HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2007-11-15 MinutesDate approved 12-11-07
Vote 8-0-1
TOWN OF BREWSTER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Minutes
November 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, Bruce MacGregor, Robert McLellan
and Leslie Erikson.
OLD BUSINESS
^ Welcome and Introduction of new ZBA Alternative Member, Leslie Erikson.
^ Office hours next week.
^ 2008 Hearing Schedule
^ Motion made by Robert McLellan to accept the Minutes of September 11, 2007 and October 9,
2007, as presented. Second made by Paul Kearney. VOTE 7-0-0.
NEW BUSINESS
07-33 Patricia A. Kassner, 300 Foster Road, Map 6 Lot 8.
Request from Attorney John McCormick to WITHDRAW without prejudice.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to accept Withdrawal with out prejudice of case 07-33 as requested.
Second by Bruce MacGregor. VOTE: 8-0-0.
07-29 ]ames Doherty, 341 Robbins Hill Road, Map 2 Lot 30. The applicant is seeking a Variance
under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 to correct sideline setback for non complying structure.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, MacGregor, Jackson and Freeman.
The applicant was represented by Thomas Moore.
James Doherty was present.
Mr. Moore was asked to give an overview of this project.
This is anon-complying cottage with 2 bedrooms and a bath. According to past research; the original
permit was for an 8 x 10 (shed) in 1977, another permit was granted in 1983 fora 10 X 10 addition, and
in 1989 another permit was given fora 10 x 18 addition. This was all prior to purchase by Mr. Doherty in
1998. According to Building Department records there were only hand drawn sketches provided. At that
time the building was placed 28 +/- from the property line. Plan dated 8-28-06, revised 11-2-06 it is now
8 feet from property line.
Use of structure as a legal 2 bedroom guest cottage purchased in 1998. Septic redone around the 3
bedrooms (all legal structures).
In 2005, when designs submitted to reconstruct main house (front of property), Victor Staley noted
concern of cottage. No permits or records to change from shed to habitable space. Letter ~ted 1-17-07
Mr. Staley noted to continue use the owner must seek a Variance. If granted theg~p~fo change of
use. Special Permit has been granted for the front house. ~; f;~~f
~v
~U
ZBA Minutes 11-15-07
-2-
Mr. Moore discussed the 4 points needed for the Variance;
1. The shape of the lot (long and narrow), structures on the property and placement of septic make
another placement of building difficult. This lot fronts on two streets and is 75 x 200.
2. To move this structure would be a financial hardship that was created by previous owner.
3. Not detrimental to the area. This has been used 10-18 years without objection. There are no cooking
facilities in this structure.
4. Does not derogate from the Bylaw, it was bought with the idea it was a legal cottage.
This is meant to correct a situation established by the previous owner. If granted it will continue as is.
Application will be made for a change of use.
Board Discussion
^ MacGregor- how is this building used?
^ Doherty- as a "bunkhouse"-2 family members of the previous owner lived there. The back
house (salt box) is rented. Bathroom added (with permits) since 1998. Family members stay
there.
^ MacGregor-that is a lot of use for one property. Where do people park? Are they parking on
the septic?
^ Doherty- behind the salt box. No parking on the septic (septic is for 8 bedrooms)
^ Freeman-show us where the parking is?
^ Doherty-driveway allows for 6 cars, another space to the left of back house
^ Stewart-Victor Staley letter without a kitchen "could be recognized as a bunkhouse", could not
find that term at all in the Bylaws.
^ Freeman-term used before-downgraded by removal of kitchen. Indicated alterations to the
structure in 1982.
^ Doherty-sometime from 1989-1998, all hand sketches. Wrong interpretation until re-surveyed.
^ MacGregor- has this come before us before?
^ Freeman- no previous application regarding this cottage (refer to #06-45) , a little difficult if
under the statute of limitations.
^ Harrison-legally created but non-compliant structure.
^ Freeman- if the Board feels the structure can be legitimized with a Variance it never will be non-
conforming. Non-complying status will never make it legal.
^ Harrison-Question here is use.
^ Doherty-intent is not to change the use.
Open to Public Input
Not one spoke to this issue.
ZBA Minutes 1 1-15-07
-3-
Motion by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Second Brian Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0.
Further Thoughts
^ Harrison- cannot meet criteria 1- not by shape or topography.
^ MacGregor- same issues, really a shed, in the wrong location.
^ Jackson- I am sympathetic but echo Brian and Bruce, dealing with information from a previous
owner. The lot is no different from others in the neighborhood. There are rules to abide by.
^ Stewart- I agree, it does not meet criteria 1 or 2. Already 2 houses on that site-convenience
not a hardship.
^ Freeman-2"d criterion is also stretch.
^ Doherty- losing 2 bedrooms only used a couple of times a year.
^ Harrison- if used once or twice a year it is not a huge loss.
^ Freeman-use existing 3 bedroom house. What stage of construction is the front house?
^ Doherty-framed with roof
^ MacGregor-can make it a shed without coming back to ZBA.
Request by Mr. Doherty to WITHDRAW without prejudice.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to WITHDRAW this application without prejudice. Second by Bruce
MacGregor. VOTE 5-0-0.
07-30 Cheryl Kimberley, 162 Millstone Road, Map 28 Lot 41. The applicant is seeking a Special
Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16, Table 2, Note 14 to finish the basement for
accessory apartment usage.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, MacGregor, Kearney, McLellan, and Erikson.
Mr. Scott Murdock, contractor for this project was present with Ms. Kimberley.
The applicant would like to finish an in-law apartment in the basement of owner occupied home. It is
planned for 536 square feet. The home has a 4 bedroom septic system. This is to be used by Ms.
Kimberly's sisters.
Board Discussion
^ MacGregor-does this meet window formula?
^ Murdock-door s and windows meet proper egress.
^ Kearney-is there enough room for additional cars?
^ Kimberley- plenty of room, 2 driveways
ZBA Minutes 11-15-07
-4-
^ McLellan- There is space in the front as well.
^ Freeman- seems to be adequate parking area.
^ Erikson-do you understand the limited use as anon-rental?
^ Freeman-under Brewster Bylaw, note 14...not to exceed 600 s.f. Family member or healthcare
professional. Not with the property but the owner.
^ MacGregor- where is the backdoor from basement
^ Murdock-off the back, away from Millstone
Open to Public Input
No one spoke to this issue.
Motion to Close to Public Input made by Bruce MacGregor. Second by Robert McLellan. VOTE 5-0-0.
No further discussion.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to GRANT this Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-
16, Table 2, Note 14 to finish the basement for accessory apartment usage. Applies to owner not
property. Second by Paul Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0.
07-31 Robert 7. Ford, 487 Tubman Road, Map 26 Lot 57-1. The applicant is seeking a Special
Permit under MGL 40A and Brewster Bylaw 179-25 to demolish an existing studio and rebuild a 3
bedroom home to accommodate both dwellings.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Freeman, MacGregor, Harrison, Stewart and Kearney.
Mr. Ford presented a brief overview of his application.
There are two cottages on one lot. The rear cottage is to be torn down and replaced with a 3 bedroom
house with garage. The front cottage will be retained. These are rental properties.
Board Discussion
^ Freeman- when was the cottage last used?
^ Ford- until about a month ago. There is a new septic system.
^ MacGregor-meets setbacks?
^ Ford-yes
^ Harrison-what is the difference in lot coverage?
^ Ford-no exact figure but it is more.
^ Freeman- you will retain the front cottage, with the new house you will be increasing the total
number of bedrooms by 2.
ZBA Minutes 1 1-15-07
^ Harrison-I would like to know how much more s.f. coverage?
^ Stewart-at least 3 times the size.
^ Freeman-have you considered removing the front building as well?
^ Ford- no, both are rental income.
^ Freeman-lot laid out before 1960, old set backs apply
^ Stewart-this is a significant change (increase in use of property)
^ Freeman-it is pre-existing, non-conforming
^ MacGregor-isn't the standard that is more detrimental to the neighborhood.
^ Stewart-same footprint this applies, but here we are increasing substantially
-5-
Open to Public Input
No one spoke to this issue.
Motion made by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Paul Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0.
Thoughts
^ Kearney-difficult with the density of use on this property.
^ Harrison-scope of the project to the size of the lot is excessive percentage of lot coverage.
^ Stewart- 20.000 s.f. lot, 25% coverage (5,000 s.f. building) probably not exceed.
^ MacGregor-not more detrimental, bigger but within setbacks and septic OK-go for it.
^ Stewart- are both rental units?
^ Ford- yes, always have been rentals
^ Stewart-is there a driveway to the back house?
^ Ford-straight back, on the right side of the lot.
^ Freeman- I think there is too much use of this property; I would like one unit with total number
of bedrooms.
^ Harrison-if the new house was downsized -less excessive lot coverage.
^ MacGregor-this is the type of rental we need in Brewster. It exists now as 2 rental units, we
should keep this, and we need it.
^ Kearney-too big, possibly losing the garage would be more acceptable.
ZBA Minutes 1 1-I 5-07
-6-
^ Freeman-If we continue this application and ask the applicant for another proposal, not
exceeding 3 bedrooms. We might be satisfied if changes made. Or application can be
withdrawn.
^ Harrison-not opposed to 2 dwellings on the lot but 3 bedrooms with garage is too much-
suggest remove garage.
^ Kearney-if back to original s.f., new and old
^ Freeman-request for applicant; another revised drawing, site plan, floor plan and s.f. proposed
and old.
^ Ford-front building renovated in 2001, was 3 bedroom now 2.
Mr. Ford requested a CONTINUANCE until December 11, 2007 meeting.
Motion by Arthur Stewart to accept Continue case #07=31 until December 11, 2007. Second by Paul
Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0.
07-32 TBP Golf Trust, 232 South Orleans Road, Map 53 Lot 13-0. Applicant seeks Variances
under MGL 40A-10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 to construct 3 additional buildings for "work force
housing" on a single lot of 5.53 acres with 179.05 frontage.
Members hearing this case were Messrs. Freeman, Stewart, Jackson, McLellan and Kearney.
Attorney William Riley represented the client
Mr. Doug Pfeffer was present to represent the applicant
Mr. Riley gave a brief overview.
This is to provide workforce housing for golf course employees but not limited. One building is complete
and one under construction. Asking for a Variance for 2 additional dwellings. This property is 5.5 acres
with frontage of less than 180 feet. Unique because of lack of frontage. Proposed density will be 4 single
family homes.
Board Discussion
^ Stewart-there are two existing buildings with building permits, only one has an occupancy
permit. Proposed building within 15' setback.
^ Riley-Lot created in 1953 thus 15' setback allowed, 4th house meets setbacks
^ Stewart-can the 3~d house be moved 25' to south.
^ Riley- could be done if the Board requests.
^ Freeman-Victor waiting for documentation to verify before 1960
^ Riley-Title search in 1956, created in 1930's, (Hanley-Schofield Plan). Letter of 11-13-07.
^ Freeman-Victor is holding occupancy permit. Survey of entire property needed, assure that it
was created prior to 1960.
ZBA Minutes 11-15-07
-7-
^ Pheiffer-workforce housing is "single family"- one kitchen, one living area, 5 bedrooms and
baths, nothing below grade.
^ Freeman-Variance inadequate frontage discussed but Bylaw says 120,000 s.f. = 2 dwellings,
even 5 acres is 2 dwellings. In order to put 4 dwellings on a track for 2 dwelliings there might be
a discussion with the Planning Board on subdividing the lot.
^ Riley-frontage was our first thought.
^ Freeman- subdivision another rational, entitled to 2 dwellings by Bylaw.
^ Riley-no desire to develop the property, continue to use for housing.
^ Stewart- subdivision is ideal solution.
^ Freeman-any other approach o be discussed?
^ Riley- could do a 406, but don't want to go there.
^ Freeman-what is the hole? Is it going to be a pond?
^ Pheiffer-reservoir to water the golf course.
^ Freeman-appears that clearing for the pond extends into adjacent property.
^ Pheiffer-this has been discussed with the abutter. There will be fencing.
^ Kearney-the employee housing, what is the usage for how much of the year?
^ Riley- back house-year round, front house-use only one year round the others shut down to
conserve energy.
^ Kearney-concern regarding water/sewage usage, cuts down of only used ~/z year.
Open to Public Input
^ Rich Schaltegger-an abutter-not aware of 4 houses or pond, would like to look at plan.
Satisfied that they know what is going on.
Motion by Paul Kearney to Close to Public Input. Second by Phillip Jackson. VOTE: 5-0-0.
^ Freeman-consider within the context of a Variance is difficult
^ Riley-Variances are difficult;
1. Hardship- shape, unique with limited frontage for such a large piece.
2. Limit to 2 buildings constitutes a hardship
3. Not substantially detrimental-housing costs for working people = a benefit for the
community
4. property owner meets density on area.
Further Discussion
^ McLellan-except for the 15 foot setback, Ok with this.
ZBA Minutes 1 1-15-07
-8-
^ Freeman-How do you feel about #1 in the Variance criteria?
^ McLellan-they don't meet the criteria
^ Stewart-#1 is a problem, density all up front, ground water an issue. It doesn't meet Variance.
^ Freeman-long narrow lot, does that constitute a unique situation.
^ Jackson-there are a lot of long, thin, narrow lots in town.
^ Stewart-this comes up frequently.
^ Jackson-fine idea of the project but groundwater runoff is a point. Difficult for #1 -topography.
^ Kearney-Can not meet 15t criteria
^ Freeman-I agree
^ Riley-lot of long, thin lots. Relative to the zone located in. Shape is a question. Not aware of
other lots that size with that little frontage.
^ Stewart-this is confusing because we are questioning #1 not #2.
^ Jackson-relates to RM district, research needed.
^ Freeman-have you approached the Planning Board to create subdivision of the property to
provide a pan-handled lot?
^ Stewart-would allow more use of the property instead of overloading the front, this ought to be
pursued.
^ Kearney-I would encourage that.
Mr. Riley asked for a CONTINUANCE.
Motion made by Arthur Stewart to CONTINUE this case until December 11, 2007. Second by Paul
Kearney. VOTE: 5-0-0
Motion by Paul Kearney to adjourn. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE: 7-0-0
Res ully submitted,
%~9~
arilyn Moo erk
ZBA Minutes 11-15-07