 |
|
Town of Lenox
Zoning Board of Appeals
Land Use Meeting Room
Minutes
May 7, 2008
Members present: Chair Pam Kueber, PK; Shawn Leary Considine, SLC; Daniel Mintz, DM; Ned Douglas, ND
Absent with notification: Clifford Snyder, CS
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
All of the petitioners were present when PK advised everyone that there were only 4 of the 5 Board members present. All four would have to agree in order to have their requests granted. The petitioners were told that if this was not satisfactory, the petitioners could wait until there was a five member board, or the Mullin Rule could be evoked. The Mullin Rule would allow the hearing to proceed with four members, and then a fifth member could listen to an audio of this hearing and vote at a decision meeting later. Each of the petitioners decided to proceed and not to invoke the Mullin Rule.
Paul T. and Joan L. Davis, 54 New Lenox Road (Map 49, Parcel 5) Special Permit-Section 5.5 to allow the enlargement of an existing attached garage and construction of an addition to the house.~The Davises made the presentation. They reviewed the site plan with the Board. They wish to remove the existing attached garage, rebuild a larger garage in its place, but moving it forward, and put an addition behind the garage. The addition would extend the kitchen; add a bedroom, bath and laundry area. The existing set back in the front is 48 feet. With this proposed change this setback would be 35 feet. The side setback of 18 feet would remain the same. The Davises have spoken to their neighbors who approve of the reconstruction and addition.
There was no correspondence nor any abutters present.
SLC made a motion to grant the special permit and ND seconded the motion. The Board voted to agree 4-0. It will be reflected in the decision that the front 35 foot set back cannot be decreased and the present 18 foot non-conforming set back must be maintained.
SLC will write the decision.
Shelly Williams 8 Franklin Street (Map 43, Parcel 191). Special Permit under Section 9.7.2 - Outdoor Dining to allow seasonal outdoor dining as an accessory use to an eating establishment.
Presenting the petition was Shelly Williams who purchased Carol’s, the previous business at this location. Greg Schnopp, the contractor, assisted Ms. Williams with the presentation. The proposal is to have outdoor dining to the left side of the existing building and a waiting area in the front. There had been large shrubs in the front of the building, and with their removal there is approximately an area that is seven feet wide. This is in addition to the existing sidewalk. The proposed dining area is 16’ X 30’. Handicap access will be provided where there is an existing side entry that is behind the outdoor dining and will not interfere with the dining area. DM suggested that the tables and chairs that are shown in the front be removed from the plan. There is
more space available behind the dining area shown on the site plan. If the space in front is to be utilized as a waiting area, DM said that he would be more comfortable with benches in place of small tables. Though the site plan shows seating for 24, the petition is for 32. The hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
DM felt that the hour of 7:00 a.m. could be a concern for outdoor dining citing the noise level.
Christine Ford of 21 Franklin St., spoke strongly in favor of Haven and prefers the 7:00 a.m. opening for outdoor dining. Both SLC and ND suggested that there not be any restrictions on time, but that the matter should be reviewed in September.
Ralph Petillo of the Chamber of Commerce said that he and the Chamber strongly support this project.
SLC made a motion to approve the Special Permit under Section 9.7.2 and ND seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0 to agree. The decision will reflect that the outdoor dining will be within the 480 square feet as shown on the site plan and that a review will take place in September.
PK will write the decision.
Joseph D. Burke, 10 Catherine Street (Map 38, Parcel 17). Special Permit under Section 5.5 or, in the alternative, a Variance from Section 8.4. The petitioner seeks to remove his existing garage and replace it with a larger garage.
Presenting the petition was Mr. Burke. He said that the existing garage, 12’ X 18’ is in disrepair and he needs more garage space. He said that this location is preferred because of the existing driveway, and there is a slope and existing garden which would prevent relocating. To do so would require a considerable amount of excavation. DM asked the applicant if he could move the structure in somewhat. Mr. Burke said that he would like to move the garage in as much as is possible, but at five feet it would put the existing house and garage corner to corner, not allowing a passage way. The proposed garage is 24’ X 24’.
Mr. Burke has spoken to the nearest neighbor who is very happy with this improvement.
He presented two letters from abutters, John and Patrice Leydet and Don and Gloria O’Brien. All supported the proposal. There were no abutters present.
Bill Thornton, Building Commissioner, wrote a letter advising the ZBA that Mr. Burke should apply under Section 5.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
SLC made a motion to grant the Special Permit under Section 5.5 and ND seconded the motion. The Board voted to agree 4-0.
PK will write the decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| ||
 |
|
  |