Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2008-10-14 MinutesDate approved 11-13-08 Vote 9-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes October 14, 2008 Chairman Philip Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Robert McLellan, Paul Kearney, Leslie Erikson, Bruce MacGregor, Patricia Eggers and John Nixon. Member missing; Brian Harrison. OLD BUSINESS • Motion made by Robert McLellan to ACCEPT the Minutes of September 9, 2008 as presented. Second made by John Nixon. VOTE 6-0-0. NEW BUSINESS 08-26 Nancy L. Wilson, 117 Sturbridge Way, Map 37 Lot 78. The applicant seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2 to allow a shed within 5 feet of the property line. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Nixon, Erikson, Kearney, McLellan and Jackson. Ms. Wilson was asked to give a brief overview. The house is located on a pond with a sloped backyard. It was difficult to find a place for the shed. Pine Harbor installed the shed in winter 2007, using 4.5 foot sonar tubes. The original plot plan showed the house in the middle of the property. After receiving a letter from the Zoning Agent it was discovered there was a 6 foot difference in the lot line. The installer is taking no responsibility for the placement of the shed. To move the shed would be very expensive as well as almost impossible placement except in the front yard. Damage to the septic system as well as the irrigation system may occur. I have spent many hours with the Zoning Agent in this discussion. QUESTIONS • Jackson-Mr. Staley made you aware of the 10' setback. • Wilson- I used an erroneous layout. • Jackson-the shed is close to the street than the plane of the house. • Wilson-to keep it out of the 100' barrier for Conservation. Many plantings around the shed to beautify the area. • McLellan-there is no other place to put the shed on the property. • Nixon-was there a Cons Com filing? • Wilson-just discussion, to keep out of the 100' line. • Erikson- should be 10' setback. • Stewart- under 120 s.f. is 10 feet over that has regular setbacks. • Kearney-OK with this. Open to Public Input • No one spoke to the issue • No correspondence received Motion by Paul Kearney to Close to Public Input. Second by Robert McLellan VOTE: 5-0-0 ZBA Minutes ]0-14-08 WRC FURTHER DISCUSSION • Erikson- No issues, pretty well hidden • Kearney-No problem, can we meet the 4 conditions of a Variance? • Nixon-nice job setting the shed, no other place to set it. Unfortunate miscalculation. Of the 4 criteria; certainly the first 2 are met-very costly to move • McLellan-no problem under the conditions. • 7ackson-unique topography in the back, septic in the front. • McLellan-I am in favor. • 7ackson-difficult to get aVariance-biggest problem is usually the topography but not in this case. Hate to see the rules disregarded but to rectify is costly and hard to find a spot. Everyone seems in overall agreement. Motion by John Nixon to GRANT a Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2 to allow a shed to remain within 5 feet of the property line. The four (4) requirements of the Variance have been met. Second by Robert McLellan VOTE: 5-0-0 08-27 Sally Fine, 92 Six Penny Lane, Map 19 Lot 18. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25-B for extension to apre-existing nonconforming structure. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, MacGregor, Nixon, Kearney and Jackson. Ms. Fine was asked to give a brief overview of her project. The is a cottage being converted to year round. It has 2 bedrooms and will remain 2 bedrooms. I would kite to expand the footprint forward and upward. This would provide more light and more room. There will be a new heating system. The Board of Health as inspected the septic and it passed as is. QUESTIONS • Stewart-do you under stand Conservancy soils? • Fine-yes, not within 100' of the wetland. • Stewart-do you intend to expand in the future? • Fine-no, just the loft. • Stewart-you have a crawl space now, addition means significant excavation. • Fine-the cottage is on cement blocks, new area will be a poured foundation, same level as crawl space. • MacGregor-this expansion is toward Six Penny Lane. Is it a two-story house now? • Fine-no, extension forward and upward. • Nixon-two issues; one-Cons Com feels the increase in use increases the threat to groundwater, two- Conservancy soils and hard to determine, have you had a soils engineer test this? • Fine-no, but that can be done. • Kearney-Cons Com asks 100' buffer zone • Art-you are significantly outside the 100' zone. This is well defined by Cons Com; Amostown and Walpole soils are possible. We don't know until test holes are done. Did you consider building on the same footprint rather than excavate. • Fine-HDC said to retain the roof line, same pitch. Open to Public Input • No one spoke to the issue • No correspondence received Motion by John Nixon to Close to Public Input. Second by Arthur Stewart VOTE: 5-0-0 ZBA Minutes 10-14-08 WRC FURTHER DISCUSSION • MacGregor-no reason not to approve, 8' is not a great expansion. • Stewart-the subject is Conservancy soils. That is pre-existing to protect the groundwater. Excavation will be needed for this project and possible test boring. • MacGregor- not significantly more than what has already been done. It is not "substantially more detrimental", same soils situation just new foundation. • Nixon- this is difficult to tell where it falls. • Stewart-we are the only Town on the Cape with this Bylaw. • Nixon- the soil has been disturbed with the original construction. Roof line is little higher. His will look nice in this neighborhood. Can we limit the excavation? • Kearney- I don't see any problem; the house across the street was approved. Soils not a major issue here. • Jackson-I recommend two things; 1) test borings and 2) minimize soil disturbance. • Fine-what about building on a slab? • Stewart-not structurally sound for second floor. • Eggers-if soil tests were done, would it show detrimental effects to the ground water. • MacGregor-no more bedrooms are to be added. • Kearney-may be helpful to place on piers rather that a poured foundation. Plan A2 looks like footings and blocks, not poured. This could reduce the amount of excavation. • Stewart-just in new section. • Jackson-if the Board wants to see this we must clarify it. • Stewart-just minimize the excavation Motion made by Arthur Stewart to GRANT a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-25-B for extension to apre-existing nonconforming structure with the condition that the contractor minimize the amount of excavation to what is only necessary. Second by John Nixon VOTE: 5-0-0 08-28 Jeffrey Bornemeier, 2655 Main Street (#16 Foster Square), Map 15 Lot 107. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2, Definition of Restaurant, Limited Service and 179-11, Table 1 (Retail and Service), Section 3.1 to remove seats to be considered a fully take-out restaurant. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Nixon, Erikson, Kearney, McLellan and Ms. Eggers. Jeffrey Bornemeier is the owner and proprietor of Thai Orchid in Foster Square. He was asked to give an overview. Originally this was deemed an 8 seat restaurant but has only been operated as a take-out. There are places to sit and wait but no service at the tables. They do not meet the 8 seat designation as they do not have the larger bathroom that was required. We want to remove the seating designation and keep it as it has been operating. No bathroom modifications will be needed. There will be no impact on the neighborhood. QUESTIONS • Nixon-the only change will be to take-out the tables. Will the bathroom change? • Bornemeier-if 8 seats are kept the bathroom will have to be expanded. • Kearney- OK, with me. • Erikson- OK, with me. • Eggers-OK, with me. • McLellan-tables will go but leave the chairs or benches. ZBA Minutes 10-14-08 WRC Open to Public Input • No one spoke to the issue • No correspondence received Motion by Patricia Eggers to Close to Public Input. Second by Robert McLellan VOTE: 5-0-0 FURTHER DISCUSSION • Eggers- fine • McLellan- no problem • Nixon- no problem • Kearney- no problem • Erikson- no problem Motion made by Paul Kearney to GRANT a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-2, Definition of Restaurant, Limited Service and 179-11, Table 1 (Retail and Service), Section 3.1 to remove tables to be considered a fully take-out restaurant; with chairs to remain for takeout waiting only. Second by Patricia Eggers. VOTE: 5-0-0 08-29 Roberta LaFleur, 188 Millstone Road, Map 28 Lot 36. The applicant seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-9 an Brewster Bylaw 179-40.2, Section E to construct a 3.7 wind turbine with a 45' mono-pole tower on an undersized lot. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, MacGregor, Nixon, Jackson and Ms. Eggers. Mr. Thomas Mezyren (contractor) and Ms. Roberta LaFleur were present. Mr. Mezyren was asked to give an overview. Ms. LaFleur is interested in circumventing the high cost of energy. According to the new Town Bylaw, small scale wind turbine must have a minimum of 40,000 s.f.. This lot is 27,000 s.f.. The wind turbine planned is 45' high with the fall zone completely within the property. This is a Skystream3.7, 1.9 k.w.. It must be above the tree line to be in clear air flow. QUESTIONS • Nixon-have you looked into restricted habitat?-contact Natural Heritage + Endangered Species. • Meryren-we will contact Conservation Commission. • Nixon-Bylaw mentions ambient sound level. • Mezyren-the sound is no more than a breeze through the trees. Not like an airplane propeller. Will not create excessive noise. • Nixon-requirement is no more than 10 decibels above ambient noise level at the lot line. • Meryren-we have to Hind the level at lot line. • Nixon-this needs to be addressed. Have you installed this before? • Meryren-No, this is my first wind turbine project. I have a background in civil engineering. • Stewart-will this pay for itself over time? • Meryren-data from Chatham Airport make it viable. Should produce as advertised. • Eggers-what are "wind rows" • Mezyren-show the prevailing winds. • Eggers-do they indicate the height? • Mezyren-20' above the tree line is clean air. • MacGregor-there are "wind paths" • Meryren-FAA not a concern. • 7ackson-curious about maintenance. There is a fair amount of circuitry involved. • Meryren-can be hooked into a battery system or main power grid or combination. ZBA Minutes 10-14-08 WRC 4 Jackson-at certain times when combined with main grid, can there be noise spikes. Maintenance is necessary. What is needed for this system? Mezyren-Nstar hooks it into the grid. Credit to the applicant. ~~Green credits" for carbon footprint. It is inspected and approved by Nstar, meter keeps record. Jackson- they may come out and inspect periodically but not maintain. Open to Public Input • Eleanor Chipman-appreciate your need to conserve but the tower will be huge. Concerned about the noise level, high now with the generator going on and off. Has the Blueberry Hill Association been notified as the propeller will face them. • Arnie Eckstrom -I do computer work from home and am worried about power surges. My whole business is based on the use of the computer. We are higher than this property, there are numerous trees higher and Blueberry Hill is higher. 45 feet is quite high on an undersized lot. Mr. Eckstrom read a letter that he had sent to the ZBA (not received at this date) that will be added to the file. • Bob Richards- I agree with what they want to do. I have been investigating wind power for some time and the noise level is minimal. No one knows what ambient noise level is. New turbines are not noisy. Switch AC to DC. We need other forms of energy. If we allow the "not in my back yard", we are never going to solve problems. Someone has to be first. • Arnie Eckstrom-one turbine won't solve the problem • Eleanor Chipman- then why aren't we developing on the Sound. • Bob Richards- eventually it will help. The Town felt it was worth it to adopt the Bylaw. As long as the fall zone is within the property, I am OK with this. • Roberta LaFleur-very concerned with the environment and conservation of our resources. Someone has to be first. Help others make the decision. The Generator goes off once a week for a couple of minutes for a test. • Eleanor Chipman- prefer to see the Town do wind power on town property not dotted around neighborhoods. • Arnie Eckstrom-do we need this thrust upon abutters? • Bob Richards- same as cell phones, I don't have a cell phone but there are cell towers everywhere. This is clean energy. Motion by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Second by Robert McLellan VOTE: 5-0-0 FURTHER DISCUSSION • Stewart- This a Variance request; 1) doe not meet the first criteria, 2) not a substantial hardship, 3) not without substantial detriment 4) intent-reason 40,000 s.f. lot size was established in the Bylaw. This doesn't fit the Variance requirement. • Nixon-I feel the same-not meeting requirements. I commend the applicant but 40,000 s.f. is the minimum. We need to be careful in granting a deviation from the Bylaw. Must meet all 4 criteria. If granted, it can open a can of worms for smaller lots. • MacGregor- still early in this. Many lots are 40,000 s.f. or better. If it works, people will jump on it and we will get used to them around. The criteria must be followed. Everything is intrusive when first presented but you get used to it. • Eggers- Variance criteria are not all met. The Town has taken the first step with the Bylaw. Need work on sound decibel limits. • Jackson- I agree with the the statements above, Variance criteria not met. ZBA Minutes 10-14-08 WRC Motion by Arthur Stewart to DENY the Variance Variance under MGL 40A-9 an Brewster Bylaw 179-40.2, Section E to construct a 3.7 wind turbine with a 45' mono-pole tower on an undersized lot, Variance conditions were not met. Second by Patricia Eggers VOTE: 5-0-0 Eggers DENY Jackson DENY Nixon DENY MacGregor DENY Stewart DENY OLD BUSINESS • Case 06-20, Six Penny Lane- Discussion regarding letter from Victor Staley. Art Stewart will look at application and report back to the Board next meeting. • Draft-Proposed Fee Structure revision for Comprehensive Permits (406). Board members will review and we will discuss next meeting. Motion by Patricia Eggers to adjourn Second by Paul Kearney VOTE: 7-0-0 Respectfully su Mooers, -.., 0 ~:; "_~ a. ZBA Minutes ]0-14-08 WRC