The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2005-11-08 Minutes Page 1 of 4 Date approved 12-13-15 Vote 8-0-1 TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes November 8, 2005 Philip Jackson (Vice Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members present were; Arthur Stewart, Philip Jackson, Bruce MacGregor, Paul Kearney, Suzanne McInerney, Neva Flaherty and John Nixon. Members absent were; Brian Harrison and Harvey Freeman OLD BUSINESS ■ Minutes of the October 11, 2005 meeting were presented. Corrections made. Motion made to accept as corrected by Ms Flaherty. Seconded by Mr. Nixon. Voted 5-0-2. NEW BUSINESS 05-28 James Hadley for M/M Joseph Carty, 42 Konohassett Cartway, Map 41 Lot 11. requests CONTINUANCE until December 13, 2005. Motion to approve CONTINUANCE made by Ms. McInerney. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (7-0-0). 05-38 John L. Hooper, 10 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot 11-1. request CONTINUANCE until December 13, 2005. Motion to approve CONTINUANCE made by Mr. Nixon. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (7-0-0). 05-39 James E. Walsh, 16 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot 11-2. request CONTINUANCE until December 13, 2005. Motion to approve CONTINUANCE made by Mr. Kearney. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (7-0-0). 05-36 Kenneth and Carleen Borawski, 65 Robert Road, Map 7 Lot 118. WITHDRAWAL w/o prejudice. Motion to approve CONTINUANCE made by Ms. McInerney. Second by Mr. Kearney. All voted AYE (7-0-0). 05-35. Frank Prete Jr. 81 Underpass Road, Map 27 Lot 15-1. Applicant wants to amend Special Permit 04-15 and/or amend Variance 04-15 or in the alternative overturn the Zoning Agents decision to include a dwelling according to Article V Table 1 under Brewster Bylaw 179-25 and MGL 40A-9. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Nixon, Stewart, Jackson and Ms. McInerney and Ms. Flaherty. Mr. and Mrs. Prete were present and asked to give a brief overview. The property is the minigolf course on Underpass Road. They are requesting an apartment above for a tenant as protection for the property in the off seasons. After discussing this with the Zoning Agent it was deemed amending the special permit was needed. This property had y Page 2 of 4 been rented in the past. However, the Zoning Agent found that the apartment was not in compliance and they are seeking relief. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Jackson asked about the parking on the property as indicated in the Special Permit 04- 15. ■ Mr. Prete said there is ample parking. There are 17 spaces with one designated for the tenant. There has also been overflow parking available for July and August with the adjacent businesses. ■ Mrs. Prete indicated this a studio apartment with affordable rent. Keeping the property occupied provides safety during the winter (September-May). ■ Mr. Nixon feels that this is a use regulation and is permitted. ■ Mr. Jackson said he spoke to Mr. Staley and he is in favor of Table 1. ■ Mr. Nixon said again this amendment is not necessary- it is permitted use. ■ Ms. McInerney asked about the letter written by Mr. Prete regarding the possibility of a second stairway. ■ Mr. Prete said that a plan had been designed to place a second stairway within the property guidelines. Open to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Nixon. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (5-0-0). ■ Jillian Douglass (Affordable Housing) asked if the Prete's were pursuing rental under affordable housing? ■ Mr. Prete said they have always rented this apartment at an affordable rate. ■ Ms. Douglass asked if they would consider this under the affordable housing process. ■ Mrs. Prete said it is affordable. ■ David Miller (Never Too Late Farm) supports the idea of people living on commercial property for safety and possible help. • Ms. Douglass said affordable apartments are permitted in commercial property. Close to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Stewart. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). THOUGHTS • Mr. Stewart sees no concerns. Parking is adequate. If there is a discussion on affordable apartment Mr. Prete can speak to Ms. Douglass. ■ Ms. Flaherty would like it designated as affordable housing. ■ Ms. Douglass indicated the process adds to the town's housing stock toward 10%. ■ Mr. Jackson said we cannot impose this, but applicant can talk about this issue. ■ Ms. Flaherty indicated we could include this as a recommendation. ■ Ms. McInerney asked how this apartment issue came about? ■ Mr. Prete said his sign permitting issue brought forth the tenant issue. ■ Mr. Nixon supports this but feels it should be considered an overturning of the Zoning Agents decision. It is a right of the applicant in CH zone. ■ Mr. Stewart asked if this should be amending of the permit or overturning the Zoning Agent. ■ Mr. Nixon said it is not necessary for the applicant to apply to amend, it is his right under CH zone, Table 1. ■ Ms. Flaherty said Table 1 permits this for protection of property. ■ Mr. Jackson indicated the sense of the Board seems to handle this as an overturn Zoning Agent decision on permitted use but to come up with a suggestion regarding parking. ■ Ms Flaherty said that as she interprets this, the previous decision makes no indication of parking spaces. ■ Mr. Nixon feel Ms. Staley's letter is wrong; it is a right in CH zone. Page 3of4 ■ Mr. Jackson concluded we have 3 issues; amend or not amend the Special Permit, amend of not amend the Variance, or overturn the Zoning Agent. • Mr. Stewart feels that the Variance issue is not valid. To amend the Special Permit could go either way but to overrule the Zoning Agent validates the permitted use. ■ Mr. Jackson asked if this suits everyone. Mr. Stewart made a motion in case 05-35 to overturn the Zoning Agents decision regarding permission for apartment unit for protection of property in a CH district under Brewster Bylaw 179-25, Article V Table 1, and MGL 40A-9. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). 05-37. Steel Nominee Trust/Jane Remy, 524 Stoney Brook Road, Map 22 Lot 86. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25(B) to move existing non-conforming home to location 10 feet east and 5-10 feet south of the northeast corner. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, Kearney, and Ms. McInerney and Ms. Flaherty. Mrs. Remy was present and asked to give a brief overview of this project. The house is in disrepair and it has taken 2 1/2 years to decide what to do and how to proceed. The foundation needs work and as that is the first step it was decided a better placement on the lot would be advantageous. The road itself is an issue. The house is so close to the corner. Moving it too far into the lots spoils the historic issue of the home. With new foundation work, plumbing and electrical can be updated. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. MacGregor asked if they ever thought of placing the house in the center of the lot? People don't usually like to lie that close to a road or an intersection. ■ Mrs. Remy said this is a narrow lot and Stoney Brook curves up a hill beyond the septic system. A significant move would add to the cost as well as change the character and historic significance drastically. ■ Mr. Nixon added he commends the undertaking of this project. It is a small house and this is a good solution. ■ Ms. Flaherty asked if it has been determined in good enough shape to move? ■ Mr. Nixon asked if the "summer cottage" would be demolished? ■ Ms. Remy stated the home is good to move just a short distance and the cottage will be kept. ■ Mr. MacGregor asked about the history of people living there. ■ Ms. Remy stated it was built in 1810 and a family lived there. One child stayed through the early 1900's- cold water bath and no heat. ■ Ms. McInerney agrees with Mr. Nixon that it is a good alternative to keep as is. Close to the road has its charm. • Mrs. Remy spoke of many conversations with people "on the road" as they stop at the intersection. Open to Public Input Motion made by Ms. Flaherty. Second by Ms. Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). ■ Jillian Douglass lives in the neighborhood and feels it is an extremely valuable house to the town. This is a commendable move. Close to Public Input Motion made by Ms. Flaherty. Second by Mr. Kearney. All voted AYE (5-0-0). THOUGHTS ■ Mr. MacGregor is for this project(save a nice old house). Page 4 of 4 • Ms. McInerney in favor of this project. ■ Mr. Nixon in favor. ■ Ms. Flaherty noted that after hearing the economic argument and historic significance she is glad to support saving it. ■ Mr. Kearney feels it is important to preserve the antiques we have. Motion made by Mr. Nixon to GRANT 05-37 a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25(B) to move existing non-conforming home to location that actually reduces the non-conformity and not detrimental to the neighborhood. Second by Ms. Flaherty. All voted AYE (5-0-0). 05-40. Brenda L. Gavin, 70-72 Partridge Circle, Map 9 Lot 30. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25B for expansion of existing kitchen. Members to hear this case were Messrs. MacGregor, Stewart, Nixon, Kearney and Ms. McInerney. Mrs. Gavin was present and asked to present a brief overview of the project. The kitchen is extremely small (9 x 9) including the entryway. The Gavin's would like to keep the cottage feel but increase this space. The proposed expansion is 10 x 12 toward the center of the existing lot. DISCUSSION ■ Mr. Jackson asked if there are 2 house on one lot(pre-zoning). ■ Ms. McInerney indicated that 2 dwellings make it non-conforming. ■ Mr. Stewart said this does not increase intensification or impact setbacks. • Mr. MacGregor asked how big the second cottage was? Mrs. Gavin said 1 bedroom. ■ Mrs. Gavin added the previous owner had increased the septic as shown on the plans. Open to Public Input Motion made by Ms. McInerney. Second by Ms. Mr. Kearney. All voted AYE (5-0-0). ■ Jillian Douglass asked to encourage the Board to capture 2nd structures for Affordable Housing stock. Close to Public Input Motion made by Mr. Stewart. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). THOUGHTS ■ Mr. MacGregor feels it does not intensify, he is for it. ■ Mr. Kearney - no problem ■ Mr. Nixon- in favor, minimal intensification ■ Mr. Stewart- in favor ■ Ms. McInerney feels a 10 x 12 expansion is not large and thus no intensification. Motion made by Ms. McInerney to GRANT a Special Permit for 05-40 under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25B for expansion of existing kitchen. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (5-0-0). 8:10 PM Motion made by Mr. Stewart to adjourn. Second by Mr. Nixon. All voted AYE (7-0-0). Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Mooers/Clerk