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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="Meeting Minutes">

		<subject index="0" >April 20, 2006</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">Meeting Minutes</field>

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

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

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MEETING MINUTES FOR:
Thursday, April 20, 2006

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
David Adler, Patricia Flinn (clerk), James Murray, Thomas Schuler, and William Selke (chair)

SHUBIN APPEAL

Chair William Selke opened the meeting at 7:05 PM at the Stockbridge Town Hall.  He read the notice sent to the abutters, concerning a deck recently constructed on Shubin property located at 11 Mahkeenac Heights Road (Map 17A, Lots 114, 115).  

The Building Inspector’s Notice of Violation letter to Bess Z. Shubin On January 17, 2006 included two findings:
·	“…that the permits required by the Town of Stockbridge have not been obtained.”, and
·	“…that the deck is in violation of the Town of Stockbridge Zoning Bylaw(s) section 5.3 which states that… ‘No lot, nor any building or structure shall be changed in size so as to violate lot area, frontage or yard requirements of this bylaw.’ – Section 5.5 Table of Dimensional Requirements requires a minimum of fifty feet setbacks in this area.”

There were no letters from abutters.

The only attendee of interest was Matthew Shubin, son of and acting for the owner, Bess Shubin.

Chair Selke reviewed the requirements for granting a variance: (1) Situation unique (topography, etc.); (2) Hardship if bylaw enforced; (3) No harm to the public good; and (4) Zoning would not be nullified.

Matthew Shubin made an informal presentation.  He explained that his 96-year-old mother had lived on Mahkeenac Heights for nearly 50 years.  There was no violation intent on his mother’s part.  The old deck was in poor condition, and additional space was needed for all the grandchildren.   She had assumed the contractor, Porter Builders, would know and follow all necessary requirements.  The original deck was 8’x17’.  The new deck is 12’x21’.  It is not a covered deck.  Mr. Shubin did not have any plot plan with exact setback measurements.  He gave the following approximate setback figures:
·	Side setback:  Original – c. 34’, New – c. 30’
·	Front (road) setback:  Not changed, less than 50’
·	Back (lake side) setback:  Changed, but two lots deep, so much more than 50’

Various board members summarized the following:  
·	the original side and front setbacks were both non-conforming, but grand-fathered since they pre-dated the new zoning; 
·	the new side setback is now more non-conforming; 
·	the new front setback is unchanged and therefore not more non-conforming; 
·	the new back setback, although changed, is not an issue.

Murray – pointed out to Shubin that he could not create his own hardship.

Schuler – commented that he had sympathy for the situation (Mrs. Shubin had no intention to run afoul of the bylaws), and commented that the Shubins, at minimum, had a compelling claim to the builder.

Murray – (to Shubin) “Have you considered getting legal counsel?”  “I’m cautious.  I don’t think we should be determining your hardship” (establishing grounds for a variance).  He further commented he was not comfortable making a decision based on non-exact setback figures.  He, too, sympathized with the situation, but did not think Mr. Shubin had his “ducks in a row”.

Schuler – suggested a continuance, to give Mr. Shubin a chance to “get ducks aligned”.

Flinn – thought it would be to the appellant’s advantage to continue.

Murray – (to Shubin) “I think you can see that there is a concern that a variance wouldn’t pass.”

Shubin – decided he would like to do a continuance, to “figure out what best to do.”

Schuler – suggested a date of Thursday, May 25th at 7:00 PM for the next session.

Flinn – made a motion to continue the hearing to the proposed date.  

The motion to continue until May 25th, 2006 at 7:00 PM was seconded, and a vote was taken.  Adler, Flinn, Murray and Schuler approved the continuation.  There being no tie to break, Chair Selke did not vote.

The session was ended at 7:45 PM.

							Respectfully submitted,
							Patricia E. Flinn
							Clerk