HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2005-05-10 Minutes 1
Date approved_6-14-05
Vote approved_8-0-0
TOWN OF BREWSTER
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2005
Chairman of the ZBA, Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
The following members were present; Messrs. Freeman, Harrison, MacGregor, Jackson, Stewart,
McLellan, Nixon and Ms. Flaherty.
Minutes of the March 8, 2005 meeting were review and corrections made. Motion made to accept
minutes as corrected by Mr. Jackson; seconded by Mr. Nixon, all present voted aye 8-0-0 and the
minutes were approved.
Note: Mr. Freeman indicated that he has resigned from the Brewster Housing Committee. As the ZBA
Chair, he felt it was not appropriate to continue, since affordable housing projects from this committee
come before the ZBA for approvals, especially 40B and Affordable Apartments.
05-03. Christina K. McKenna/Beechcroft Inn, 1360 Main Street, Map 23 Lot 46. Applicant
seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11,Table 1, Retail and Service #8,
for change of ownership of existing Lodging House.
Attorney George Cavanaugh represented the applicant and Beechcroft Inn. Ms. McKenna was present.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Freeman, Harrison, Stewart, MacGregor and Nixon.
♦ Mr. Cavanaugh presented information regarding the existing septic system to the Board.
Mr. Cavanaugh was asked to present a brief overview of this application. The property is presently
under agreement for purchase of the Beechcroft Inn. The building and grounds need general
maintenance and repair. A new septic system was installed in 2000-01 with two 5000-gallon tanks,
grease traps and a large leech field. The applicant would like to upgrade the operation of the Inn with
landscaping, interior and exterior repairs making it more attractive to customers. They would like to
run this as a traditional Bed and Breakfast.
Mr. Cavanaugh introduced Ms. McKenna and her brother (Mr. Tilden) to the Board.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Harrison asked if this would be a year-round operation and would there be extra curricular
functions? Mr. Cavanaugh noted YES it would be year-round and there were no plans for extra
functions at the Inn. If, in the future, there were plans for extra functions they would certainly
work with the neighbors.
♦ Mr. Stewart noted that the current owners did not run a restaurant but did run a lunch and
tearoom. Is this being continued? Inside functions only?Will parking be improved? Mr.
Cavanaugh answered YES to all.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked how many rooms in the Inn? Mr. Cavanaugh notes 10 rooms plus an
innkeeper's cottage for the owners.
♦ Mr. Nixon asked about number of parking spots now? 12-13. Will the tearoom be open to outsider
as is has in the past? YES
♦ Mr. Jackson noted the septic plans were from 2000; as a new owner they will need a new
inspection. Mr. Cavanaugh noted they have been in touch with the Health Department. Mr.
Jackson also made note that he has never seen a parking problem on the property. Mr. Cavanaugh
noted there is plenty of room for expansion.
2
♦ Mr. Harrison asked if they were transferring the existing permit- including meals? Mr. Cavanaugh
said they would like the permit the same as the previous owner, they may use the restaurant in the
future.
♦ Mr. Freeman said the last 2 Special permits have not referenced the restaurant. What is the intent
of Ms. McKenna? Is she planning dinner for residents or outsiders? Ms. McKenna answered dinner
for people in the Inn. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that lunch and dinner to Inn guests is there request at
this time. They will come back to the Board for other than guests. Primary focus is on the Inn
business, secondarily the restaurant. They really wish to increase the volume of business.
♦ Mr. Harrison asked Mr. Cavanaugh to quantify meals and parking? Mr. Cavanaugh indicated meals
would be served to guest initially. Ms McKenna noted there is a 28-seat restaurant,they would like
to keep it the same. Parking is now 12-13; it may increase by 7.
♦ Mr. Harrison noted the standard is 1 parking spot per 4-seat restaurant.
♦ Mr. Stewart noted it has been a full service restaurant in the past; small dining room and no
problem with parking.
♦ Mr. McLellan stated the past two owners had no problems.
Open to Public Input
♦ No one wishes to speak for or against
Close to Public Input: Motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Stewart, all voted aye 5-0-0.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked if there is a time limit for use on restaurant? Use or lose/ Special Permit is a
2-year duration.
♦ Mr. Cavanaugh indicated that 2 year limit is reasonable for this usage.
Mr. Harrison made a motion to approve the Special Permit for a ten (10) room Bed and Breakfast, a 28-
seat restaurant, and provide 7additional parking spaces for non-resident guests at 1360 Main Street
(Beechcroft Inn).This permit is granted to the petitioner, Christine McKenna, personally, and shall not
run with the land. The authorization of the restaurant operation shall lapse unless substantial use is
made within two years of the date of this decision. Mr. Stewart seconded this motion; all voted AYE (5-
0-0).
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED.
05-04 3arrod A. West,44 Cummings Road, Map 42 Lot 3-3. Applicant seeks a Special Permit in
accordance with MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 14 to add an in-law apartment
above a two car garage.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Harrison, MacGregor, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. Flaherty.
Mr. and Mrs. West were present at this meeting.
Mr. West was asked to give a brief overview. Mr. West introduced Mr. and Mrs. Bullock, his in-law who
will reside in the apartment. The plan is to build a garage with an in-law apartment less than 600 sq.
feet. The septic has been inspected and passed. The Fire Department passed in respect to smoke
detectors.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Nixon asked if the closet areas were excluded in the 599 square footage? Mr. West responded
YES.
♦ Mr. Harrison asked about egresses to the street? Mr. West noted there was one off the deck and
another through the house.
♦ Mr. Jackson asked if Mr. West understood the covenant of in-law apartment? Mr. West responded
YES.
♦ Mr. Freeman noted that if this is no longer used as an in-law apartment then appliances/kitchen
must be removed. He also noted this could be used as an affordable apartment with appropriate
rulings.
3
♦ Mr. Harrison asked if this is an existing garage or new?
♦ Mr. West stated this is a new garage and new apartment with a connection through mudroom and
2"d floor hallway.
Open to Public Input
♦ Mr. Leonard Avery(abutter) sees no problem at all in this project.
Closed to Public Input: motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE
Motion made by Mr. Nixon to grant the Special Permit of Jarrod A. West, 44 Cummings Road, Map 42
Lot 3-3. in accordance with MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16,Table 2, Note 14 to add an in-law
apartment above a two car garage. Seconded by Mr. Harrison, all voted AYE (5-0-0).
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED.
05-05. Roberta Avery,49 Cummings Road, Map 42 Lot 3-2. Applicant seeks a Special Permit
under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11,Table 1, Retail and Service #8, establishment of a 3-
bedroom Bed and Breakfast.
Mr. and Mrs. Avery were present at this meeting.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Harrison, MacGregor, Stewart, Nixon and Ms. Flaherty.
♦ Mr. Avery presented a brief overview of the application. The Avery's wish to try their hand at a
traditional Bed and Breakfast. There would be no building change. They would like to use the two
bedrooms on the second floor, with flexibility of a third room on the first floor if needed.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Harrison asked if food would be served? Mr. Avery answered just continental breakfast.
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked about the sign? Mr. Avery indicated there would be a sign, as shown, at the
mailbox. No advertising at the entrance to Cummings Road.
♦ Mr. Stewart noted that the B+B would be hard to find.
♦ Mr. Nixon inquired as to access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Avery noted that this has not been a
problem in the past, with adequate turn around area.
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked a general question to the Board; do we have many small B+B's on residential
streets in Brewster? Response to this was yes.
♦ Mr. Stewart noted the Zoning Agents letter. Has this been discussed with the DPRC-as an advisory
group-not permit granting. Also have the Fire Department and Health Department any issues with
this? No response was noted in the file from either department. Mr. Avery noted it passed Title V
in the past and he is planning to upgrade in the fall to a full Title V.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if the property next-door has just recently been sold? Mr. Avery answered NO,
the neighbor and Mr. Avery is in the process of exchanging some land-possible deeded road.
Open to Public Input
♦ Mr.Jarrod West(abutter) spoke in favor of the Bed and Breakfast.
♦ Mr. Barry Hutchinson (abutter) felt there was no problem with the B+B. He did note that some
parking was on his property line and asked that one proposed space be eliminated- still leaving 2
and 3 on the turn around, as well as extra when the boat is put in the water.
Close to Public Input. Motion made by Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Harrison, all voted AYE.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. MacGregor noted everything seemed fine subject to the Board of Health waiting until the Fall.
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked if not having the DPRC review meant they were missing a lot of useful feedback
from other Town departments?
♦ Mr. Harrison noted that is the Fire, Police and Health are satisfied with after the fact decisions then
he is OK with this.
4
♦ Mr. Stewart questioned the DPRC-issues that need to be handled (road).
Mr. Nixon made a motion to approve the Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11,
Table 1, Retail and Service #8, establishment of a 3-bedroom Bed and Breakfast at 49 Cummings Road
subject to satisfactory receipt of comments from the Fire Department, Police Department, Board of
Health and DPRC. Seconded by Mr. MacGregor, all voted AYE (4-1-0) on procedural sequence.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED with conditions.
05-06 Mary Sane Couzens, 13 Carver Road, Map 3 Lot 46. Applicant seeks a Special Permit
under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster bylaw 179-51, replace existing non-conforming shed in the present
location.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Nixon, McLellan, Harrison, Freeman and Ms. McInerney.
Ms. Couzens was present but represented by Mr. John Lavendier.
Mr. Lavendier gave a brief overview of the application. This property has been in the Couzens family
since 1922 and at this time it is in a state of disrepair. They family would like to replace the
shed/garage with one of similar size. Pine Harbor shed plans have been submitted with post + beam
construction and shingle siding.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Harrison asked if the shed/garage is going in the same spot? Answer YES.
♦ Mr. Lavendier noted it was built in the 20's, added on at one rime, still sits on same spot with
wooden sill that is rotting away.
♦ Mr. Nixon noted that major grading would be needed to access the road.
♦ Mr. Lavendier stated yes with the addition of a small stone retaining wall.
♦ Mr. Harrison inquired about the septic system.
♦ Mr. Lavendier said it would not impact the septic.
♦ Mr. Nixon asked if there was any problem with the neighbors driveway? Mr. Lavendier said NO.
Open to Public Input
♦ Mr. Steven Jones (abutter) noted he remembers when you could get in the garage. There is
no other place this shed can go. It is out of the way- sits below the cottage- that's the place to
keep it.
Close to public Input. Motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. McLellan, all voted AYE
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. McLellan noted it is only an improvement for the neighborhood.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if there was any neighbor input. The answer was NO
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to approve the application of Mary Jane Couzens, 13 Carver Road, Map 3
Lot 46. seeking a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster bylaw 179-51, replace existing non-
conforming shed in the present location. Seconded by Mr. McLellan, all voted AYE (5-0-0)
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED.
05-07. Brent and Roberta Maugel, Map 4 Lot 18. Applicant seeks a Variance under
MGL 179-52 and Brewster Bylaw, modification of setback for garage/studio to alter garage with
dormer, widows walk and windows.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Freeman, Jackson, Harrison, MacGregor and McLellan.
Attorney Dwayne Landreth represented the Maugels. The applicant was not present at the meeting.
5
Mr. Landreth gave a brief overview of the application. This is a single-family residence that the
Maugels would like to modify by converting an existing garage into a home office space for personal
use. The only previous permit was in 1980. A 2002 Building Permit and HDC approval was not
completed within the window of opportunity. Re-approval will be consistent with earlier Variance and
change of use. HDC re-approval was given in March 2005 (03-21-05). The deck on the west side links
the two structures. Only the 16' X 22' garage is involved in this Variance. The footprint of the garage
remains the same. The plan adds dormers and a widow's walk to the detail. HDC has approved this
twice.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Jackson noted the deck was part of phase 1 of the project and appears closer to the lot line
than now allowed. What is the difference between deck and open terrace?
♦ Mr. Harrison stated less than 4' in height is "terrace".
♦ Mr. McLellan asked about railings. Again Mr. Harrison noted only above 4'high.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if there was any concern of the widow's walk being too high?
♦ Mr. Landreth noted it is a stylistic feature.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if the widow's walk has access from the house? Mr. Landreth said NO.
Open to Public Input
♦ Martha Jamison (abutter- #62) would like to address a few issues- first the neighborhood is tucked
away but this house sits right on the street. This is a structure that the whole neighborhood will
deal with. Mrs. Jamison's main issue is a parking problem on the property itself. At times cars
have been parked on the lawn near her deck and her master bedroom-creating noise and exhaust.
In addressing the widows' walk- can we do with less than more?
♦ Mr. Landreth noted the site plan -stone driveway has plenty of parking. The HDC "visual police" of
the town has approved this as is.
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if the widow's walk were to be smaller would it give her more of a view? Mrs.
Jamison answered YES.
♦ Mr. MacGregor noted that the driveway size has seemed to have changed regarding the number of
vehicles on the property. This is fragile land and the owner should be attuned to abutter's
complaints.
♦ Mr. Freeman noted that in regard to the parking; he is concerned what the Board can do for this
situation. They sympathize with the problem but may not have jurisdiction from a zoning
perspective with how an applicant parks his cars.
♦ Mr. MacGregor suggests the neighbors talk to the owner.
♦ Mrs. Jamisons added that the applicants are new owners and have not been there enough to be
part of the neighborhood.
♦ Mr. Landreth noted he would report to the Maugels regarding this issue.
Close to public input. Motion made by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. McLellan, all voted AYE.
DISCUSSION
♦ Mr. Jackson thought the deck was most blatant issue as to setback.
♦ Mr. Harrison said this is not an issue as it was part of the original plans. He was in favor of the
application with the suggestion that the widow's walk be dropped slightly.
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to approve the Variance for modification setback of garage/studio with
alteration of garage by adding dormer, widow's walk and windows.
Seconded by Mr. MacGregor, all voted AYE (5-0-0).
Note: Mr. Landreth will report to the owners regarding parking and suggestion of lowering the size of
widow's walk.
VARIANCE GRANTED.
OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
♦ FYI - Harvey Freeman received a handwritten letter from Mr. Broderick regarding re-planting
beach grass on 3 properties on Crocker Lane. As the permit was for 2 years. The Building
6
Inspector and Mr. Freeman agree that replanting following last winter's storm damage could be
considered as a continuation of the earlier permits from Conservation Commission and ZBA.
♦ ZBA members briefly discussed the continuing need to monitor how conditions contained in some
permits are being enforced. Members suggested a couple of situations which the Chairman will
investigate to determine the extent of compliance with the Building Inspector
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
Respectively submitted by,
-, arilyn ooers/ lerk