HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2005-06-14 Minutes l
Date approved
Vote approved
TOWN OF BREWSTER
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
June 14, 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,
McLellan, Nixon and Ms. Flaherty and McInerney. Member absent was Mr. Stewart.
Minutes of the May 10, 2005 meeting were reviewed with no corrections. Motion made to
accept made by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. McLellan, all present voted AYE 8-0-0 and the
minutes were approved.
ZBA Board Discussions:
♦ Mr. Freeman sent an e-mail to Victor Staley(Zoning Agent) regarding last month's
discussion about ZBA concerns for ability to enforce permits. RE: Wells Court-
comprehensive permit. Violation by removing the gate by the Fire Department-this was
a direct condition of the permit. Meetings with the FD,Town Administrator, and Zoning
Agent resulted in a letter(April 28)to replace the gate to meet requirements of
conditions. RE: Sweetwater Camnaround (phased replacement of fencing) and Arbor
Tech (FD requirement regarding safety of the building/building code violation).
♦ Ms. McInerney commented as to where the ZBA fits in the chain of compliance?
♦ Mr. Freeman noted the Building Inspector has the complete authority as to compliance.
ZBA is not involved in that enforcement.
♦ Mr. Nixon asked if time is set on a final decision?Should we diary conditions and
completions?
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked if the ZBA should send a letter?
♦ Mr. Freeman stated that the Zoning Agent is the enforcement area.
♦ Mr. MacGregor noted if we cannot write a letter can we add to each permit compliance
note or the permit is forfeited?
♦ Mr. Freeman noted this is already in the decision form but can be brought forward to
Zoning Agent again.
♦ Ms. McInerney asked if we knew who the Selectman's liaison to ZBA was?
♦ Mr. Freeman said we did not know yet but we will look into this.
05-11 Sandra and James Ritchie, 17 Labrador Lane, Map 29 Lot 1-87. Requests a
Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16,Table 2, Note 14 to build a
600 sq. ft. in-law apartment on the back of a new residence.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Jackson, Harrison, MacGregor, Nixon and Ms.
Flaherty.
Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie were present. Mrs. Ritchie gave a brief synopsis of application; this will
be an in-law apartment for her 78-year-old mother in the new home they are building at 17
Labrador Lane.
They had previous approval for such apartment at their present home.
DISCUSSION
{
5 �
2
♦ Mr. Jackson asked if this apartment, in the plans presented, is less than 600 square
feet?
♦ Mr. Ritchie presented a new set of plans to the Board.
♦ Mr. MacGregor wanted to know if this is on the ground floor? Mr. Ritchie stated YES.
♦ Mr. Jackson asked if the Ritchies' were aware of all the rules and regulations for an in-
law apartment in Brewster? They responded YES.
♦ Ms. Flaherty noted as a matter of interest-how do we make sure this remains an in-law
apartment?
i ♦ Mr. Freeman stated that it is incumbent on the applicant to inform the Zoning Agent if
this changes.
Open to Public Input
♦ No one to speak
Motion by Mr. Harrison to Close Public Input, Mr. MacGregor seconded, Vote 5-0-0.
i No further discussion.
E
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to approve request for a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and
Brewster Bylaw 179-16,Table 2, Note 14 to build a 600 sq. ft. in-law apartment on the back
of a new residence, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE(5-0-0). SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED.
05-12 Austin F. Kirkbride, 153 Center Street, Map 3 Lot 42.Applicant seeks a
j Variance under MGL 40A-10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2 (b-shed)to place an already existing
shed with 2 foot rear setback.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Jackson, Harrison, MacGregor, Nixon and Ms.
McInerney.
Attorney Stephen Jones represented Mr. Kirkbride. Mr. Kirkbride was present.
Mr. Kirkbride was asked to give a brief overview for this Variance. The house is 5 years old
on a small lot. A neighbor told Mr. Kirkbride that a shed under 100 square feet did not need
a permit. Because of the placement of his septic system,the shed was placed where it is.
This is a non-conforming lot. Mr. Kirkbride would like the shed to remain where it is.
Attorney Jones addressed the conditions with regards to the placement because of the
septic. Also where the house is located limits the placement of the shed. Mr.Kirkbride
stores yard equipment(gasoline driven) in the shed rather than the basement of the house,
which would make it a fire hazard. Three neighbors are agreeable to the approximate 2'
setback.
DISCUSSION:
♦ Mr. Nixon noted the "as built" plans show a shed. Mr. Kirkbride indicated this was not
to scale.
♦ Ms. McInerney asked when the house was purchased? Mr. Kirkbride stated 1968
purchase but rebuilt in 1999.
♦ Ms. McInerney noted the Building Inspectors letter states the shed was built without a
permit, could you review that again?
♦ Mr. Kirkbride said friends told him that less than 100' shed a permit was not needed.
Shed was put up in the spring of 2005.
-T
3
♦ Mr. Freeman stated a provision in the Building Code that an accessory structure is
exempt from certain code requirements however, the setbacks must be abided.
♦ Ms. McInerney asked about the abutters letter regarding the accuracy of 2'
♦ Mr. Jones stated the hedge grows over hanging the line. Both neighbors ought to
confirm the line. The base is approximately 2 feet; the overhang is not over the line.
Open to Public Input:
♦ No one spoke to this issue
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked if you are not 2' but 6"what is your plan of action?
♦ Mr. Kirkbride presented a picture to add to the file. Hedge is 1/2 on my property.
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked if the split rail fence on your line?
♦ Mr. Jones noted you couldn't tell the exact line with the picture. The roofline is not over
the line.
♦ Mr. Jones offered to the Board that the 2 neighbors should identify the line, then come
back to the ZBA with an "as built".
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if it could be worked out together?
Close to Public Input: Motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE
(5-0-0)
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
♦ Mr.Jackson noted this shed was built with an act of good faith. No problems with the
neighbors.
♦ Mr. Nixon spoke of the issue of the overhang from corner stone as described in
application. Hardship is toward the necessity for storage of lawn equipment.
♦ Ms. McInerney noted there is no relation to topography. Just because something is
desirable doesn't mean it is necessary.
♦ Mr. MacGregor said he would accept the argument, no issue with this application.
Neighbors are fine with this. Using what he has-small lot, septic taking up most of the
yard.
♦ Mr. Harrison feels the variance is a stretch but we are talking about a tool shed.
♦ Mr. Jackson wishes to clarify his position; thought the applicant sincere. Could not meet
criteria but he would vote for this application.
♦ Ms. McInerney feels this is a self-employed hardship.
♦ Mr. Nixon is in favor of granting this variance with some reservations. Fact is that it is
done-not important enough to redo.
Motion made by Mr. Nixon to grant a Variance under MGL 40A-10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2
(b-shed)to place an already existing shed with 2 foot rear setback, seconded by Mr.
MacGregor, Board voted 4-1, motion passed. VARIANCE GRANTED
05-12 Ian and Yvone Crowe, 142 The Channel Way, Map 4 Lot 27-1.Applicant
seeks a dimensional Variance and or Special Permit for front porch and rear addition
setbacks under MGL 40A-9 and 10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-51 and 52, 179-16 Table 2 Note
S.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Freeman, Jackson, Harrison, Nixon and Ms.
Flaherty.
Attorney Richard Perry represented Mr. Crowe. Mr. Crowe was present.
Attorney Perry was asked to present a brief overview. Mr. Perry noted this was not the
prettiest house in the area. Originally built in 1961, addition in the late 8o's then added on
in 1991. Photos were presented and architectural drawings as it exist today and with
additions. HDC and Conservation have approved of this plan. Board of Health approval is
f ?
i 5
E 4 ;
not needed. Basically this is 2 issues; I- Farmers Porch-front addition to break up the flat
line of the house, 2-add a second story to an already existing single floor structure.
j The shape of the lot(hourglass shape) almost pushes the house to the edge of the lot.The
Crowes' found this property with more room for their family and wish to make the house
look better.
DISCUSSION;
` ♦ Ms. Flaherty asked what the 2"d floor addition would be used for?
♦ Mr. Crowe answered a master bedroom suite and recreational space.
♦ Conservation Commission noted the mixing of plantings (replace invasive with native).
♦ Mr. Nixon asked if there are other alternative possibilities to the front?
♦ Mr. Crowe noted the front is 60' long and adding the farmers porch breaks up the
flatness and adds perspective.
♦ Mr. Jackson noted HDC and Cons Com approval.
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked how many bedrooms? Mr. Perry answered 4.
Open to Public Input
♦ No one spoke on this issue
Close to Public Input: Motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all vote AYE(5-
a 0-0)
I
DISCUSSION
i ♦ Mr. Jackson didn't think topography met criteria.
♦ Mr. Harrison feels the porch is hard to justify on just "pretty"
♦ Mr. Freeman noted the Building Inspector though regarding the second floor addition; a
Special Permit was applicable thus advertising as and/or was appropriate with two
issues.
♦ Ms. Flaherty noted conditions of hardship for the porch or addition did not seem
applicable.
♦ Mr. Nixon agreed with Mr. Harrison, a Special Permit situation on farmer's porch did not z
meet hardship issue.
I ♦ Mr. Freeman stated he felt the rear addition should be a Special Permit but the farmer's
porch did not meet Variance requirements.
♦ Mr. Perry noted criteria for Special Permit if both could be considered extensions-one up
and one out.
♦ Mr. Freeman said that"out" increases into setback.
♦ Mr. Jackson noted the front porch is increasing the non conformity
i ♦ Mr. Harrison said certain projections are allowed under situations.
♦ Ms Flaherty noted the 2"d floor as a Special Permit but the porch extension not meeting
the current setbacks(Variance needed).
♦ Mr. Jackson referred to "open terrace or step or stoop" on pg. 38.
€ ♦ Mr. Crowe: "in as much as this visibility issue isn't it in everyone's best interest that it
looks nicer".
i ♦ Mr. Freeman pointed out conditions for a Variance is held to a higher level than a
Special Permit. Better for the town and appearance is not a consideration. Criteria are
f specific. All 4 have to be met.
Close to Public Input: motion made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE
(5-0-0).
I. FURTHER DISCUSSION;
♦ Mr. Nixon asked if there is an alternative that the applicant could do to change the look
of the front-perhaps a stoop, balcony or bay window.
i
5
♦ Mr. Harrison feels that a Special Permit for the addition in the back is appropriate but no
to the Variance for porch.
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT Special Permit for addition to second floor as shown
on proposed plans, seconded by Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE(5-0-0). SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED.
DISCUSSION:
♦ Mr. Freeman suggested that perhaps the applicant should withdraw the Variance w/o
prejudices for the farmer's porch issue.
♦ Mr. Perry asked for a withdrawal of the Variance w/o prejudice for farmer's porch
section of the structure
WITHDRAWAL w/o prejudice(form signed)
05-14 Allen N. Rodday, 179 Great Fields Road, Map 35 Lot 13. Applicant seeks a
Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-51, 179-11 Table 1 (Agriculture)
Use 6, to establish a commercial stable for boarding horses.
Members to hear the case were Messrs. Harrison, MacGregor, Nixon and Ms. McInerney and
Flaherty.
Attorney Charles Crowell represented Mr. Rodday. Applicant was not present.
Mr. Crowell was asked to give a brief overview. Mr. Crowell stated Mr. Rodday would like to
board 5 horses on his property. He has had a facility to board and house horses for many
years. There will be no lessons except to family members.
DISCUSSION;
♦ Mr. Nixon noted that in the past there have been up to 10 horses, with a license from
the Board of Health for 4. What is the maximum number allowed?
♦ Mr. Freeman answered that the town Bylaw does not restrict the number, s change of
permit does have to be made with the BOH.
♦ Mr. MacGregor asked if lessons would be given?
♦ Mr. Crowell stated not to his knowledge except as indicated in his statement(family
members).
♦ Mr. McInerney addressed the abutter's question of lights and hours of operation.
♦ Mr. Crowell responded there will be no lights (except what is needed in the barn area)
and there will be no riding school just a daytime operation.
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked if the owner or Mr. Rodday would take care of the horses.
♦ Mr. Crowell noted each would handle their own.
♦ Mr. MacGregor noted that this has been a commercial stable for years (renting stalls is
commercial) what change is this?
♦ Mr. Freeman stated that the BOH issues the change of number of horses.
Open to Public Input
♦ Steve Ellard, abutter, spoke concerning hours of operation etc. What rights are
awarded them as a "commercial stable"? Manure- how will this be handled/ removed
etc? He is looking for some sort of conditions with this permit. Would the permit be
just for those 5 horses or could it blossom to 30-40. With 4.2 acres of land (not 5) it is
permitted not by right. What is going on with the parking areas indicated.
♦ Mr. Crowell answered, regarding the parking; drawing is to show there is sufficient
space off the street.
♦ Mr. Ellard asked about the BOH regulations for manure along with ZBA guidance.
3
4 E
Y
6
♦ Mr. Freeman stated there are 4 horses there now and asking for five additional equaling
a total of 9. ZBA can condition the number. The applicant would have to return to the
Board to add more. BOH has all the rules and regulations of disposal of manure.
♦ Mr. MacGregor noted we could limit or condition where to pile manure.
♦ Mr. Ellard asked if there could be other conditions.
♦ Mr. Harrison stated we could say no shows or lessons. }
♦ Mr. MacGregor felt that was a bit restrictive.
♦ Mr. Ellard noted that the applicant states no lessons, he's OK with this but if he expands
E
it will be a substantial change.
E
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to Close Public Input, Ms. Flaherty seconded, Vote 5-0.
FURTHER DISCUSSION; a
♦ Mr. MacGregor stated he would consider keeping manure 100' from the properly line.
♦ Ms. Flaherty said she had noticed gaps in the fencing and would request these are
repaired as well as all fencing maintained.
} ♦ Ms. McInerney feels the ZBA should be cautious regarding micro managing. This is an
example of the need for agricultural person available. -Keep this in mind for the future. a
She also asked if the Special Permit goes with the owner or the land?
♦ Mr. Freeman answered it normally goes with the land. a
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked if it could be restricted to the owner?
♦ Mr. Nixon noted he as basically in favor but feels the abutter's questions have not been
answered.
♦ Mr. Crowell noted the applicant was just asking to board these horses. He would be
j amenable to the following restrictions;
1. Daytime use only
2. Normal lighting within barn area
3. Manure kept no closer then 75' of all properly lines
E
4. Restricted number of horses to 9
! 5. Maintain of all enclosures
6. No commercial shows
i
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to approve request for a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and
Brewster Bylaw 179-51, 179-11 Table 1 (Agriculture) Use 6, to establish a commercial stable
for boarding horses with the conditions listed above, seconded by Mr. MacGregor, all voted
AYE (5-0-0). SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED.
F
i
05-15 Arthur K. and Judy K.Arnold, 1861 Main Street, Map 17 Lots 70 and 75.
Applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11 Table 1
j (retail and services), Use 8, change of ownership for existing Lodging House.
j Members to hear this case were Messrs. Freeman, MacGregor, Harrison, Nixon and Ms.
s McInerney.
Attorney George Cavanaugh represented Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold was present at the
meeting. Also present were Attorney David Reid representing abutters (Sagars) and
Attorney Michael Ford representing the present owners (Stiers).
i
Mr. Cavanaugh gave a brief overview of this application. Mr. Arnold has signed a P+S to
continue Bed and Breakfast use. They are willing to have the decision state no permission
being granted for outdoor function and events. They would leave it open to return in the
future. Hopefully the appeal pending will be dissolved with this sale.
f
E
"z
t
ffi
q
i
7
This is a 9-room inn and owners quarter with no additional structure changes. Some
upgrades systems and repair that are needed. Limitations on use; commercial food service
limited to guests only(breakfast, tea, lunch and occasional dinner).
Premises shall not be used for outdoor functions and events. The grounds shall
be available for the use by the owners and guests of the inn for customary
personal and family activities events consistent with residential character of the
premises and neighborhood.
1. Not to be construed to prevent the petitioners for applying for
permission for outdoor functions in the future.
2. These conditions are only applicable if the Arnolds' complete their
purchase of the property.
DISCUSSION;
♦ Mr. Freeman welcomed Mr. Arnold.
♦ Mr. Ford (for the Stiers) endorsed the Special Permit with conditions as outlined.
♦ Mr. Reid (for the Sagars) stated they were in favor of the request before this application
with stated language and conditions. They have worked cooperatively to come up with
these conditions. Not to include a full fledged restaurant.
♦ Mr. Ford noted that if this is granted and property is closed upon then the lawsuit
pending would be rendered moot.
♦ Mr. Nixon questioned the language "grounds consistent" with the neighborhood-what
does that mean?
♦ Mr. Cavanaugh stated it means crowds and large functions-not normal to residential
activities.
♦ Ms. McInerney asked Mr. Arnold if he presently runs this kind of business? The answer
was NO.
♦ Mr. Freeman noted that he likes the way this has been put together and it seems like a
good fit.
Open to Public Input
♦ Mr. Reid sated that the Sagars would like to welcome the Arnolds to the neighborhood.
Closed to Public Input
Motion was mad by Mr. Harrison to approve a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and
Brewster Bylaw 179-11 Table 1 (retail and services), Use 8, change of ownership for existing
Lodging House with the conditions stated above, seconded by Mr. MacGregor, all voted AYE
(5-0-0). SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED.
05-16 Mike and Catherine Schaffer, 2380 Main Street, Map 15 Lot 154.Applicant
seeks a Special permit under MGL 40A -9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11 Table 1 (residential)
Note 3.1 for in-law apartment in pre-existing attached barn.
Members to hear this case were Messrs. Freeman, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. Flaherty and
McInerney.
Mr. Schaffer was asked to give a brief overview of this application. He is asking for an in-
law apartment in a pre-existing barn. This has been approved by the HDC and Conservation
Commission has not problems with this property.
DISCUSSJON0II J c
♦ Mr. Nixon asked who would occupy this apartment?
i. . .
f ,
8
♦ Mr. Schaffer answered that both he and his wife have elderly fathers that may occupy it
if needed or a daughter that may use it. He is still working to complete this process
prior to the completion of interior work so that it does not have to be redone in the
future.
♦ Mr. Nixon noted the septic is up to date. '
♦ Mr. Freeman asked if Mr. Schaffer was familiar with the in-law apartment regulations.
♦ Mr. Schaffer indicated YES.
♦ Ms. Flaherty asked that if there comes a time this apartment is not used by family could
he apply for affordable housing?
♦ Mr. Freeman answered YES.
i
I Motion made by Ms. Flaherty to approve request of Special Permit under MGL 40A -9 and
Brewster Bylaw 179-11 Table 1 (residential) Note 3.1 for in-law apartment in pre-existing
i attached barn, seconded b Mr. Nixon, all voted AYE 5 0 0 SPECIAL PERMIT
i Y ( - - ).
GRANTED. Q
t
i
t
F Motion made to adjourn meeting by Ms. Flaherty, seconded by Mr. Nixon; all voted AYE (5-
0-0) MEETING AWORNED.
arilyn Mooer'
Clerk
Y
Na3�j Pit 1 831SM3VI