Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2006-11-16 MinutesDate approved 12-12-06 Vote 8-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 m c~ Meeting Minutes r„ November 16, 2006 ~~ Chairman Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7;00 PM. Members present were; Ha e,~y Freeman, Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Brian Harrison, John Nixon, and Suzanne McInerney. tiers absent were; Neva Flaherty, Bruce MacGregor and Paul Kearney. OLD BUSINESS Minutes of October 10, 2006 accepted as written. Motion made by Arthur Stewart. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0. Discussion of December Meeting dates. We will be holding 2 dates; December 12 and December 14tH Slough Road 406 application coming before the Board after the first of the year. No date set at this time. NEW BUSINESS 06-33 Brian Baer, 93 South Orleans Road, Map 52 Lot 33-7 Applicant seeks to construct an in- law apartment attached to home under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 4. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Nixon, Harrison, Stewart and Ms. McInerney. Mr. Brian Baer represented himself for this hearing. Mr. Thomas Sutherland (father-in-law) was also in attendance. Mr. Baer was asked to give a brief overview of the request. Mr. Baer said they are requesting to add a 600 square foot in-law apartment for his wife's parents who are moving to Brewster within the year. It will be located off the front of the garage. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Stewart said this is not very visible from the road. • Mr. Jackson noted there are a number of additions on the plan but we are only dealing with the Special Permit for in-law apartment He also asked if the applicant was aware of the future restrictions on this unit. • Mr. Baer answered YES. • Mr. Freeman explained if this ceases to be used for family members or caregiver of a family member it must be reported to the Building Inspector and the kitchen removed. • Mr. Sutherland indicated that he owned the house but will be living in the apartment. Open to Public Input • Mr. Trent Graham-owner of the road- spoke that it is a benefit with moving the entrance to the Sutherland residence. • Mr. Andy Levesque asked if the driveway would go in before the addition begins. • Mr. Baer said YES, for truck and construction vehicles. • Mr. Graham said their main concern is the road and with the change of entrance it eases the use. Motion made by John Nixon to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0 FURTHER DISCUSSION • Mr. Nixon said this is a cut and dry issue. • Mr. Stewart feels it is straight forward and meets the 600 square foot criteria. • Ms. McInerney notes there is a lot going on but we are just concerned with the in-law apartment issue. Motion made by Mr. Stewart to GRANT a Special Permit to construct an in-law apartment attached to home under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 4, in accordance with approved plans. Second by Mr. Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0. 06-35 Gerrie A. Wilson, 105 Maple Lane, Map 31 Lot 71. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit under MGL 40B-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 A to replace roof structure and add windows to a pre- existing non-conforming structure. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Nixon, Harrison, Stewart and Freeman. Ms. Joy Cuming from Architects Studio represented Ms. Wilson. Ms. Gerrie Wilson was present. Ms. Cuming gave a brief overview of the project. They are removing a roof structure and replacing the roof with a lower, peaked design presented on the plan. This room extends over the rear setback by 2 feet. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Jackson noted that it looks like the extension past the arch is there today. • Ms. Cuming said YES. • Mr. Freeman asked what is the overall height of the building. • Ms. Cuming said it does not exceed restrictions. • Mr. Jackson asked what a solar chimney was. • Ms. Wilson explained her father was an inventor and this was his design. • Mr. Freeman said the new design was decreasing the height of the pre-existing roof line and the other additions were not part of this application. Open to Public Input • Patricia Peterson (abutter) asked to see the photographs. She also asked when this work would begin and end. • Ms. Cuming said it should start in December and take 4-5 months to complete. Motion made by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Jack Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION Mr. Nixon asked if there any Conservation Commission concerns. • Mr. Freeman said there is an Order of Conditions pending this approval on file. Motion made by Mr. Harrison to GRANT Special Permit under MGL 406-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 A to replace roof structure and add windows to apre-existing non-conforming structure reducing structure in volume. Second by Mr. Stewart. VOTE 5-0-0. 06-36 Vere E. Murphy, 53 Winslow Landing Road, Map 14 Lot 36-3. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 4 to construct an in-law apartment for a family member. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Nixon, Harrison, Stewart and Ms. McInerney. Mr. John O'Connor, Builder, represented the applicant. Mr. O'Connor was asked to give an overview of the project. Addition to the front of the garage, including the garage to be used by her sister. To include a sitting area, kitchen and dining space as well as a bedroom. The bathroom will be shared. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Stewart asked if there was a bathroom in the layout. • Mr. O'Connor said it is a shared bathroom with the main house. This area is not included in the 600 square feet. Ms. McInerney asked how close is this to the lot line. • Mr. O'Connor said 25 feet from line. Mr. Nixon referred to the site plans-no dimensions from the lot line indicated. • Mr. O'Connor said the plans are older and need to be redone. • Mr. Stewart asked if they are converting a garage or addition in the front. • Mr. O'Connor the addition is at the front of the garage as well as converting the garage to living space. • Mr. Freeman read from the "Code of the Town of Brewster" the definition of a "dwelling unit"; ....complete living facilities .............with permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. He asked the Board to consider proposed unit in keeping with definition. Mr. Stewart remarked this doesn't have an individual bathroom. • Mr. O'Connor asked if this bathroom must be included in the 600'. Mr. Harrison said the bathroom must be included. They should have accurate plans. • Mr. Jackson asked how close this house is to the marshland. Mr. O'Connor that was all indicated on the wetlands plans. • Mr. Jackson asked if there was a copy of the drawing in relation to the wetlands. Open to Public Input • No one spoke to this issue. Motion made by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Jack Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION • Mr. Nixon feels there should be a continuation. Mr. Harrison would like to see accurate site plans and to scale drawing of unit with bathroom included. Motion made by Mr. Stewart to CONTINUE until December 12, 2006 for further plans. Second My Mr. Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0. 06-37 T. Edmund Daly and Karen Lieberman-Daly, 12 Six Penny Lane, Map 19 Lot 73. The applicant seeks a Special Permit and/or Variance under MGL 40A-6 or 10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 or Section 16 (Table 2, Note 5) for the change, extension or alteration of apre-existing non-conforming single family home. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Nixon, Harrison, Stewart and Freeman. Attorney Stephen Jones represented the Daly's. Mr. Edmund Daly was present at the hearing. Mr. Jones gave a brief summery of what had previously occurred before the ZBA. • Plans were reviewed to see how to use the existing footprint. They had changed to minor proposed addition of entry way steps. • Front door in currently to the South. Proposed to renovate from 1 ~/z story ir~to full 2 story-using existing footprint of deck to North and porch to the East. • Deck to the N is about 12.5 feet off North line (more than 10 years old) now pre-existing nonconforming. Proposal is to renovate existing porch, incorporate into lst floor of house as a bedroom and 2"d floor as living room. • Existing house has 4 bedrooms, new has 3. • Proposed front stoop is outside the 50' setback thus it is in compliance. • Plans are submitted with test holes. • Nothing is within wetlands conservancy soils area. Porch and deck have existing sono tubes. • Using those exact places to put in deeper tubes. • All come under Special Permit requirements as pre-existing nonconforming. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Jackson asked if this in the realm of a Special Permit. Mr. Jones stated the Zoning Agent felt the main issue was the soils conservancy issue but now they are using the same footprint • Mr. Jackson noted we had not heard from the Zoning Agent on this latest renovation plan. He also asked how Conservation Commission had ruled. • Mr. Jones said the Mr. Staley had the same concerns as with the first application and there is an existing Order of Conditions from Cons Com/ • Mr. Freeman stated the letter of June 7, 2006 from Mr. Staley indicated a need for a Special Permit (pre-existing nonconforming), 2~d paragraph addressed a Dimensional Variance if additional building on deck system. • Mr. Jones said the deck system was not reviewed as it was build more than 20 years ago. The ZBA was willing to accept the deck as more than 20 years old in the last hearing, but the whole application was withdrawn. • Mr. Harrison said that if 10 years old it gives non compliant not pre-existing nonconformity. • Mr. Freeman said that one aspect of the previous application was the addition on the North side and this has been removed from this proposal. • Mr. Jones said the Building Inspector has seen the concept drawings and has no problem with them. • Mr. Freeman has concerns regarding soils conservancy. • Mr. Nixon said that the previous problem was the test holes and disturbed soil • Mr. Jones said the tests were done by Bennett + O'Reilly and indication of disturbed soils not met. Open to Public Input • Eunice Terrenzi (speaking for Murland Marian) highly approves of this renovation. Motion made by Jack Nixon to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Stewart noted that at the previous meeting Bruce MacGregor had the deepest concern regarding intensity; some has been addresses to significantly reduce intensity. The front door is no issue at all. Mr. Freeman asked how the Board feels about it fitting the criteria for a Special Permit. • Mr. Stewart added that if legally grandfathered, it is a Special Permit. • Mr. Harrison said that he is willing to approve if testimony of applicant proves pre-existence. Mr. Freeman asked about the front steps. • Mr. Jackson noted he seems OK as a Special Permit. Mr. Harrison said that he is generally in favor as a Special Permit. Motion made by Brian Harrison to GRANT a Special Permit project as shown by "as built plot plan by Bennett and O'Reilly dated October 10, 2006 (6005-0508A), under the premise that this is apre-existing structure. Second by Arthur Stewart. Vote 5-0-0. Request made by Mr. Jones to withdraw the Variance request. Motion made by John Nixon to WITHDRAW the Variance request. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0. 06-38 Scott + Suzanne Hogg, 25 Pitch Pirve Road, Map 39 Lot 6-19. Applicant seeks to add an in-law apartment attached to home under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 4. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Freeman, Nixon, Harrison, Stewart and Ms. McInerney. Mr. Scott Hogg represented himself to the Board. He was asked to give a brief overview of the project. Mr. Hogg stated this was an in-law apartment, for his wife's parents. Included in the application are plans for the apartment, existing house and plot plan. This unit is directly off the back of the house. It will be less than 600 square feet. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Freeman asked what was the measurement to the NE corner and the property line. • Mr. Hogg said about 21 feet at the least. • Mr. Stewart feels that should be referenced as it is a critical dimension. • Mr. Hogg said it is over the 20 feet setback as it has been discussed with the Building Inspector. • Mr. Freeman noted the outside dimension for the unit is 41' x 16 'is 656'. • Mr. Hogg said the inside feet is 600 square feet exactly. Mr. Freeman asked if Mr. Hogg is familiar with the section of the code for in-law apartment. Kitchen to be removed and never rented. • Mr. Hogg said yes, he understands, but other relatives can use this unit. • Mr. Freeman said YES, family use. • Mr. Nixon asked if there is a plan of the whole structure. • Mr. Hogg noted Page 2 of foundation pian and proposed. • Mr. Stewart mentioned the connection between the house and apartment. • Mr. Hogg said NO, but a tad, Separate entryway. Slider and front door access. • Mr. Freeman asked about combining 2 bedrooms necessary to meet septic requirements for 3 bedrooms. • Mr. Hogg said it is a new Title V and with a afoot cased opening with no door would combine the rooms. • Mr. Stewart said page 3 of 6 shows 2 x 4 wall not 2 x 6. • Mr. Hogg said he transferred to new plans (2 x 6) with date 10-5-06. Open to Public Input Ms. Gail Gilroy (abutter) hasn't seen the plans. Her concern is parking on the lot. Seems Ok with the floor plan with the bathroom and combining the rooms to keep this a 3 bedroom to comply with septic. Mr. Freeman asked if there is a problem parking. Mr. Hogg said there are 3 cars now. Ms. Gilroy said that could 4 cars be addressed. Mr. Hogg said they have back driveway to be used, dirt road.. Mr. john Mallaney asked the Board to clarify the Bylaw regarding stove removal and non- rental. Mr. Freeman said that this is part of the Bylaw condition of in-law apartment; it will be included in the decision and is for family member or caregiver of family member only. Motion made by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Jack Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION Ms. McInerney asked if the unit was to be used by a caregiver how would they get in and out if not attached to main house. Mr. Hogg said there will be a walkway from unit to home. Mr. Stewart noted this type is normally connected but not required. Mr. Nixon stated he was in favor of this Special Permit but would like to see a letter from Board of Health regarding 3 bedroom and Zoning Agent with regards to the dimension on East end (exact setback). Mr. Harrison said both these issues are addressed through Building permit when issued. Mr. Freeman said he would like to see a final plan with N corner distance on file as a condition. Mr. Nixon added he would like to see a final sign off from BOH meeting Title V as a condition. Mr. Harrison feels that a copy of the Building Permit should be part of the file record to address both these issues. A condition to provide on site parking for all cars should be addressed. Motion made by John Nixon to GRANT a Special Permit as discussed for an in-law apartment with stipulation of plot plan; referenced plans 1 of 6 dated 10-05-06-proposed addition (with proper setbacks and provision for on-site parking-minimum of 4 vehicles- be demonstrated). A copy of the final Building permit will be acceptable. Second by Arthur Stewart. VOTE 5-0-0. Motion to adjourn meeting at 9:00 PM by Mr. Brian Harrison Second by Ms. Suzanne McInerney. VOTE 6-0-0 Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ari yn ooers, Jerk (((