The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2010-05-11 Minutes (2)r.~ ~-.t Date approved 06-08-10 ~~"' -~ Vote 4-0-1 , ~. TOWN OF BREWSTER `-'' i~"t ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ':"i Meeting Minutes May 11, 2010 Chairman Philip Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Brian Harrison, Paul Kearney, John Nixon, Patricia Eggers, and Sarah Kemp. Attending Audience Members: Sue Leven; Brewster Town Planner OLD BUSINESS Motion made by Arthur Stewart to ACCEPT the Minutes of April 14, 2010 as presented. Second made by Paul Kearney VOTE: 8-0-0 NEW BUSINESS 10-11 Richard F. Peterson, 30 Tower Hill Circle, Map 26 Lot 1066. The applicant seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-42.1-C(c) and (e) for a second dwelling unit above a detached garage. w w ~- w Members hearing this case were; Messrs. Arthur Stewart, John Nixon, Paul Kearney, Phillip Jackson and Brian Harrison. Richard Peterson and Robert Peterson were present Proposed 900 sq foot apartment above a garage Grandparents will live above the garage Board Discussion- s Stewart- consider a use Variance, CH zone -hard to justify with the rest of the area a different zone • Peterson- everything else RM zone • Stewart- built in mid 80's, if built today would not be allowed as a residential dwelling in CH • ]ackson- no Variance has been found in town records • Stewart-should be re-zoned, not our authority to change Bylaw • Leven- everyone thought it had been re-zoned, Zoning map still shows Yankee Drive subdivision is in RM zone but other parts of the road are not. • Harrison-hurdle is the zoning inconsistency • Nixon- we are discussing an affordable accessory unit • Peterson-original intent was affordable accessory, it can be added into the deed restriction (requirement), will not be a rental unit-family occupied • Nixon-Table 1, 3.1 is permitted in CH district (another error in Bylaws) • Stewart- if can't build house in this zone, how can you build an apartment? permitted by use • Leven-is an accessory commercial unit allowed-not in use table • Stewart-creating a hardship, assume this was created under a Variance • Leven-after a specific period of time-certain uses are assumed • Harrison- can't go after the structure after all this time ZBA Minutes OS-11-10 • Nixon- we can get around this, best answer use Table 1 as supposed to be using- As apermitted use Open to Public Input • Evelyn Peterson- built in1985, would like to keep the family in Brewster. Trying to include Affordable Housing, that is needed in Brewster. Please fix this. Motion by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Second by John Nixon VOTE: 5-0-0 Further Discussion • Harrison- this doesn't meet Variance criteria, not sure size of lot an issue? • Stewart- consider this an exceptional circumstance; the Town created this issue • Nixon- we should turn down the Variance because it is permitted under Table 1 • Kearney -I agree with Mr. Stewart, the problem was caused by the Town of Brewster • Leven-Affordable Accessory Unit is there, take the round about; deny Variance and consider this a permitted use. • ]ackson- the applicant has considered putting the adequate restrictions • Leven- meets criteria of Affordable Accessory unit • ]ackson-good for the Town to classify under affordable • Leven-will never count under 10%- lottery etc. rules • Peterson-at some point when and if the family leaves, does it count? • Leven-no, immediate family member, meets general conditions • Stewart -42.1,81, affordable housing unit, is use restricted. Move along take that approach. This is a Town error. Table 1 3.lmakes it a permitted use in CH zone. House must have been built under a Variance, records lost. • ]ackson- suggests we deny Variance; imply a permitted use because of Table 1. • Harrison- fine that way • Stewart- OK with this • Leven-allow applicant to Withdraw Variance in case they must come back. • Nixon-OK with this • Kearney- OK Applicant request a withdrawal the Variance base on fact that the AAU is an approved use Motion by Arthur Stewart to Withdraw Variance 10-11 based on fact that the AAU is an approved use. Second by Brian Harrison Vote: 5-0-0 • Leven-Look upon as an "at risk" building permit 10-09 Kinlin Grover Real Estate on behalf of Newcomb Knolls, LLC, Abbey Road, Map 36 Lot 5-1 thru 5-16. The applicant seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179- 20.5-E (2) for sign size limitation and placement. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Harrison, Kearney, Erikson, Ms. Eggers and Kemp. John Krenan from Instant Sion Jim VanNess from Kinlin Grover Real Estate A non-conforming sign was installed prior to Kinlin Grover taking over sales ZBA Minutes OS-11-10 This has been removed Met with the Zoning Agent Historic District has been approved Sign conforms to size and height not placement Board Discussion- • Eggers-does this land belongs to Mr. Merchant, part of subdivision. • Kemp-Bylaw also says no "for Sale" signs • Van Ness-1 sign per lot allowed by town- 16 lots • Kemp- under subdivision signs- no "for sale" signs on individual lots (179-20.5 e2) if there is a subdivision sign, either or not both • Leven-subdivision sign with available lots is allowed • Kemp-existing sign varies in what way • Krenan-too high, too big • Kemp- what is the purpose of the sign? • Van Ness-marketing, availability of lots, all lots under contract with Kinlin Grover Open to Public Input • Lauren Wall- the sign is on the Open Space of area. No sign approvals. There are signs on all the lots. Is the new sign is HDC approved? I would like to see one sign and remove the individual signs • Van Ness- Kinlin Grover has tried very hard to keep to the town sign code, we will place signs where allowed. This property, when developed, will add value to the area. • Leven-cluster subdivision was allowed Motion by Patricia Eggers to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison VOTE: 5-0-0 Further Discussion • Kearney-why a Variance with sign? • Leven-doesn't comply to be adjusted • Eggers-same problem, how does it meet #1 • Kemp-not easily visible from adjoining way, don't always make sense. Don't see meeting all four criteria, each applicable • Erikson-doesn't make sense-Bylaw written poorly, purpose for development sales • Harrison-nothing under criteria #1, baffled by the language • Stewart-Victor's letter" recognizes this, define "easily visible" • Kearney-signs meet all criteria • Kemp-speculate why it was written; commercial endeavor in a residential area. Protecting the quality of the neighborhood. • Nixon-one type or the other • Leven-doesn't make sense, why they did this? Will check if this is as presented in Warrant. • 7ackson-could sign be moved back? • Van Ness-all sub divisions have had a signs similar to this in the past. • Kearney- the original sign has created bad will, it has been scaled back until the new one approved. • Jackson-sign has to be seen, meet spirit by moving it back slightly • Van Ness -can go behind the low stone wall • Harrison-that location seems OK • Kearney-will there be a sign after sold/sub division? • Van Ness-a subdivision sign, hand carved • Harrison-limited to 12 months, or extension. Make a finding that the location of the sign, not easily visible from the abutting way, be allowed by right. ZBA Minutes OS-11-10 • Kearney-allowed as right • Leven-have the applicant withdraw Variance, written record as to why this goes this way Motion made by Brian Harrison that the Board make a finding that the location of the sign (behind the stone wall), not easily visible from the abutting way, be allowed by right. Second by Patricia Eggers Vote: 5-0-0 Applicant requests withdrawal of Variance Motion by Leslie Erikson to withdraw Variance application 10-09. Second by Patricia Eggers Vote: 5-0-0 10-10 Clinton Young, 13 Consodine Road, Map 26 Lot 2-1. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-16. Table 2 and 179-42.1 C to build a barn with a second dwelling as an Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit (AADU). Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Harrison, Nixon, Kearney, and Erikson Clinton Young son of Paul Young was present as applicant He wishes to build a barn for storage and to live upstairs Deed restriction on this property by covenant, does not fall within the purview of ZBA The developer of property was not available at this point to discuss the actual covenant. Board Discussion- Stewart-hand drawn plans not to be used. Plans titled Al by Thomas Moore Design was presented, need a site plan. How will you access this barn? Where will you park cars? • Erikson-private issues with the restrictive covenant • Harrison-you will need a second egress from living unit. • Young- we must go to HDC, this was the first step prior to involving design and site plans. • Stewart-have you discussed with Victor Staley these plans? • Nixon-it might be worthwhile to have restrictive covenant taken care of before anything else. Open to Public Input Tom Borose- in favor of "keeping in family" Leven- deed restrictions explained well, Town has no involvement Motion by John Nixon to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison VOTE: 5-0-0 Further Discussion • Kearney-no problems • Nixon-need an as built • Stewart-affordable accessory- for it • Erikson-affordable-family-good • Harrison-for it Motion by Arthur Stewart to GRANT Special Permit as written; with the condition; submit documentation (affordable housing), professional site plan and final building plans to be submitted. Second by Paul Kearney ZBA Minutes OS-11-10 4 Vote: 5-0-0 Motion made by Brian Harrison to adjourn meeting Second by PE VOTE: 8-0-0 Respectfully submitted, Mak-iyn Mooers, Cle ZBA Minutes OS-11-10