HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2007-05-15 MinutesDate approved 07-10-07
Vote 8-0-0
TOWN OF BREWSTER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2007
Chairman Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7;00 PM. Members present were; Harvey Freeman,
Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Paul Kearney, Brian Harrison, John Nixon and Suzanne McInerney. Members
missing were Neva Flaherty and Bruce MacGregor.
OLD BUSINESS
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to accept the Minutes of March 13, 2007 as presented. Second made
by Paul Kearney. VOTE 7-0-0.
NEW BUSINESS
07-13 Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, 0 Main Street, Map 20 lot 27. The applicant seeks a
Special permit under MGL 40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-20 for a second sign (25.5" x 28" on a 4 x 4 post)
identifying the Stony Brook Valley Preserve on Paines Creek Road.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Harrison, Stewart, Kearney and McInerney.
Mr. Peter Johnson (chairman of Land Stewardship of Museum of Natural History) represented the applicant.
Mr. Johnson gave a brief description of the property; 80 acres on the south side of Route 6A.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Stewart- where would the sign go?
Johnson- by the side of the road, on Paines Creek Road for Stony Brook Valley Preseve.
McInerney- very attractive, won't block anything
Stewart- Residential district
Johnson- in general 2 signs in VB and Commercial.
Stewart- VB and Residential meet very close there. If Victor Staley said you must come to ZBA then it must
be residential.
Freeman- RM district
Stewart- see no problem
7ohnson- the Museum has updated all their signs
Freeman- can you pinpoint exactly where it will be.
Open to Public Input
ZBA Minutes OS-15-07 Page 1 of 7
No one spoke to this issue.
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Seconded by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0.
Freeman- approximately 350 feet from the intersection of Paines Creek Road and 6A (south of 6A)
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to GRANT approval for a second sign (25.5" x 28" on a 4 x 4 post) identifying
the Stony Brook Valley Preserve on Paines Creek Road. Second by Paul Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0.
07-14 Paula Sperry, 154 Archies Cartway, Map 38 Lot 83-154. The applicant seeks a Special Permit
under MGL 40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-i1, Table 1-6 (Agriculture) to board 2 horses for a total of 5 and a
Dimensional Variance under Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 3 for relief of height regulation.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Jackson, Harrison, Nixon, Kearney and Freeman.
Tim Kautz represented the owner. Paula Sperry was present at the hearing.
Mr. Kautz gave a brief description of the project. There are 3 horses currently on the property, the owner would
like to board 2 more horses; for commercial use. This is a large piece of property and can handle 5 horses.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Freeman- how large?
Kautz- 250 feet by 450 feet
Freeman- what is the square footage of the lot?
Sperry- 5 acres total, divided into 2 condo lots, this is about 3 acres.
Freeman- does not qualify for agricultural exemption.
Kautz- Barn was over height. Owner was assured by the builder that the height would be adjusted. The height
was not revised as it was indicated. The intent of the law is to keep it lower than the height of the house. The
barn sits in a hollow. The house is 21' above road grade and bard is 12' above road grade.
Freeman- mean grade is to determine where house is sitting.
Kautz- at that point it is 21'6".
Freeman- immaterial that it is in a hollow, where it is built is natural level ground.
Jackson- the letter from Victor Staley; you knew the barn violated height restrictions.
Kautz-the barn already existed.
Sperry- Mr. Staley looked at the plans and he knew there was a problem of height. Builder was told to make it 2'
shorter. Ms. Sperry was under the impression that it was done. When they went for occupancy permit that was
when it was discovered it was not changed.
Jackson- Victor Staley identified the plans height, owner took it to the builder, builder built to original plans,
unknown until 2 months ago; is that correct?
ZBA Minutes 05-15-07 Page 2 of 7
Nixon-when was the barn built?
Sperry-it was supposed to take 6 months, it took 2 years and finished end of 2002/beginning 2003.
Nixon- and you just applied for the occupancy permit now?
Sperry-yes
Nixon- when you came up with 2 extra horses.
Sperry- original built for family member (mother)
Freeman- only 3 stalls indicated on barn plans.
Kautz- 5 technically; tack room and grain room.
Freeman- drawing shows only 3 stalls.
Kautz-we plan on dividing across the back, problem with the floor-concrete on the left side and center-must be
removed and interior design revised.
Kearney- to be clear; Building Permit in 2000, still no Certificate of Occupancy.
Freeman- how many horses now?
Sperry- 2
Freeman- 2 or 3, add 2 boarders?
Sperry- 2 in the summer, 5 in the winter
Freeman- no pasture
Kautz- just hay feed
Freeman- as anon-zoning issue- the fence should be 25' from the property line.
Sperry- it is in some places.
Kautz- will be going to Board of Health for the fence issue
Open to Public Input
Susan Holmes- sent a letter March 8, 2007 regarding this issue. One of the horses to be boarded there was
moved to the site February 17th. It meets the requirement of a commercial stable. She is boarded there and is still
there (no occupancy permit).
Sperry- I don't live on the property. Mother rides with people who leave their horses there. I own the property,
but Mother uses it.
Motion made by John Nixon to Close to Public Input. Seconded by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0.
Page 3 of 7
ZBA Minutes OS-IS-07
Nixon- with regard to occupancy of the house-how much time is someone there? You stated a friend stays
there when your Mother goes to New York. The house has nothing to do with the barn.
Freeman- who takes care of the horses?
Sperry- each owner- ~~rough board"
Freeman-do they?
Sperry- I assume so. The owners take care of their horses.
7ackson- sympathizes with the situation but the barn height was identified early on. Even though the
contractor made the mistake, you were fore warned.
Sperry- I trusted the Builders word.
7ackson- usually a builder works with a drawing on which dimensions are identified. RR zone with no one
taking care of the horses sets up a flag.
Harrison- Variance for barn -no grounds to meet criteria, they haven't addressed any of the issues. I don't
feel I can grant a Variance. As for the horses; if an outside source tells me they get adequate care that would
be different.
7ackson-BOH issue with fence. Variance-main thing is financial hardship but do not meet other criteria. Hard
pressed for additional horses.
Kearney- not totally convinced of height Variance. Barn not adequate, builder was made aware. Care of
horses-hardship falls on the owner
Freeman- don't see criteria to support a Variance. Barn sits in a hollow, pasture on the same level. Difficult
to understand. Barn had to be lowered and never got information from the builder that it was done as
requested.
Fence- (not a Zoning issue) in violation of BOH and should have never been put there in the first place. The
barn is already constructed but we can't say that it is OK. Suggest the Applicant withdraws, bring the issues
back after the issue with the barn is resolved and the fence with the BOH. No horses other than personal use
should be allowed now.
Harrison seek legal counsel about the barn before they come back.
Freeman- we urge you to go back to the builder for recompense.
Harrison-whose name is on the building permit?
Freeman- if the Board agrees, they might withdraw and come back when issues are resolved.
Kautz- we wish to request a withdrawal without prejudice.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to accept WITHDRAWAL for Paula Sperry (07-14). Second by Paul Kearney.
VOTE 5-0-0.
Freeman- Variance is hard to obtain, must meet all 4 of the criteria, not just one.
Page 4 of 7
ZBA Minutes OS-15-07
07-15 Steven + Patricia Millard, 79 Carriage Drive, Map 21 Lot 80-27. The applicant seeks a Variance
under MGL 40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2 to build 2 decks that do not meet proper setbacks.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Harrison, Nixon, Freeman and McInerney.
Steven and Patricia Millard were present.
They were asked to give a brief overview of the application. They would like to extend the deck to wrap
around, in some areas elevated to allow access from the driveway. This allows handicapped accessibility
through the sliders.
Freeman- do you need handicapped access?
S. Millard- would like access.
Freeman- only about 6' elevation.
P. Millard- handicapped family member, can not lift, easier to wheel into house.
Nixon- was a Special Permit issued when house was constructed?
McInerney- can see how it would work out. Is the drop off characteristic of the district.
Freeman- it is quite a drop off
Stewart- at the end of the cul-de-sac it drops down, some rational that this is unique.
Freeman- I think it qualifies.
McInerney-did you purchase the house already built?
S. Millard- yes
Open to Public Input
the ZBA granted us a
Alice Favreau (li Carriage Drive) Precedent has already been set in this instance,
Variance for deck access much the same way. As we got older and developed physical problems this is the
only way to remove a stretcher from the home. This access is needed in this situation as well.
Motion made by Suzanne McInerney to Close to Public Input. Seconded by John Nixon. VOTE 5-0-0.
Freeman- looking at application; 1) meet topographical, 2) hardship yes, 3) relief without detriment to public
good- no problem, 4) derogating intent-OK
Harrison- magnitude of relief being asked , is there excess?
Nixon- pretty tight next to the fence, front wrap around esthetically improves the house.
Stewart- in favor of overall, improves the property, isolated not a detriment.
Freeman- I agree
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to GRANT this application for a Variance to build 2 decks that do not meet
proper setbacks as per drawings submitted. Second by Suzanne McInerney. VOTE: 5-0-0.
Page 5 of 7
ZBA Minutes OS-15-07
07-16 ]ohn + Nan nyts Dec shoneunder MG 40A and ABM wste1Bylaw ~1 9h 11, Talble 1 6 e Agriculture), to keep
Appeal of Zoning Age
up to 10 personal show dogs on the property.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Harrison, Nixon, Freeman and Jackson.
]ohn and Nancy Huether were present. They were asked to give brief overview of their application. Mr.
Huether sated that his wife has show dogs; English Mastiffs. Currently has a Special kennel permit in Chatham.
She has 4 dogs presently, not a boarding kennel, just personal dogs. The law reads 4 to 10 dogs constitute a
kennel. Mrs. Huether added she t nnel nnthehbasement; the outdoo rken eels wl be for d y only month. These
dogs do not bark. They have a ke
Freeman- you do not own that house yet, but you have tried to talk to neighbors
]. Huether- yes, talked to some neighbors, others not around.
Freeman- we have letter from an abutter-not in favor of this proposal.
]. Huether- we plan a 10' buffer from property line with a stockade fence.
Stewart- were you aware of the Brewster Bylaw?
]. Huether- yes, turned down by Victor ome to ZBA to overturn V~ctor'sodecis'on.l kennel-don't board dogs. All
champions. Not loose. We felt we cou d
Stewart- by your own admission in your application you are a breeder.
N. Huether- I have 4 adult dogs and 2 puppies.
Stewart- it says 8 on the application.
Freeman- what do you do with the puppies when they are grown up?
N. Huether- show them, sell to individuals.
Freeman-selling makes them commercial, more than 3 dogs constitutes a kennel. By definition a kennel is "a
collection on a single premise. Kennel would require 120,000. s.f.
Open to Public Input
er 552 Slough Road)- don't feel like 10 dogs on our property, barking is an issue. Depreciates
Kathy Hopp
the value if commercial kennel.
Nancy Nichols (545 Slough Road) - quite a bit of the land for kennels. Kennel at the end of Depot street has
a lot of parking- just too much.
Dick Hopper- talking about a commercial business, in the future that could depreciate property. Barking-don't
want to be complaining but I am opposed.
George Nichols- I am opposed to this before it starts.
Robert Franz- discussing commercial, it is not quite black and white.
smaller area in Chatham without issues. This lots fits their needs.
ZBA Minutes OS-15-07
The Huethers have done this in a much
Page 6 of 7
G. Nichols- if they wish to make money, we wish them well but it will not be a fit for this neighborhood.
Franz-if considered a commercial venture it will not effect the property values.
N. Huether- these dogs are "gentle giants" but quiet. These dogs are well trained. No complaints
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Seconded by Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0.
FURTHER DISCUSSION
Harrison- Special permit not the issue, may be able to maintain. No grounds for a Variance.
Jackson- I agree, first criteria (topographical) no way to get past this.
Stewart- I agree as well, standard level lot, undersized for a kennel, can't get to the second step.
Nixon- too many dogs, too small a lot. Abutters disapproval goes a long way. Agree about not meeting the
Variance criteria.
Freeman- I also agree, I understand where themppa'denial would be vot d,but it does not meet the criteria.
Suggest a withdrawal without prejudice as it see
Stewart-pretty cut and dry, the property is not suitable for this application.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to UPHOLD the Zoning Agents decision for this application. Second by
Arthur Stewart. VOTE: 5-0-0
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to DENY the Vae first twotcr to pa lof a Var'ance.uSe and byrJohnl Nixon dogs
on the property listed based upon not fulfilling th
Vote: 5-0-0.
Motion to adjourn at 8:45 PM made by Paul Kearney. Second by Brian Harrison. All voted AYE.
o
r- _.
_•
N
7~
O
~O
Page 7 of 7
ZBA Minutes OS-15-07