ZBA Hearing Minutes 5/23/23

Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals 5/23/23

Meeting Date: May 23, 2023

Meeting Opened at 3:00 pm

Zoning Board of Appeals Members present: Jon Levin, Chair, Susan Cooper, Scott Jenssen, Gary Shaw, Michael Banner

Zoning Board of Appeals Members absent: None

Also Present: Attorney Nicholas Arienti, Darren and Lisa Marino, Brent White (Whiting engineering), Ben Leedy 

Call to Order 3:00 pm

 

ZBA Hearing- 30 Prescott Lane

The Chair explained how the hearing process would proceed and the Clerk Gary Shaw read into record the legal notice posted into the paper as well as any notice from interested parties or abutters.  

Nick Arienti introduced the applicant and the engineer.  Darren and Lisa Marino owns 30 Prescott Lane and were present for the hearing.  Attorney Arienti provided an overview of the application section pursuant to section 9.4 (special permit) specifically section 5.1.6.2.  Nick reported that the property was on 30 Prescott Lane and was served by a right of way.  This is an existing one and a half story Cape home in the Lakeshore District, and the property includes a deck on the South West Corner.  There are three non-conforming issues with the property and house.  The first being the house is on a quarter of an acre and this is a two acre zoning district, and the property has no frontage on a public way.  The other non-conformity is of a dimensional non-conformity, and the house is within the Lakeside Setback being a little under 21 feet from the waterline.  

Brent White reported that Brian Casella completed a boundary survey and Whiting Engineering conducted a topographical survey.  He provided the maps and information to the ZBA.  Nick discussed the side yard setback, lot area coverage, and reported that the structure would be at the same dimension from the lake as the existing structure.  He reported that the footprint would be growing approximately 17 ft. towards Pixley Rd.  The total lot area coverage is approximately 2142 sq ft., which is approximately 17 percent lot coverage.  Susan inquired about the height of the current structure and the height of the proposed structure.  The height of proposed structure is 31 ft 2 ½ inches, but the height of the current property was unknown at this time.  Jon inquired about a basement.  It was reported that the new building will have a floodable crawl space.  Nick reported that it will not be permeable, but there will be a stone drip edge to promote water flow back into the ground.  

Nick provided a copy of the amended order of conditions.  The garage will not be built.  Gary inquired about utilizing any part of the foundation, but Nick reported that this was not a viable option.  

Ben discussed the architectural plan, and reported a solid stone will be applied to the foundation.  Ben showed the floor plans and described how the square footage was obtained.  Susan inquired about low reflective glass to reduce the impact on the lake.  Ben reported that they will further research this type of glass.  Ben discussed the height and reported that they needed to increase the house two and a half feet to meet the 100 year flood plain.  Scott inquired about the ceilings on the first floor, and Ben reported that there is 9’6” ceiling plan for the first floor.  Scott asked about the roof pitch, and Ben discussed the roof pitch, saying that the 8-12 did not hurt the plan.  Jon asked about the floor plan and the extensions, which Ben discussed along with the setbacks from the existing structure.  Ben reviewed the wood and siding materials they were proposing.  Susan reviewed the board of health requirements for a bedroom, and pointed out that the office on the second floor would actually constitute a bedroom according to the guidelines.  Ben said that from his understanding since there was no closet it was their intention to use this room as an office.  Nick suggested a deed restriction on use for a three bedroom home.  Brent discussed options for the deed restriction or ensuring that the space did not have a restriction of privacy.  Scott and Jon inquired about the septic system, which was described as a tight tank.  Initially there was a shared well with a neighbor and therefore they drilled a new well on the property.  At Scott’s request, the applicant confirmed that the property went through a Title V in the past and passed.  

Nick discussed options to comply with the three-bedroom septic.  Jon expressed concerns that the home was very close to the Lake, and said that the Marino’s had not made any effort to relocate the new home further from the Lake.  He reported that they have expanded into the 40ft setback, due to extending the Southerly side of the house two feet and extending the proposed deck.  Jon said that the ZBA is reluctant to approve encroachments into the 40ft zone, and he said he was hopeful they would have held to the limits of the existing structure and/or moved the structure further away from the Lake.  Nick discussed modifications that had been made to the structure, and said that they are existing non-conforming as long as there is not an intensification or extension of the existing non-conforming structure then they meet the requirements of the bylaw.  Jon said that they were not addressing the 40 ft no build zone.  Susan said that they have the opportunity to move the house out of the 40 ft setback, particularly since the house is being torn down and completely re-built.  

Brent discussed concerns with the placement of the septic tank, and Jon inquired about being able to park over the septic tank.  Brent said they were trying to avoid parking on the septic tank due to the age of the tank.  Susan said that she believed that the larger building increased the level of non-conformity.  Nick argued that the overall increase of the non-conforming nature of the house was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.  Jon confirmed that members of the board were troubled by the extension of the existing structure upwards and further into the 40 ft lakeside setback, and reported that they need to be careful with lakeside construction projects.  Scott presented the idea of modifying the porch and moving the house back six feet.  Nick said that he did not think it was a reasonable approach to ask for a continuance so they can go back and redesign the home, and restarting the entire process. Nick said that he would like to speak with Darren and Lisa to see what they would like to do.  

The Zoning Board of Appeals temporarily adjourned so that Nick could speak with his clients.

The Zoning Board of Appeals continued an informal discussion of the project.  Scott said that if part of the porch was removed it would give an additional three feet of space.  The Zoning Board agreed that this would help to decrease the level of non-conformity and would give the residents some additional space for their lawn.  With the removal of the portion of the porch suggested by Scott the setback would then become 26ft from the lake, which would be an improvement.  

The Zoning Board of Appeals returned to session.  Nick said that they were likely going to ask for a continuance.  Brent said that there were multiple considerations that they were going to look into and said that they were open to exploring options.  Scott suggested eliminating the corner of the front porch, which would add six extra feet to the distance from the house to the Lake.  Scott said that he thought the Board would be happy with this effort, and if a new design was brought to the Board then they could make any additional concessions.  Brent agreed that this would be a minimal design change.  Jon asked if the applicant was looking for an extension of the hearing to complete some additional design changes.  Brent agreed and suggested three weeks.  The Applicant made a formal request to continue the hearing, and the Board granted the request and continued the hearing to June 7th, 2023 at 3:00pm.  

Scott made a motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.  Gary seconded.  Call a vote:  Jon-yes, Scott-yes, Susan-yes, Gary-yes, Michael-yes.  Meeting adjourned at 4:21pm

Submitted by,

Laurie McArthur, Secretary