Debate on lake houses is Nov. 16

SALISBURY — The Nov. 3 public hearing on the Lake Wonoscopomuc Association’s petition for a zoning text amendment ended with the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) delaying a vote on the matter until Nov. 16.

Association President Bill Littauer provided a petition with more than 300 signatures supporting the proposed amendment, which would prevent vertical expansion of nonconforming homes within the lake overlay zone.

Some property owners have tried to gain more space in their homes by building additional stories, if they are not able to make the house’s footprint larger. This amendment would keep property owners from doing so.

Littauer said the petition was signed by homeowners on Lake Wonoscopomuc and Twin Lakes, as well as by others who have some connection with or attachment to the lake.

Littauer also took issue with statements made by commission member Jon Higgins at the initial public hearing on this topic, last month.

At the Oct. 5 hearing, Higgins said the current situation is that property owners with a nonconforming home within 75 feet of the water who wish to build vertically must apply for a special permit.

He called that a more-than-adequate safeguard against construction that could damage the lake or the environment, or create aesthetic problems.

Higgins also said Oct. 5 that the existing special permit process included “proper analysis� of any given situation. “I’m uncomfortable with denying expansion to someone with a nonconforming situation that evolved over time or was inherited.�

Littauer took issue with this at the Nov. 3 hearing, saying he did not believe the current regulations are sufficient.

“Any second story will certainly have an impact,� he said, adding that he knows of instances where people have bought nonconforming properties on the assumption they can get a special permit to build upward.

Edward Erbacher and Judy Gott both spoke in favor of the Lake Association’s position, Erbacher calling Lake Wonoscopomuc “the jewel in the crown� of Salisbury.

With public comment over, the commission closed the hearing and began their deliberations.

P&Z Vice Chairman Michael Klemens noted that in the two hearings, “no one has objected to the amendment, which tells me it is the will of the people that live there.�

He did take issue with the assumption that a larger home automatically means more pollution. “Large houses do not necessarily equal environmental degradation,� he said.

His remark caused some grumbling and muttering in the audience. Klemens wasn’t having it.

“We just went through training on this. If you’re going to be disrespectful to the commission we’ll just stop.�

The grumbling ceased.

Klemens added he was sympathetic to the amendment from the aesthetic point of view.

Higgins said that generally the commission avoids aesthetic judgments “but here we are talking about property values. A second story can have a negative impact on the neighbor’s property value, but I haven’t seen it; and in fact it’s the opposite at Twin Lakes.�

Higgins went on to say that for him the problem was taking away the rights of property owners, and reiterated that he was not convinced the existing special permit process is not enough to protect the lake.

However, he noted the number of signatories to the petition and the absence of any dissenting comment from the public.

“I guess I’m OK with it,� he concluded.

P&Z member Marty Whalen asked for clarification on whether a person with a conforming house, or a house with a side that is conforming, can add to that. Planner Tom McGowan replied in the affirmative.

This sparked a flurry of comments as to the practicality of adding a story to a conforming part of a structure and not to the nonconforming section. The commission decided to seek clarification from its attorney and put the entire matter on the agenda for the planning meeting of Tuesday, Nov. 16.

Note: Originally there were four public hearings scheduled for Nov. 3, but the application for expanding a house at 151 Interlaken Road was withdrawn without prejudice. The property is an example of the type of construction — adding to a nonconforming structure — the Lake Association’s amendment would prohibit.