ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 12, 2006
MINUTES
Members Present: John Lennox-Chairman, Kathryn Sette, Roger Thurston, Donald Intonti, David Fleming, Alternate and John Zazzaro, Alternate
Staff Present: Mary Elizabeth Burgess, Town Planner
Frank DeFelice, Zoning Officer & Building Inspector
Mr. Lennox called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Mr. Fleming, Alternate sitting in for Victoria Dalmas who is absent.
CASE Z2006-10 - SALT POND ASSOCIATES/WILLIAM F. RILEY, Esq., is Appealing the Decision of the Eastham Planning Board under Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section XIV- Residential Site Plan Approval, Section G, for property located at 32 Tomahawk Trail, Eastham, Map-25 Parcel-16.
The Applicant presented his appeal. A discussion resulted in the preparation of “Findings of Fact”, but no vote was taken. The applicant implied that there were negotiations with the Planning Board prior to the January 10, 2005 meeting with the Planning Board, resulting in the Applicant agreeing to destroy the garage in order to obtain approval for his case.
The Applicant presented a possible precedent issue, since the Planning Board order of July 18, 2006 did not state reasons for the Denial of the plan modification. A question was raised as to whether the Zoning Board of Appeals had the authority to remand the matter to the Planning Board for review.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Sette, SECONDED by Mr. Fleming to continue this hearing to November 9th meeting of the ZBA and to request an opinion of Town Counsel as to whether the case can be remmanded to the Planning Board for review, and to request guidance from Town Councel on how to proceed with this Appeal.
VOTE: IN FAVOR (5) Sette, Thurston, Lennox, Intonti and Fleming
AGAINST: None
CASE Z2006-13 -CHARLES STABENFELDT is Appealing the Decision of the Zoning Officer under Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section III - Definitions-Home Occupation -Section D-6, for property owned by John Palmer located at 1940 Herringbrook Road, Eastham, Map-10 Parcel-59.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Applicant is appealing the decision of the Building Inspector claiming that John Palmer, owner of the abutting property is in violation of Section III sub section D-6 of the Eastham Zoning by-Laws.
2. Property in question is owned by John Palmer at 1940 Herring Brook Road.
3. Mr. Palmer operates a landscaping business from his home and is licensed to conduct this business.
4.Mr. Palmer erected a 6' stockade fence between his property and that of Mr. Stabenfeldt in order to screen any exposed equipment from the Palmer’s property.
5. Applicant presented photographs showing several vehicles and pieces of equipment exposed to view from Grove Street.
6. Also shown were an occasional wood pile and vehicle tires.
7.Mr. Palmer has been in business as a “Home Occupation” for over 20 years as defined in the Zoning By-Laws under the definitions of a “Service Trade”..
8. The business complies with condition “D” as defined under “Service Trade”
9. The Applicant and Mr. Palmer agreed that Mr. Palmer would erect additional fence sections to provide more screening to comply with the By-Law.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Sette, SECONDED by Mr. Intonti to accept the Findings as read.
VOTE: IN FAVOR - (5) Intonti, Sette, Fleming, Thurston and Lennox
“A discussion was held away from the table between Mr. Stabenfeldt and Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer agreed to add additional fencing to conceal equipment from the street. Mr. Stabenfeldt agreed to accept this condition.. The Board agreed that this would be in compliance with the By-Law.”
A MOTION was made by Mr. Fleming, SECONDED by Ms. Sette to Overturn the Decision of the Building Inspector.
VOTE: IN FAVOR - (4) Fleming, Intonti, Sette and Lennox
AGAINST - (1) Thurston
CASE Z2006-14 -KENNETH P. RIGA, seeks a Variance under Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section IX-B-6 Setback Requirements for detached accessory buildings for property located at 18 Gail’s Way, Eastham, Map-07 Parcel-570.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Property is located on a 7500 sq. ft. lot containing a house with deck.
2. Property is pre-existing, nonconforming.
3. The proposed shed will violate both the side and rear setbacks.
4. The Applicant intends to construct the shed himself along the lines of typical shingle siding structure in use as a storage shed.
5. The proposed structure would be approximately 8 ft. from the house.
6. One abutter (represented by Attorney Zehnder) is opposed to the placement of the proposed shed.
7. A “tight” tank septic system prevents construction closer to the front of the lot.
8. Compliance with the rear and side setbacks would present a violation of the required distance from the main dwelling.
9. The Applicant does not meet the required conditions (Hardship) for a Variance.
The Applicant requested to withdraw without prejudice.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Sette, SECONDED by Mr. Intonti to allow the Applicant to withdraw without prejudice.
VOTE: IN FAVOR - (5) Fleming, Intonti, Sette, Thurston and Lennox
A MOTION was made by Ms. Sette, SECONDED by Mr. Intonti to accept the ZBA MINUTES of September 14, 2006 as amended.
VOTE: IN FAVOR (4) Lennox, Thurston, Intonti and Sette
ABSTAIN (1) Fleming
Chairman Lennox introduced a presentation of the Wind Operated Electric Generating Project for educational purposes.
ZBA member, Mr. Thurston voiced an objection to any discussion of matters that might come before the Board in a future appeal, while the Board was in its current session.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Fleming, SECONDED by Ms. Sette to adjourn.
VOTE: IN FAVOR - UNANIMOUS
The meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger Thurston, Clerk, ZBA
| 
