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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="2005-06-16">

		<subject index="0" >June 16, 2005</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">2005-06-16</field>

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

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

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
	
STOCKBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Meeting Minutes for:					Board Members in attendance:  
June 16, 2005	 					Linda Day 		William Selke
7:00 PM						Patricia Flinn 		John Spencer
Stockbridge Town Hall					Jim Murray

MEYERSON APPLICATION

Chair William Selke opened the meeting at 7:26 PM and read the notice published in the Berkshire Eagle on June 1 and June 8:

“The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 7:00 PM in the Selectmen’s Office in the Town Hall for Marian Meyerson’s property at 24 Mahkeenac Road, Stockbridge, MA who is requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 5.5 to allow an addition to be constructed on the owner’s pre-existing, non-conforming cottage, which addition will be located 22 feet from the east sideline of the property.”

There were three attendees of interest to the Meyerson application:  Joel Meyerson, applicant; Phil Heller, attorney for Meyerson; and Bob Tynan, engineer from White Engineering.  No abutters were in attendance.

Chair Selke commented that no letters have been received concerning the application.

The attendees made the following presentations:

·	Attorney Heller briefly outlined the proposed changes to the floor plan of the Meyerson cottage, which include an expansion of the bedroom and the addition of a sitting room.  He then showed a site plan with accompanying photographs of views surrounding the cottage.  He covered the points on which the appeal was based.  The principal point is that “the hardship is with the land, not the disability of Mrs. Meyerson.”  The trapezoidal shape and steep slope of the lot make is impossible to construct an addition other than on the east side of the lot.  Literal enforcement of the bylaw would cause a hardship.

·	Engineer Bob Tynan went over the site plan and the photographs, pointing out the steep slopes surrounding the cottage, and orienting the board members to the site.  It was mentioned that the lot to the east is owned by the people who have the cottage to the north, and it is an unbuildable lot.

·	Joel Meyerson, applicant and son of Mrs. Meyerson, gave a brief history of the family’s ownership of the property.  Love of music drew them to the area 58 years ago.  The present bedroom does not have enough maneuvering room for his mother, who has had a knee replacement.  The expansion would avert an “avoidable and unnecessary loss.”

There was a short period of questions and comments:
·	Member Spencer questioned what percent of the property the new footprint would cover.  Bob Tynan responded 9.9%, just under the 10% limit.  
·	Member Spencer commented that this was “the most complete presentation I’ve seen in a long time.”
·	Joel Meyerson confirmed for Member Murray that there would not be an extra bath.  
·	Member Murray commented that the pictures were helpful.

Chair Selke closed the hearing at 7:55 PM.

Following the hearing session, Chair Selke asked for a roll call vote:  

·	Member Linda Day – given the property’s odd shape and topography and the fact that the side lot is not buildable, she had no objection.

·	Member Jim Murray – concurred with Linda Day – no objection.

·	Member Jack Spencer – the cottage is modest now and the addition is modest.  It is a reasonable request and a proper use of a variance.  The town has created large acre zones, and existing small properties are caught.  Based on topography, he approved.

·	Member Pat Flinn – based on the unbuildable side lot and the topography problems shown by the pictures, she approved.

·	Chair William Selke – concurred with the other board members – no objection.

Summary of the voting:  

Five (5) votes to approve, no (0) votes to deny.  The application for a variance is approved.

							Respectfully submitted,
							Patricia Flinn
							Clerk