Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2005-10-11 Minutes Page 1 of 6 Date ap roved Vote TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Philip Jackson (Vice Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.m. Members present were; Arthur Stewart, Philip Jackson, Brian Harrison, Suzanne McInerney, Neva Flaherty and John Nixon. Members absent were; Paul Kearney and Bruce MacGregor. OLD BUSINESS ■ Minutes of the September 13, 2005 meeting were presented. Motion made by Mr. Stewart to accept. Seconded by Ms. McInerney. Voted 5-0-1. ■ Fall 2005 Workshop- everyone received a copy of the brochure in their packet. Deadline Friday, October 14 to Marilyn. ■ Zoning Bylaw Book- enclosed in packet were approved changed by Attorney Generals Office- please "cut and paste" as appropriate. ■ 03-44. Peter J.Zacchilli and Rosemary D. VanAntwerp. 83 Run Hill Road, Map 36 Lot 14. Letter from applicant requesting an extension of six months for previously GRANTED Special Permit. Extension heard by Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. McInerney. Mr. Zacchilli was present. No questions were presented. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT 6-month extension of previously granted Special Permit. Second by Mr. Stewart. All voted AYE (5-0-0). NEW BUSINESS 05-31.Elizabeth Johnstone,412 Long Pond Road, Map 26 Lot 31. Applicant seeks an appeal of the Zoning Agents decision and/or a dimensional Variance in accordance with MGL 40A- 8 and 15 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 to recognize this as living space. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. McInerney. Ms. Johnstone was present and asked to give a brief overview. ■ This is a cottage attached to a barn. It has always been used as extra living space for summer only. No water is connected to it for the winter. It has been renovated and brought . up to date. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Jackson asked if this was the smaller structure to the right as you drive into the property/ ■ Ms. Johnstone said that was correct. It is a separate structure that has always been used a seasonal living space. • Mr. Harrison asked if anything was done to enlarge the building? ■ Ms. Johnstone said NO, same footprint. This is seasonal only-water is not connected in the winter. ■ Mr. Jackson asked if renting was a consideration? Page 2 of 6 ■ Ms. Johnstone indicated possibly in the summer but mostly used by family. ■ Mr. Stewart asked about the issue of renovation without permits. ■ Ms. Johnstone discussed how this problem came about. Originally she just wanted the roof repaired, the builder suggested foundation work and insulation. The Builder said no permits were needed but now Ms. Johnstone realizes she should have been more insistent. Things then snowballed to a rebuild. ■ Ms. McInerney noted the Building Inspector was protecting the town in the issue of permits but that is now between the owner and the builder. Even if and when the permitting issue is resolved there is the issue of 2 dwellings on one lot. ■ Ms. Johnstone said Mr. Staley told he she could not have a kitchen in this unit, so the stove was removed. Her intent is to comply with Brewster codes and bylaws. ■ Mr. Nixon asked if any other permits had been issued? ■ Mr. Jackson said he had spoken to Mr. Staley and his opinion was to go forth on the ZBA procedure and her would handle permit issue. ■ Mr. Nixon clarified that the 2"d dwelling was the issue. • Mr. Jackson said there should be no problem grandfathering this situation if there is no kitchen in the cottage unit. ■ Ms. Johnstone noted the letter from Mr. Latham (plumber) regarding the installation of bathroom and kitchen sink in the 1960's. ■ Mr. Stewart said this does not constitute a kitchen. He feels that without a kitchen this is just living space. ■ Mr. Harrison said it sounds like a seasonal dwelling to him. a Open to Public Input Motion made by Ms. McInerney. Second by Mr. Stewart. All voted AYE. s .a Tom Burrows (735 Tubman Road)would like to read the letters by Mr. Staley and the Acontractor. He has no objections to what was being done but would like to educate himself. ■ Mr. Burrows was told he could come to the office and read the file at any time. Close to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Stewart. Second by Mr. Harrison. All voted AYE. THOUGHTS ■ Mr. Harrison feels that what was there preexisting is allowed. Sounds like a seasonal living space. A hot plate does not constitute a kitchen. ■ Ms. McInerney notes Mr. Staleys passion to uphold Brewster bylaw is admirable but not lose sight of the 2"d dwelling issue. ■ Mr. Stewart feels it is clear to overturn the Zoning Agent but the other issue of a Variance 179-52 to recognize a dwelling unit is hard pressed to grant. ■ Mr. Harrison feels this is an extension of the house. ■ Mr. Jackson said he could find it a living unit but not be rented. ■ Mr. Stewart feels a Dimensional Variance is not justified. ■ Mr. Harrison feels no grounds for Variance. Grandfather accessory to main house is legal occupied space. Seasonal. Assume it was there before zoning was in effect. ■ Mr. Stewart asked if we deny the Variance and do not overturn the Zoning Agent could she still use this space as it was? ■ Mr. Harrison noted Mr. Staley was looking for our interpretation. Examine the facts- give the applicant credibility. ■ Mr. Nixon could go along with that. ■ Mr. Harrison feels it is grandfathered occupiable space accessory to the main house, which "3 includes toilet facilities, but no kitchen that would be the way to go. x x Page 3 of 6 ■ Mr. Stewart feels it cannot be called accessory dwelling. This can be continued to be used as she has used in the past. ■ Mr. Harrison to uphold the ruling of the Zoning Agent, not considering the structure as a second dwelling unit. Space in question is a legal unit without kitchen. He feels there is no grounds for a Variance based on topography. This should be a simple withdrawal. ■ Mrs. Johnstone sated she would like to continue seasonal use Motion made by Mr. Harrison to uphold the ruling of the Zoning Agent with continued use as a seasonal living dwelling (no kitchen facilities). Second by Mr. Stewart. All voted AYE (5-0-0). Motion made by Mr. Stewart to WITHDRAW w/o prejudice application for Variance. Second by Mr. Harrison. All voted AYE (5-0-0). 05-32 Stephen +Arleen Brown, 262 Robbins Hill Road, Map 2 Lot 10+11. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40-A and Brewster Bylaw 179-6 (E) placement of beach nourishment on an existing coastal beach and dune area., and installs a sand drift fence. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. McInerney and Flaherty. Mr. Mark Burgess of Coastal Engineering represented the applicant. He was asked to give a brief overview of the project. About 850 cubic feet of sand will be brought in to restore to 2004 profile. This project comes under the Wetland Conservancy District. DISCUSSION ■ Ms. Flaherty asked if this project would cause more erosion to neighbors? ■ Mr. Burgess said NO; the downdrift beaches will be fed. ■ Mr. Nixon noted this would take decades to feed naturally. Open to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Nixon. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (5-0-0). ■ Evelyn Maguire (abutter) is in favor of what is being done. She feels everyone should do this, however it is too expensive. This will help her property. ■ Mr. Burgess stated the more the merrier-one is only like a single bucket. Sand trucked in just ends off shore. ■ Ms. Maguire stated fencing is a concern, especially for walking on the beach. ■ Mr. Burgess said it would be only 4-5 inches high. ■ Katherine Alter(281 Robbins Hill Road) inquired where the sand was being brought in from? ■ Mr. Burgess said compatible material from Cape Cod sandpits. Pretty much the same material. ■ Ms. Alter said the groin causes as much problem. The sand fence sticking up is hazardous for walking on the beach. The sand never stays put so the fence can be highly exposed. ■ Mr. Burgess said the provisions in the Conservation Commissions Order of Conditions provide a fence bond for controls. Close to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Harrison. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). THOUGHTS ■ Ms. Flaherty in favor of approval, nice if others bought in. ■ Mr. Nixon agrees, more harm is done by not doing anything. Page 4 of 6 ■ Mr. Harrison is in favor from a zoning perspective. ■ Ms. McInerney feels the same as Mr. Harrison. The Browns have the right to protect their property. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT the Special Permit under MGL 40-A and Brewster Bylaw 179-6 (E) placement of beach nourishment on an existing coastal beach and dune area., and installs a sand drift. Order of Conditions to be issued and signed by the Conservation Commission. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). 05-33 Louise J. Kelly, 62 Weathervane Way, Map 12 Lot 3. Applicant seeks an appeal of the Zoning Agents decision, a Special Permit and/or a Variance in accordance with MGL40A-8 and 14 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 Table 11, Notes 3 and 4 with less than 30' setback for corner lot. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. Flaherty. Attorney Richard Perry represented Ms. Kelly. Applicant was present. Mr. Perry was asked for a brief overview. Mrs. Kelly has owned the cottage for 18 years. It was built in 1950. At this time she needs more space for family as they visit the Cape. She does not want to build toward adjacent lot for privacy. She has considered demolish and rebuild but would like to keep the original cottage look and feel. She would like to keep it appropriate to the neighborhood and make it more welcoming with the front porch. Single level is a consideration with 1800 square feet. i F Mr. Perry presented the Board with copies of the 1960 and 1971 Bylaw. j Mr. Perry stated 179.26B-grandfathering structures as of 1978. At that time frontage was 20' and side and back 10'. In 1971 (table 2, note 3+4)created corner lot definition but no indication of a 3-sided lot. Definition of 1971-page 6- "through lot" (front and back) and "corner lot" not all 3. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Stewart stated "interior lot" is out. No longer exists because of confusion. Issue is the s corner. Definition of both corner and trough not clear. Third street is meaningless. ■ Mr. Perry said they should have made 2 definitions; through-front to back and corner and a 3rd for both to clarify the issue. We do have a definition of street frontage which is 30' and side yard which is 20, so this lot has only one side. ■ Mr. Stewart said the front is the way the house is sited on the lot. ■ Mr. Perry feels it is basically a horseshoe with a road on 3 sides- not spelled out. ■ Mr. Harrison asked which Bylaw is governing this one. I ■ Mr. Perry said either- ability to use any one. ■ Mr. Jackson said this property has one front yard and 2 side yards. Mr. Staley's position implies a corner lot. ■ Mrs. Kelly asked for a clarification, as she has 3 front yards, no side yard,just a back yard. ■ Mr. Stewart said you picked a frontage. A number of issues for frontage. Your address is i front. ■ Mr. Perry said we are talking about 1961 Bylaws -did not answer these questions. ■ Mr. Perry then stated that he feels they have the criteria for a Variance with topography-lot S on 3 sides and a stand of trees and a drop off as well as economic criteria. Perhaps this is the solution. ■ Mr. Nixon spoke regarding the multiple ways-is Weathervane considered just one way, and then they meet the frontage. Town Counsel (Feb 2005) clarification. i i i Page 5 of 6 ■ Mr. Nixon spoke regarding the multiple ways-is Weathervane considered just one way, and then they meet the frontage. Town Counsel (Feb 2005) clarification. ■ Mr. Perry indicated this area is private and secluded. Open to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Harrison. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). No one spoke to this issue Close to Public Input Motion made by Ms. Flaherty. Second by Mr. Harrison. All voted AYE (5-0-0). FURTHER DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Jackson noted we have various alternatives; uphold or don't the Zoning Agent, grant or don't grant the Variance or grant or don't grant the Special Permit. ■ Mr. Harrison would like time to review Mr. Perry's materials and compare to Town Counsels Opinion. ■ Ms. Flaherty said she understands Mr. Harrison need for review but Town Counsels opinion is based on current zoning code and we now have provision that says that what ever zoning applied then is legal as far as setbacks. Perhaps we need to have this interpreted by Town Counsel. We need legal advise on this. ■ Mr. Jackson will speak to Town Manager regarding this issue-legal advice. 1960 and 1971 provision. ■ Mr. Perry has no objections to the review. He would like to continue with the Variance issue. ■ Mr. Stewart states a Special Permit vs. Variance if we uphold the ZA then it has to be a Variance. ■ Mr. Perry agrees with that. He would like to address the Variance criteria; 1) shape- road on 3 sides, lot that slope down in the back with a stand of trees, The entire area is fairly good size lots with very narrow roads. 2) economic-wants to live in the same house. 3) no neighbors complain, very private area. • Mrs. Kelly noted the house has been designed to maximize the light and space. ■ Mr. Jackson feels the Variance cannot be justified. ■ Mr. Stewart feels it is difficult-would like to see an interior layout to see if things could be moved to keep within setbacks. ■ Mr. Harrison feels that by just receiving the 1960 + 1971 Bylaws not time to review. Trees and shrubs do not constitute topography. Could not support a Variance. ■ Mr. Nixon doesn't feel it meets the first criteria of a Variance. Would like to see it continued 30-60 days. He would like to see full plans (existing and proposed). ■ Ms. Flaherty feels it is not only a matter of unique conditions of the lot but peculiar to the district is hard to meet. ■ Mr. Perry indicated he would be willing to continue until December 13 meeting. Motion made by Mr. Stewart to Continue 05-33 to December 13, 2005. Second by Mr. Harriso 91 m All voted AYE (5-0-0). rn cry 05-34 Steve + Hilary Hickok, 523 Main Street, Map 22 Lot 94. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B). Building addition to-a' —, pre-existing, non-conforming home with coastal bank and wetland constraints. =' Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Ms. Flaherty and Ms. %o ' McInerney. M Mr. Robert Perry of Coastal Engineering represented the applicant. i Page 6 of 6 Mr. Perry was asked to give an overview. This project consists of a kitchen expansion. It will remain a 3-bedroom home with additional space. A new septic system has been approved. Both Conservation and Historic Commission have approved this project. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Nixon asked if the post and rail fence would go down the bank and follow the edge of the clearing. Open to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Harrison. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (5-0-0). No one spoke to this issue Close to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Nixon. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (5-0-0). THOUGHTS ■ Mr. Harrison noted this was appropriate, as it is only 180 square feet with no zoning violation. ■ Ms McInerney noted it does not bring the structure any closer to the wetlands. ■ Ms. Flaherty added it is within the 50-foot buffer but this is not a change. Motion made by Mr. Nixon to GTANT a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B). Building addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming home with coastal bank and wetland constraints with condition of final receipt of Conservation Order of Conditions.. Second by Mr. Harrison. All voted AYE (5-0-0). Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Harrison. Second by Mr. Stewart. All voted AYE (6-0-0). Respectfully su mitted, Marilyn M s/Clerk I V i i i r 1 k t E g6 I a s k f 6