Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2006-05-10 MinutesPage 1 of 5 Date Approved 8-8-06 Vote 7-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 10, 2006 Meeting Minutes Chairman Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Brian Harrison, Paul Kearney, Harvey Freeman, John Nixon, Suzanne McInerney, Arthur Stewart, and Bruce MacGregor. Member absent: Philip Jackson and Neva Flaherty. 06-10 William ]. Carroll, III, 160 Brier Lane, Map 19 Lot 33-2. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A- 9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52, Section 6 to locate a detached garage in the soil conservancy. Applicant request a CONTINUANCE as pre-standing garage is within soils conservancy and applicant needs to apply for Variance. ^ Howard Brail (abutter) asked how do you become aware of soils conservancy areas? ^ Mr. Freeman told him the Building Inspector would be the person to speak to. Motion made by Mr. Stewart to Continue 06-10 until June 13, 2006. Second by Ms McInerney. VOTE 7-0-0. 06-11 Arthur K. and Judy K. Arnold, 1861 Main Street, Map 17 Lot 70+75. Applicant seeks to modify a Special Permit 05-15 under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-11 to increase number of rentable rooms from 9 to 10 and eliminate the requirement that the Petitioners live on the premises. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, Freeman, MacGregor and Stewart. Attorney George Cavanaugh represented Mr. and Mrs. Arnold. Mr. and Mrs. Arnold and their daughter Jackie were present at the hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh gave a brief overview. They had appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals 11 months prior for a Special Permit (05- 15) regarding the Old Manse Inn. Special Permit for Lodging House with conditions- 9 rooms. Owner living on the premise was not a condition. The Arnolds are finding the living quarters adequate when they are there alone but when family arrives (college age children) it is too small. They have purchased a home across the street that is accessible to the inn. This allows an additional room to become available for rental. There will be no change in the parking, no detriment to the neighborhood, use as it has been. Discussion ^ Mr. MacGregor asked where is the newly purchased home. ^ Mr. Arnold said it is the second house to the right of the Library. ^ Mr. MacGregor asked if they plan on a communication system between the 2 buildings. ^ Mr. Arnold noted there is full monitoring system for Fire and Police. There will be a Manager here until 11 to 12 at night. ^ Mr. MacGregor asked what type of alarm system is there. ^ Mr. Arnold said a third party system. ^ Mr. Freeman asked if there would be a direct phone line to the owner's residence. ^ Mr. Arnold said YES. ^ Mr. Stewart noted that within the Bylaw for Lodging House the owner is not required to live on the premises. ^ Mr. Freeman said there are other Bed and Breakfast with owner living off site. Page 2 of 5 Mr. Stewart asked if increase in the number of rooms needs a Special Permit. Mr. Freeman said the Bylaw states Lodging House up to 12 rooms. He also asked if they have had Fire Inspections. Mr. Arnold said YES; as a matter of fact they were there today. He added that with renovation, only one wall was moved and no increase in bathrooms. The septic is the same. Open to Public Input Attorney David Reid represented Mr. and Mrs. Sager (1807 Main St). Mr. Reid spoke regarding past applications regarding activities at the Old Manse Inn. He also mentioned the Arnolds came before the Board of Appeals at time of purchase for a Special Permit (which was granted). The neighborhood is rural residential in character with a 9 room inn. In December the Arnolds bought another property and established residence-violating the Special Permit. The Sager oppose this as more than a minor change, they feel it is a change of use. They ask the Board consider the difference between residential use (lodging house) and hotel/motel use (just rental). Jeffry Gardner (neighbor) spoke in support of the Arnolds. This is not the "Holiday Inn of Brewster it is a classic New England Inn. A change from 9 to 10 rooms is not a powerful issue. Owner occupied is not a requirement, deems fairly straightforward. Mr. Cavanaugh spoke as to the Inn is not in a Holiday Inn or Hampton Inn class. This is a traditional Brewster B+B. When the Arnolds bought the inn they intended to live there but now with family they need more room. Mr. Arnold noted the concern regarding absentee owner; they are not going anywhere. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second Mr. Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. Comments ^ Mr. Stewart in regards to the definition of a Lodging House clearly does not include a motel/hotel. Originally designed as a single family home. Stretch to compare to a hotel. Not a major change. ^ Mr. MacGregor said he feels the same way. Bylaw does not require owner occupied. Not an issue. ^ Mr. Harrison was in favor, change of owners quarter only is insignificant. ^ Mr. Nixon agrees to grant the permit with owner not living on the premises. ^ Mr. Freeman is in favor as well. Zoning Agent's letter only indicates changes in one particular room. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT the Special Permit as requested to seek to modify a Special Permit 05-15 under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-i1 to increase number of rentable rooms from 9 to 10 and eliminate the requirement that the Petitioners live on the premises. Conditions to include the addition of electronic monitoring with direct emergency communication (telephone) with owners home and appropriate alarm system for unforeseen circumstances. Second by Mr. Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. 06-12 Robert M. Oldsman, 22 Long Pond Road, Map 24 Lot 19-2. The applicant seeks a Special Permit and/or Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B) to replace pre-existing non-conforming deck with a larger 8 X 16 deck with non-conforming setback. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, Kearney, Stewart and Ms. McInerney. Mr. Oldsman was present and was asked to give a brief overview of this project. He has been living at 22 Long Pond Road for 6 years but purchased the property a year ago. He would like to replace the 6 x 8 deck (extremely small) with a 8 x 16 deck toward the back of the property. This will also cover the oil tank so it is not so visible. Mr. Oldsman presented a letter from an abutter supportive of this project. Discussion Page 3 of 5 ^ Mr. Harrison asked if this was a diagonal setback. ^ Mr. Oldsman said slightly closer to 20' • Mr. Freeman asked if he considered not increasing into setback, leave at 20.3 and go toward the 27' direction instead. ^ Mr. Oldsman said to leave at 6' width would be extremely narrow. ^ Ms. McInerney noted that increase to 8' is better for safety. ^ Mr. Oldsman noted the topography of the drop off is a concern. ^ Ms. McInerney thought the land seemed particularly unique, but questioned if it was unique within the zone. ^ Mr. Harrison said he feels it should be looked at as a Special Permit if not more that one foot into setback. ^ Mr. Oldsman said he would consider 7 x 16 with steps. ^ Mr. Freeman said treat it as a Special Permit rather than a Variance (withdraw Variance). Open to Public Input ^ No one spoke to this issue Motion made by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second Mr. Stewart. VOTE 5-0-0. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B) to replace pre-existing non-conforming deck with a larger 7 X 16 deck with non- conforming setback with specified conditions as to setbacks as follows; North side 19.3 feet, and NW diagonal to 35.08 property line, not to encroach on 20' setback. Second Mr. Nixon. VOTE 5- 0-0. 06-15William Reyburn/Reyburn Associates (Gerald + Florence Palmer), 2821 Main Street, Map 14 Lot 115. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B) to remove ell from rear of house and replace with 2-story ell with non- conforming setback. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, Kearney, MacGregor and Ms. McInerney. Mr. Reyburn represented the Palmers. Mr. and Mrs. Palmer were present at the hearing. Mr. Reyburn gave a brief overview of the project. The applicant wants to remove the existing ell, which is one-story, and replace it with a 2-story addition on the existing footprint as per design presented. They have received HDC approval. Setback will change from 5' to 7'. Interior stairway makes it more comfortable for the Palmers. It will include a downstairs sitting room, laundry and back entry; upstairs will be bedroom, bath and L shaped stairway. It is in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood, no change in traffic, same driveway. Septic to be upgraded, existing utilities and well planned landscaping. Discussion ^ Mr. Freeman made note this is to be within a 16 x 24 footprint. ^ Mr. Kearney asked if the existing house has a second kitchen. ^ Mr. Reyburn said YES, this has always been part of the building. ^ Ms. McInerney asked what is the building close to the ell. • Mr. Reyburn said that is a separate lot, owned by the Palmers, used as rental property. ^ Ms. McInerney noted it is quite close to ell. ^ Mr. Reyburn stated the new addition compliments and matches the other in pitch and style. ^ Mr. Palmer added the addition accommodates the stairway within the building and eliminates a doorway. Open to Public Input ^ Francis Nickerson (2851 Main St) was curious about the stairway, not a requirement to change the stairs. ^ Mr. Reyburn said it is not meant as a requirement but an improvement. They want it to be comfortable thus a new stairway would be an improvement. Page 4 of 5 ^ Jan Warren (2837 Main Street) noted 2 lots of the Palmers; encroaching on my property line. Line issue-line continues to move. Shed and 2-story garage not shown. Only one lot is shown on plans. There have been trees chopped down. She had 3 issues; 1. Shed was on the property line, her fence is well off the line but the Palmers use up to the fence as if it were their own. 2. I worry about existing cottage and ell, 2-story is wider and longer, it will be larger and massive, denser. 3. Concern about parking lot, trees no longer diffuse sound and light. Other issues-property line not established and the nonconforming use of cottage. Two separate properties-only 5' from proposed to existing property line. ^ Mr. Freeman noted the property line is not in discussion in regards to the setback of the ell. ^ Mr. Palmer said the lot line will be marked. ^ Mr. MacGregor said that 3-4 days ago he found the survey markers. ^ Ms. Warren said what the 2 parties consider the property line varies. The fence is not the line, it is in from the actual line. ^ Mr. Palmer said the lot line remains exactly the same. ^ Mr. Freeman said this issue does not impact this discussion. Motion by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0. Board Comments ^ Mr. MacGregor noted this doesn't affect neighbors, further from property line. Neighbor's complaints are germane to the project. ^ Mr. Harrison stated the change of the stairs is a positive safety issue. ^ Mr. Nixon feels the 2-story addition is aesthetically an improvement. Lighting is a problem to the neighbor this can be addressed with conditions. ^ Mr. Harrison said the lighting could be conditioned to be shielded down. ^ Mr. Kearney sees this as a 2"d apartment, own entrance. • Mr. Harrison said we could address this issue. What is the use going on today? ^ Mr. Reyburn said this never came up in the design stage, the kitchen was there before. ^ Mr. Palmer said when they purchased the property there were 3-4 kitchens. They eliminated all but one upstairs and one downstairs. This is a single family home with guests. ^ Mr. Kearney asked if the use changes he hopes they would come back to the Board. ^ Mr. Freeman said that could be noted in the conditions. ^ Mr. Kearney said he could approve as proposed but remain one dwelling unit within the structure. ^ Mr. Palmer said it could support an apartment and asked if it is town policy to have that issue comes before the Board. ^ Ms. McInerney said she is not comfortable voting for this as she sees the 2"d story as increasing the non-conformity and detrimental to the neighborhood. ^ Mr. Harrison feels that legal stairs out weigh any detriment. ^ Mr. Freeman notes it does increase the non-conformity. ^ Mr. Harrison said it does not create a new one. ^ Mr. Nixon noted that traditionally a 2"d story has not been treated as a detriment. ^ Mr. Kearney said the proximity to the cottage is a problem. ^ Mr. Nixon said the same individual owns both lots. ^ Ms. McInerney believes the increase volume increases non-conformity. ^ Mr. MacGregor agrees with Mr. Harrison, taller but within height guidelines, important for safe stairs. Motion made by Mr. Kearney to GRANT the Special Permit under MGL40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 (B) to remove ell from rear of house and replace with 2-story ell with non-conforming setback with the following conditions; single family dwelling remain without rentals and exterior lighting be non-intrusive to neighbors (gable end of house) as referenced by plans presented 5-7- 06 by Eagle Survey Inc. Second by Mr. Nixon. VOTE 4-1-0. (Ms. McInerney against). 06-16James ~. and Nancy L. Sheridan, 235 Run Hill Road, Map 35 Lot 63-2. Applicant seeks a Variance under MGL40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 to change use of storage barn on property to horse barn. Page 5 of 5 Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Nixon, MacGregor, Stewart and Ms. Flaherty. Mrs. Sheridan was present and presented a brief overview. Building was placed on the lot in December of 2005. It was placed in the middle of the lot due to the topography of the lot and soils. BOH approved. They are now permitted for 12 horses at the front of the lot, licensed by the town and the state as farm with 5.3 acres of land. They request use of storage barn for horses. Discussion ^ Mr. MacGregor asked if this is a pole barn couldn't you use longer poles. ^ Ms. Sheridan said footings that it could have been deeper but it was precut and shipped, if they had known ahead they could have changed it. ^ Mr. MacGregor asked if Plan 2 shows it as done now. ^ Mr. Nixon asked if they had a Conservation hearing. ^ Ms. Sheridan said only to fill kettle holes. ^ Mr. Freeman made note that abutter's letters were favorable. ^ Ms. Sheridan said the lots are not subdividable and do have a powerline easement. ^ Mr. Freeman asked if the ZBA could treat this as an exemption from zoning under 40A section 3. 5.3 acres qualify for agricultural. Thoughts ^ Mr. Harrison said a Variance first, generally in favor, exemption is a stretch. ^ Mr. Stewart asked what is the advantage of an exemption? A Variance has more protection. ^ Mr. Freeman feels an agricultural exemption allows property line setback to be OK. ^ Mr. MacGregor is OK with agricultural exemption. Hard to be a farmer in this area. Open to Public Input ^ Elizabeth Taylor (abutter) agrees with Bruce and Harvey. Agricultural Commission supports this exemption. As an abutter I support this application. Property has constraints. ^ Peter Spear (across Run Hill Road) no problem for barn use. Strong support for agricultural exemption. The topography /soil condition is what it is. Motion by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. Comments ^ Mr. Nixon- Variance wrong way to go. Agree with agricultural exemption. ^ Mr. Stewart -either way ^ Mrs. Freeman- agree with agricultural exemption mechanism. We should vote on this. MacGregor-Agricultural exemption Nixon- Agricultural exemption Stewart- Agricultural exemption Harrison-either Freeman- Agricultural exemption Motion by Mr. Stewart to GRANT Agricultural Exemption under MGL 40A Section 3 for placement of barn as shown of plan dated 12-19-05. Second by Mr. Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. Vote to adjourn meeting at 9:20 PM Motion by Mr. Harrison. Second by Stewart. VOTE 7-0-0. Respectfully, l t: Otb b l old 90. Marilyn Mooers/Clerk ~~~-~_~ ~r~~ri~1 ~~:~1SM3~18