HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2003-07-08 Minutes TOWN OF BREWSTER
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
(Rev. 7/30/03)
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Mr. Freeman began the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
The June minutes were approved as revised.
Mr. Freeman announced a special ZBA meeting of July 29th, for public comment
on the affordable accessory apartment bylaw and urged all Board members to
attend.
02-37. Continuance: Judith and Theodore Brown, 225 Rocky Hill Rd.,
Map 27, Lot 22-1, requested a special permit in appeal of the zoning
inspector's decision under Secs. 8 and 15, Mass. General Law, Chap. 40A, to
continue the operation of a landscaping business in an R-L district.
Mr. and Mrs. Brown and Attorney David Woods were present. Hearing this case
were Messrs. Freeman, Harrison, Jackson, Nixon, and Stewart. With Attorney
Woods' permission, Mr. Stewart sat on the case in place of Mr. Lach, who was
excused.
Mr. Freeman reviewed the highlights of a meeting with Messrs. Brown, Woods,
and Staley on June 20, 2003, following the Board's request to try to resolve the
petition. Among topics discussed were the possible removal of the cease-and-
desist order and conditions and restrictions placed upon Mr. Brown in order to
continue his business at the site.
Mr. Woods again described the business as a home occupation. He offered a
document from the Tree Care Industry Association, Manchester, New Hampshire,
in support of this. Mr. Brown's activities come under the horticultural label, but
he will agree to limit the size of piles of mulch, loam, grass cuttings, and
woodchips. He will also store equipment at another site. Two office employees
will continue to work on site. There was some disagreement over the number
and types of vehicles that could remain on site.
Mr. Freeman read a list of activities to be transferred off site. One pick-up truck,
one flat bed truck, and one dump truck will remain on site. Piles of organic
materials used in the business will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. No retail
sales of any commodities will be made on site.
i
now
Mr. Stewart asked about permits for the shelters and structures on site. He
urged Mr. Brown to minimize hazards to wildlife and water from piles of mulch,
manure, and other natural by-products.
Mr. Nixon asked how the activities conducted in a shed would fit a home
occupation. Mr. Woods replied that Zoning Inspector Staley had no problem with
that.
Mr. Freeman read from Town bylaws regarding dwellings and from a July 7,
2003, e-mail from Mr. Staley regarding home occupations in accessory buildings,
which are restricted to a maximum of 400 sq. ft.
The Board asked what time limits had been set for acquiring permits and moving
equipment off site. Mr. Freeman said time limits hadn't been agreed upon.
Mr. Woods said Mr. Brown was anxious to move the equipment as soon as
possible. An electrician was working on code violation problems. He suggested
Labor Day as a deadline.
Mr. Harrison suggested that the petitioner withdraw his appeal without prejudice
since there is apparent agreement with the building department. The Board can
affirm such an agreement and not overturn the zoning official's order. He moved
to approve the agreement and Mr. Brown's withdrawal of the appeal. There was
no second.
Mr. Jackson suggested that the pickups be replaced by no more than five cars.
Discussion was opened to public input. Ms. Elizabeth Taylor, Chairperson of the
Planning Board, asked for a copy of the agreement from the June meeting. She
wanted to know if the Board of Health had reviewed it. The answer was no; the
health board has its own jurisdiction in the matter. Discussion was closed to
public input.
Mr. Harrison made a motion to uphold the cease-and-desist order of August 12,
2002, based on the agreement reported by Mr. Freeman, the removal of
specified vehicles, no more than five cars on site, and the obtaining of all
necessary permits within two (2) months, 2"d by Jackson, Board all in favor.
03-16. Continuance: James and Paula Lieb, 268 Breakwater Rd., Map
4, Lot 15, requested an amendment of Decision #02-47 or a new special permit
and/or a variance under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. VIII, Sec. 179-25 B, to
replace the existing dwelling and garage in a wetlands conservancy district with
a new dwelling and deck and attached garage.
2
Mr. Andrew Singer, Esq., and Mr. Peter Markunas, P.E., represented the Liebs.
Hearing this case were Messrs. Freeman, Harrison, MacGregor; Ms. McInerney;
and Mr. Stewart. Mr. Singer noted Historic District Committee approval of the
project and passed out photographs and elevation drawings. He reviewed
background details, e.g., a structure elevated on pilings, reduction of impervious
coverage, and the general roof line at eighteen (18) feet.
Mr. Freeman noted the four (4) bedroom maximum and the absence of stairs
leading from the deck. The last continuance was granted in order to obtain HDC
approval and to resolve the definition of a "dune" at this hearing. Houses in
these areas are smaller in size in an attempt to prevent deterioration of the
dunes, a precious coastal resource. The Liebs's house is located on a dune.
Ms. McInerney noted that the partial second story was more than four (4) feet
higher than the rest of the structure at eighteen (18) feet.
Mr. Singer affirmed the Liebs's interest in preservation, noting that the changes
in the house and revetment design were done with that in mind. He reiterated
his belief that the house was "modest in size."
There was further comment on the problem of houses being too large for the
area, the earlier special permit for a second story to the separated garage in the
original design, and reference to a similar structure in Truro's dunes area.
Discussion was opened to public input. John Holland, an area resident, approved
of the project. Area residents Barbara and Donald Koch, 170 The Channel Way,
expressed their approval. Brewster resident Charles Spiegel wanted to know if a
special permit were needed to add a second floor to a house on pilings. Ms.
Elizabeth Taylor, Chairperson, Planning Board, thought the ideas to pull back the
footprint, create a pervious surface, and reduce the mass of the design were
good. She noted that using pilings in a dunes area was a federal requirement.
Discussion was closed to public input.
Mr. Harrison moved to approve the new special permit, 2nd by Mr. Jackson,
Board all in favor.
Mr. Singer requested withdrawal of the variance, and Mr. Stewart moved to do
so, 2nd by Mr. MacGregor, Board all in favor. A motion was made and seconded
to withdraw the request for amending the original permit, seconded, Board all in
favor.
3
03-25. Carol Edmondson, 51 Capt. Dunbar Rd., Map 7, Lot 16, requested
a special permit under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. VIII, Sec. 179-25 (B), in
order to replace a recently removed deck with a larger one.
Carol Edmondson and her spouse were present. Hearing this case were Messrs.
MacGregor, Jackson; Ms. McInerney; Messrs. Nixon, and Stewart.
The Edmondsons requested a special permit for an existing deck. The old deck
was removed, and the Edmondsons requested a building permit for the new one.
No one could recall all of the details of the old deck.
Mr. Freeman read from Conservation Agent Seth Wilkinson's letter that the new
deck would require Conservation Commission approval. Mr. MacGregor asked
about sand replenishment. Mr. Nixon noted removal of any structure required a
permit. The Board and petitioners discussed the relative sizes of the old and
new decks, 12' x23' vs. 12' x 28'. The Historic District Committee (HDC) has
approved the new deck.
Discussion was opened to public input. Abutter George Wallis thought the
current deck was about the same shape as one proposed last winter. Discussion
was closed to public input.
Mr. Stewart moved to continue the case until August, 2nd by Mr. Nixon, Board all
in favor.
03-26. Joan and Paul Garstka, 72 Canoe Pond Dr., Map 36, Lot 233,
requested a variance under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. V, Sec. 179-16, Table 2,
Note 5, to replace an existing deck with a larger one, to be constructed within
fifty (50) feet of wetlands.
Agent Richard Tefft represented the Garstkas. Hearing this case were Messrs.
Freeman, MacGregor; Ms. McInerney; Messrs. Nixon, and Stewart.
Mr. Tefft said the existing deck is nine feet deep, hardly big enough to hold a
table and diners. The new one will be constructed over an existing brick patio.
The Garstkas will return 1,600 sq. ft. of lawn to wetlands. The Canoe Pond
Assoc. has approved it. Mr. Kavoogian, an abutter, believed the deck would
enhance the property.
The Board discussed Building Comm. Thyng's determination that this was a
variance. It was not advertised as a special permit. A variance might apply to a
short lot.
4
mom
Mr. MacGregor noted that the proposed deck was almost sixty (60) feet from the
pond and and about ten (10) feet from the wetlands. There appeared to be no
other place for the deck to go.
The Conservation Commission sees no further effect of this project on the
wetlands. Mr. Freeman noted that a patio is not a structure.
Discussion was opened to public input. Ms. Elizabeth Taylor, Chairperson,
Planning Board, liked the return of 1,600 sq. ft. to wetlands. Discussion was
closed to public input.
The Board discussed the relative significance of the case. One member believed
there was an abundance of attention to a small matter. Another felt the Board
should be independent of other boards in its actions. A third member labeled
the petition a variance; the question of hardship was a stretch, but these have
been granted before. A hardship could be the need for the elderly father to have
maneuvering room. Another member agreed. The Chairman believed that a
variance would be difficult and suggested looking for another way to construct
the deck. The proposed deck was too close to the wetlands.
Mr. Tefft believed the owners would be reluctant to return to the Conservation
Commission, since they had already spent $4,000 to this point
Discussion was opened to public input. Ms. Elizabeth Taylor, Chairperson,
Planning Board, said that the Order of Conditions could be amended with an as-
built plan. Discussion was closed to public input.
Mr. Stewart moved to continue the case until August, 2"d by Ms. McInerney,
Board all in favor.
03-27. Carol and Philip Rawlins, 214 Pond View Dr., Map 37, Lot 8-14,
request a special permit under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. V, Sec. 179-16, Table
2, Note 14, to construct an accessory apartment for use by immediate family
members.
Agent Charles Spiegel represented the Rawlins. Hearing this case were Messrs.
Harrison, MacGregor, Jackson; Ms. McInerney; and Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Spiegel stated that the Rawlins' mother will occupy the apartment, which is
537 sq. ft. The garage is yet to be constructed. There will be a connection
between the house and garage and the addition.
Discussion was opened to public input. Abutter Marjorie Mayer was concerned
about a "two family dwelling" in a single family house. Mr. Freeman reviewed
5
the restrictions for an accessory apartment. There followed a discussion of
affordable apartments and covenants.
Abutter Leslie Nangel believed that her home, down grade from the Rawlins, has
developed a cracked foundation, basement leaks, and erosion problems due to
work on the Rawlins property. She wondered what effect the Rawlins work had
on her erosion problems.
Mr. MacGregor noted that Ms. Nangel's property was 92 feet from the Rawlins
property. Mr. Spiegel will maintain a woodsy section as a buffer and create a
swale as well.
Mr. Nixon noted that the Rawlins used the property seasonally, but will now with
the mother be year-round residents. Mr. Spiegel noted that the 5 bedroom
septic upgrade was already in progress. Discussion was closed to public input.
Mr. Jackson moved to grant the special permit, 2nd by Mr. Harrison, Board all in
favor.
03-28. Jill and Patricia Abraham, 2623 Main St., Map 15, Parcel 106,
request a special permit under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. VIII, Sec. 179-25 (B),
to use the premises for an antiques shop and yoga studio.
Jill and Patricia Abraham were present. Hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison,
Jackson, MacGregor, Nixon, and Stewart.
The Abrahams are going to use one-fourth of the space for an antique shop and
three quarters for a yoga studio.
The Board noted that approval by the District Planning Review Committee
(DPRC), the Corridor Overlay Committee, and the Planning Board must precede
action by the Zoning Board of Appeals. As an example, the Planning Board
would have to delineate parking layout.
Mr. Stewart moved to continue the case until September, 2"d by Mr. Nixon, Board
all in favor.
03-29. Lauri and Peter Napolitano, Map 21, Lot 94-2, Buggy Whip Rd.,
request a variance under Brewster Zoning Bylaw, Art. V, Sec. 179-16, Table 2,
Note 5, for the construction of a three-bedroom dwelling, extending thirteen (13)
feet into the front yard setback.
Designer Jason Ellis and the Napolitanos were present. Hearing this case were
Messrs. Freeman, Harrison, Jackson, Nixon, and Stewart.
6
The petitioners requested a variance of the work limit with the Conservation
Commission. The Commission told them to move the house out of the 50-foot
line. The Board of Health approved both variances, but asked that the leech
area be 4 feet closer to the street. That change left the septic system 6 feet
from the road.
The property borders a pond and wetlands. The Conservation Commission also
approved the deck.
The Board noted that the house was 2,200 sq. ft., including the garage. The
house is 38' x28' x27'. Members reviewed the variance criteria with the
petitioners and stressed the difficulty of meeting them. The Napolitanos want to
have a house to raise a family in and noted that it has just three (3) bedrooms.
Mr. Freeman noted substantial unused space between the 50-foot and 100-foot
buffer lines. Mr. Ellis said that redesigning the house would reduce its width to
13 feet. Mr. Harrison pointed out that a petitioner has to prove that he can't do
any other structure in the space provided. There seems to be too much house.
Perhaps the Conservation Commission may be able to give a little. Mr. Nixon
noted that the 2"d criterion, hardship, was very difficult to prove.
Mr. Stewart moved to continue the case until September, 2"d by Mr. Nixon, Board
all in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.