Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2008-08-12 Minutes,- Date approved 09-09-08 ~ S ~~ Vote 7-0-1 TOWN OF BREWSTERQ~ SEP ~ 1 ('`1 ~ ~13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes August 12, 2008 Chairman Philip Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Robert McLellan, Brian Harrison, John Nixon, Patricia Eggers and Leslie Erikson. Members missing; Paul Kearney and Bruce MacGregor. OLD BUSINESS • Motion made by Arthur Stewart to ACCEPT the Minutes of July 8, 2008 as presented. Second made by Patricia Eggers. VOTE 5-2-0. NEW BUSINESS 08-21 Robert A. Harrington and Eugenia P. Harrington, 40 Pine Bay Lane, Map 1 Lot 13-1. The applicant seeks an amendment to ZBA Variance 01-44 under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179 -35 B(1), Table 2, Note 2 to allow a cottage to remain as a bunkhouse or similar structure (with kitchen facilities removed) as accessory to a new single-family home. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Erikson, Nixon, McLellan and Harrison. Attorney Roger O'Day represented the applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Harrington were present. Applicant seeking an amendment to ZBA Variance 01-44 to be allowed to keep the original cottage. In 2001 the property was divided into a cluster sub-division approved by the Planning Board. Originally there were 4 cottages on one lot. It was divided into 3 lots for three families. According to the Variance, the original dwellings were to be demolished when a new house was built. Planning Board granted the cluster of 4.5 acres with conditions (open space etc). When building permit was applied for for a single family home by the Harington's, the Building Inspector suggested they keep the old cottage as a "bunk house". Overall subdivision plan has unusual topographical features and the criteria of the Variance has setnot changed since the 2001 application (attached to the 2008 application). QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD • Nixon-if going from 2 bedrooms to 4 does the septic meet those requirements? • Harrington-4 bedroom septic was installed when the land was divided. It has been checked and passed by Board of Health. • Eugenia Harrington-each building has 2 bedrooms • Nixon-#5 of Victor Staley letter mentions "attached boathouse". • O'Day-not on the Harrington's property. ZBA Minutes 08-]2-08 • Stewart-have other houses been built? • O'Day- one lot has an existing cottage another has been removed and a home built • Stewart-was the Harrington home going to be just 2-bedroom upstairs? Setbacks for the original cottage are not listed (frontage is about 17' and side about 15'). • O'Day-set backs are for a cluster sub-division. • Stewart- thought it should meet all current setbacks. House does but the cottage does not. • O'Day-Planning Board approved the cottage in place. • Robert Harrington-2002 approved with setbacks for the cottage, • Stewart-when the Variance was issued it changed the setbacks from current to 2002. Benefit to have the land preserved and remove the cottage. • Erikson-August 7, 2001-original agreement was to reduce from 4 buildings to 3. What is the square footage of the cottage? • Harrington-about 700 s.f. Open to Public Input • Henry + Nancy Fuller-owner of one lot-in favor of this application. • Eugenia Harrington-if we could keep this building guest could stay but "not be underfoot". Motion by Robert McLellan to Close to Public Input. Second by John Nixon. VOTE: 5-0-0. Further Thoughts • Erikson-basic idea is fine, works well. Looking at the property it is a little overpowering with the size of the new home. • Harrison-mixed feelings, we issued the Variance-how does accessory structure fit in. • Nixon-other dwellings not mentioned in previous decision. Would the "bunk house" have to meet current setbacks-unless grandfathered? • Harrison-not in front of us for setbacks just amendment to previous Variance. • Stewart-I don't agree because as an amendment to the Variance-one building per lot. Lot is too small for this additional building. Not a hardship, more of a convenience than a hardship. Does not satisfy Variance criteria. • McLellan-density doesn't bother me, but it was to be torn down by the previous application. • Eggers-if when they planned for the new dwelling; they had attached that building as one unit would it have been approved? • 7ackson-we don't know, no such plan presented. • McLellan-town would probably give permission to attach, septic is for 4 bedrooms • Stewart-then there would be setback issues • Nixon- it would have been denied for setbacks • Harrison-setbacks are not in front of us tonight. Area only. Second dwelling as it relates to cluster sub-division. • 7ackson- granted because less than 10 acres. • Harrison- not asking for setback relief • Nixon- what is Victor asking for; letter dated 2-14-08 number 4? • Erikson-could the dwelling be modified to meet setback issues? The building is of substantial size. • Harrison- accessory structure applied for by right. • Nixon- no mention of accessory buildings when agreed on 3 lots/3 buildings. • O'Day- RM zone, cluster sub-division, setbacks reduced by half. • Stewart- not within 20 feet for frontage. ZBA Minutes 08-12-08 _2 _ • O'Day- frontage from the road, Pine Bay Lane sub-division • Stewart- original said to demolish 4 existing and build one per lot. • O'Day- Planning Board approval-no mandate to take down. • Erikson-7-7-01 ~~reduce 4 to 3" for public good • O'Day- not a dwelling is an accessory building. • Harrison- does cluster development allow accessory dwellings? Is habitable space a legitimate accessory structure? • O'Day- Victor Staley made it a condition. • Harrison- if allowed as a matter of right why are you here? • O'Day- Mr. Staley's request. • Harrison- as a use Variance- accessory structures are allowed, habitable space is a stretch-more use rather than dimensional. • Nixon- back to comments about setbacks; reduce by half. These figures meet requirements of various setbacks. • Harrison- only issue is area. • Stewart- intent of Variance was to remove 4, rebuild 1 per lot. Intent is being changed. Proposal was 1) sub-divide properly 2) demolish 4 units 3) 3 new homes. • Nixon- doesn't meet conditions of Variance. • Stewart- change of Variance must go through the 4 steps of a Variance again. Specifically said'~demolish" • Erikson- if approved this sets a precedent for the 3~d lot. • Harrison-without further information, I would vote against. • McLellan-this is unique • 7ackson-might want to think about this, further discussion with Victor-clarify his thoughts. Mr. O'Day requests a CONTINUANCE until September 9, 2008 to further define the issues more clearly. MOTION by Arthur Stewart to CONTINUE until September 9, 2008. Second by John Nixon VOTE: 5-0-0 Motion by Patricia Eggers to adjourn Regular session Second by Brian Harrison VOTE 7-0-0 ZBA Minutes 08-12-08 - 3 -