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the Selectmen’s Office at Town Hall.”

Note:  A site visit was made on Saturday, November 6, 2004 at 8:30 AM.  Those attending were:  Bill Selke, Pat Flinn, Jack Spencer and Tom Schuler.

There were no public attendees of interest to the Dordick application.

Chair William Selke asked the board members to give their opinion and vote on this application.

·	Member Spencer – from both the site visit and the public hearing, he does not see the hardship, and therefore votes no to the variance.

·	Member Schuler – feels that enforcing the zoning bylaw would not be a substantial hardship.  Seeing that both the abutter and the building inspector made the fence contractor aware is an additional reason he votes no to the application.

·	Member Day – concurs with Members Spencer and Schuler, and feels it would set a precedent.  She votes negatively.

·	Member Flinn – based on the testimony at the hearing from the abutter and the building inspector, she feels that it was not a mistake, but a blatant violation of the zoning on the part of the fence contractor.  She votes to deny the variance.

·	Chair Selke – feels that the application fails to meet all the criteria for a variance.  He commented that it would have been easier to put the fence where it should have been.  He votes no.

Voting recap by member: 
Spencer – deny, Schuler – deny , Day – deny, Flinn – deny, Selke – deny, 

Summary of the voting:  
Five (5) votes to deny, no votes (0) to approve.  The application for a variance is denied.

The public hearing on the Dordick application was closed at 7:14 PM.

KOMACK APPLICATION

“An application has been submitted by Attorney Harris N. Aaronson representing Roy L. and Lauren J. Komack of 3 Interlaken Crossroad, Stockbridge, MA who is seeking a variance from the provisions of Section 5.5 of the zoning bylaws to allow the division of the Applicant’s property into two parcels, a newly created parcel which would in all respects conform to the Zoning Bylaws, and another parcel which would be nonconforming with regard to the frontage requirements.  The property is in an R-2 zone.  The hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals has been scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 7:15 PM in the Selectmen’s Office at Town Hall.”

There was only one public attendee of interest to the Komack application, attorney Harris N. Aaronson.

Chair Spencer gave a brief recap of the application and then asked the board members for their opinions.

·	Member Selke – said he drove by the site.  If he had not known that Tenneco owned the land, he would have thought it was one lot.  The purpose of 5.5 is to limit density.  This is a unique problem.  He feels there would be hardship in the missed division of the lot – owning something with an expectation of subdividing and then losing that expectation would be a hardship.  He feels that granting the variance would not go against the intent of the zoning bylaw.

·	Member Schuler – agrees with Member Selke’s comments.  But he has some issues with hardship.  Since we don’t have any information to refute the applicant’s assertion of frontage shortfall or Tenneco’s owning vs. leasing, with difficulty he has to approve.

·	Member Day – concurs with her collogues.  She feels it is an unusual situation with Tenneco, and that the intent of the bylaws is upheld.

·	Member Flinn – feels that the Tenneco restriction of development will force the frontage to be undeveloped, which upholds the intent of the bylaw.  

·	Chair Spencer – feels that hardship is upheld with the timeline of events.  The original family purchase and recent family transfer all happened after the Tenneco land purchase.

Chair Spencer asked for a roll call vote:  
Schuler – approve, Day – approve, Flinn – approve, Selke – approve, Spencer – approve

Summary of the voting:  
Five (5) votes to approve, no votes (0) to deny.  The application for a variance is approved.

The public hearing on the Komack application was closed at 7:28 PM.

							Respectfully submitted,
							Patricia Flinn
							Clerk