Free-Form Document Details Link Name: Ernie Lowell Description: Subject/Title: 2003-01-06 Subtitle: Keywords: Review on: [ ] Default to Printable Version Attachments Attach... January 6, 2003 Present: Cris Irsfeld, Deb McMenamy, George Shippey, Robert Berle, Attorney Kevin Kinne, David Mazzullo, Attorney Philip Heller, Pam Rota, Marshall White, Cara Davis, Frank Bunger, and Tim Geller, Derek Gentile, Denise Schneyer sitting in for Jorja Marsden Cara Davis, Executive Director of Construct, Fred Bunger, President/Chairman of Construct and Tom Geller, Project Manager came to say Thank You to the Town of Stockbridge especially in their effort to respond to the need of affordable housing. Cris explained that the Town resurrected the Affordable Housing Committee after the Governor issued Executive Order 4H. For over two years the committee worked on a couple of projects and one project, the “Pinewoods” project, was closed on a couple of weeks ago. Construct was asked to participate along with Affordable Housing to find housing. Mr. Bunger stated that the mission of Construct was to prevent homelessness and be an advocate for affordable housing. Construct has committed to the project at 3 West Stockbridge Road. This project is a win win project for Stockbridge and Construct as it will save a house, create affordable housing and save a green way and open space as you enter into Town. Tom Geller thought that the project wouldn’t be started for approximately a year or until financing was in place. Once the project is completed the Pinewoods will be managed by the Stockbridge Housing Authority. Laurie Norton Moffatt, Norman Rockwell Museum, Atty. Lucy Pharsher, Cain, Hubbard , Myers and Cook and Bruce Finn, new General Manager of the Rockwell Museum came as a condition of the special permit for the Rockwell museum. Cris read the legal notice which was published and sent to abutters. It was noted that Deb recused herself from discussion as she is now on the Board of the Rockwell Museum. Cris stated that there would be no vote taken as this is an overview of the season as requested with the conditions. Laurie stated that the season, short this year, from July 4 to about the 3rd week in October, was positive for the guests. The Norman Rockwell Museum hope to start in June this year through October. Cris noted that no negative comments were received. Cris and George wished them well. The continuation of the Elm Court hearing was opened with the reading of the recommendation of the Planning Board. The Planning Board stated “After a thorough review and discussion with the applicant team, the Planning Board voted that, based on its review, it appears that the proposed project meets all the required findings and can be completed in such a way as to meet the bylaws; therefore the Board recommends that the Selectmen approve the application in a form that will address the concerns of the abutters. With no other discussion or questions, the Selectmen voted the following findings under section 6.3 of the zoning bylaws: A. The proposed use shall be in compliance with all provisions and requirements of the bylaw and in harmony with its general intent and purpose. Section 6.6 of the bylaw was adopted by the Annual Town Meeting of the Town of Stockbridge in May, 2002 in part to address the need for the adaptive reuse and fiscally responsible redevelopment of historic Great Estates in the Town of Stockbridge. The applicants think that their proposal complies exactly with the intent and purpose of the bylaw and is otherwise in compliance with all of the requirements of the bylaw. B. The proposed use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare at the proposed location. Elm Court has been at this location since construction was commenced in 1885 shortly after William D. Sloane purchased the property. Section 6.6 of the bylaw creating the Cottage Era Estate Bylaw was designed to address the needs of just such properties as Elm Court presently existing in Stockbridge and thus Elm Court’s redevelopment is desirable to the public convenience at this location. C. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to adjacent uses or to the established or future character of the neighborhood. The redevelopment of Elm Court is, considering the 90 acre extent of the estate, a modest and neighborhood friendly proposal, proposing to have only thirteen guest rooms, at present, and a reception and function facility for occasional parties of up to three hundred, but much more likely parties for fifty to one hundred, and modest one hundred seat café/restaurant with artist gallery and loft above. The Elm Court neighborhood is a well established neighborhood in the Towns of Stockbridge and Lenox and will not be significantly altered by the introduction of the modest uses proposed by the Berles. D. That the proposed use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Present and proposed access driveways and parking facilities will provide ample on site parking and will not contribute to traffic congestion. At present, there are not sidewalks on Old Stockbridge Road and none are proposed. Pedestrian traffic on Stockbridge Road is limited to a small number of walkers and joggers. E. That the proposed use will not overload any public water, drainage, or sewer system or any other municipal facility to such an extent that the proposed use of any existing use in the immediate area or in any other area of the Town will be unduly subjected to the hazards effecting public health, safety or general welfare. The drainage for the Elm Court project is proposed as sheet drainage over land to the west. The existing septic system at Elm Court is being upgraded and modified under Title 5 permits recently issued by the Stockbridge Board of Health and water supply is by municipal water. There will be no overloading of any public water, drainage or sewer system or other municipal facility. George Shippey made a motion to approve the application as presented with the five findings. A second was received from Deb. The vote was unanimous. Cris read the legal notice for the special permit request for David and Lauren Mazzullo at 10 Grove Road (R-2 zone). The Mazzullo’s have requested under 6.1.2 of the zoning bylaws to alter and reconstruct a nonconforming structure by adding a second story on the existing one-story structure, construct a second story on the existing screened porch, and enclose an existing deck and convert it into a one-story room. Attorney Heller presented the dwelling; it has two bedrooms and is 20’ high. The alteration will contain four bedrooms and a nursery, will be at 32’ high, and the lot size is one-third acre with 100’ of frontage. The density is 12.6%, which will not change. Attorney Heller noted that after going to the Conservation Commission and obtaining the LPOD special permit from Planning Board that the applicant knows that the neighbors had concerns of the height of the building and the view of the lake. Architect Pam Rota has planned to use stone and wood to blend the house into the surrounding foliage. The building has just a crawl space underneath which will remain, however, the applicant has permission to dig out under another 18”. Marshall White of White Engineering stated that there is a gentle slope to the lake with a small spot of vegetation. There will not be any grade change and minimal site work for drainage. Mr. Mazzullo stated that he and his wife had been coming to Stockbridge for years, and they had owned another property in Beachwood before purchasing their present home. George Shippey stated he had a problem with the application. George stated that the previous owners received a building permit in January 1987 to move and add the two structures on the property at that time. On September 23, 1987 a building permit to add an open porch (8’x22’) showed on the Assessor’s card (June 18, 1992). Mr. Mazzullo stated that the porch is not being added to. George went on to say that the open porch permit on the lakeside, wasn’t built per the Assessor’s cards of 1989 and 1992. Attorney Heller asked George that based on the Assessor’s cards you are determining it wasn’t built. George stated the permit was not constructed per the Assessor’s cards in 92/94; the permit had expired. George continued that it was picked up during a reval of September of 1994. Attorney Heller asked if George was assuming that the Assessor’s cards are correct and that the porch on the front of the building was built with a permit that had expired, and the deck on the front never had a permit. Attorney Heller stated, “it was not proper to rely on Assessor’s Cards as you don’t assess until every three years, you are assuming it is 100% accurate. Did the Assessors go down there and look.” George stated it would have been picked up in the reval year in 1994. Attorney Heller stated, “the porch would only be enclosed and will not have a second story. The existing porch had a permit and is to be used for the second story. It is not as simple to say you had a building permit in 1987 and Assessor’s card doesn’t show anything until 1994 or 1995. You jump to the conclusion that it wasn’t built, there is also a stature of limitation on things. The stature of limitations expires seven years from issuance of a building permit to the respect of zoning and violations. I do not know the history of when this was built.” Pam Rota stated she had spoken to George at a Conservation meeting with regard to this. George disagreed and said it was not this issue, but the issue of the two buildings being joined. Pam stated she spoke to the Building Inspector who said he researched it and the permits had been obtained. George said he had been asked by the Conservation Commission to investigate whether a permit had been obtained for the joining of the two building, which he found that there was a permit. Richard Fey of 1 Grove Road stated that the Assessor’s did in fact go out to the properties. Denise stated that the Assessor’s do receive copies of building permits and then the Assessor’s go out to review the property. Mr. Fey emphasized the permit expired, that is evidence. Cris was concerned that there were not permits. Attorney Heller stated he did not know the history or what to answer. George thought Attorney Heller should check it out. Deb requested a site visit with the neighbors. Cris read that the Water and Sewer Commission had not comment. The Planning Board stated that after review, they voted under 6.1.2, and that the proposed changes appear to be consistent with what is allowed under 6.1.2a and 6.1.2b, but it is aware of abutter concerns of adverse impact on his view of the lake. Therefore the Selectmen should use their good judgment as to whether the impact on an abutter’s view is more detrimental to the neighborhood. The Conservation Commission was concerned about the conversion of a deck to a year round structure. The Conservation Commission has also issued an Order of Conditions. Abutters’ letters were read into the record. (Letters are in the hearing folder) Abutters wrote discontent over the height blocking their view and the size of the building. They were Dori Katz and Andrew Gold, Iva Albano, Marie and Dr. Manfred Hecht, Gregory L. Diskant and Sandy Baron. A letter was presented by the Yurman’s, abutters, who had no objection. Mr. Fey said that he was relieved to hear that the road would be open to emergency vehicles. He also thought Mr. Mazzullo should have discussed his plans with the neighbors during the summer. Also, he continued that it was a fragile area as no vehicles are allowed in the Beachwood Beach area. Mr. Mazzullo stated that he has a double lot so parking of the vehicles would be contained. He also stated that he did talk with his direct neighbor last summer during the planning stage. A motion to continue the hearing until January 21, was made by Deb. George seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Simon Brighenti of Omnipoint requested a continuance of the public hearing at the Stockbridge Sportsmen’s Club until January 21, 2003 as some movement has been made to clear the possibility for a tower to be located on the property. A motion to continue until January 21 was made by Deb, seconded by George. The vote was unanimous. Deb read a letter from Roland Ginzel informing the Board that the temporary overhead wire placed by Adelphia workers was removed and thanked them for their help. Mr. Ginzel appreciated the job the Town does to provide snowfree sidewalks. The Selectmen praised the job the Highway Department does on all the roads. They are the best. A true copy, ATTEST: