HomeMy Public PortalAbout31 Russell Ave_PB Report_2012_0814TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Department of
Community Development and Planning
PLANNING BOARD
Administration Building
149 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Phone: 617-972-6417
Fax: 6I 7-972-6484
www watertown-ma.gov
PLANNING BOARD REPORT
Board Members:
John B. Hawes, Jr., Chairman
Linda Tuttle -Barletta
Jeffrey W. Brown
Fergal Brennock
Neal Corbett
On August 8, 2012 with four (4) members of the Planning Board (the Board) present, case
number ZBA-2012-18 SP was considered for a Special Permit to be heard by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on August 22, 2012. The Board submits the following report, as requested, to aid the
Zoning Board of Appeals in deciding the application before it.
CASE #:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Parcel ID #
ZONING DISTRICT:
PETITIONER & OWNER:
ZONING RELIEF SOUGHT:
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY:
DATE OF STAFF REPORT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DATE OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING:
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
DATE OF PLANNING BOARD REPORT:
DATE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
ZBA-2012-18 SP
31 Russell Ave, Watertown, MA
1103 18 0
S (Single Family) Zone
Carrie/David L Van Brunt, 31 Russell Av, Watertown
Special Permit §5.02(d) Home Occupation as defined in
§2.35 Home Occupation
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 1, 2012
Conditional Approval
August 8, 2012
Denial (Vote: 4-0)
August 14, 2012
Scheduled: August 22, 2012
Page 1 of 7
31 Russell Avenue August 14, 2012
ZBA 2012-18 SP Planning Board Report
I. PUBLIC NOTICE (M.G.L. c. 40A, §11)
A. Procedural Summary
Petition PB-2012-18 SP was heard by the Planning Board on August 8, 2012 with a vote to
recommend denial. The case is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on
August 22, 2012. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, sec.11 and the Watertown Zoning
Ordinance, notice was given as follows:
• Published in the newspaper of record (Watertown Tab & Press) on 8/3/2012 and 8/10/2012;
• Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on 7/25/2012; and,
• Mailed to Parties in Interest on 7/25/2012.
B. Legal Notice
"31 Russell Avenue — Special Permit -- Carrie L. VanBrunt herein requests the Zoning Board of
Appeals to grant a Special Permit in accordance with §2.35, Home Occupation, Zoning
Ordinance, so as to allow for a Pilates Studio in an existing detached garage. S-10 (Single
Family) Zoning District."
II. DESCRIPTION
View of house and driveway from street
A. Site Characteristics
Garage and parking area at rear of property
The subject property, located one-half block from the corner of Mt Auburn St. and Russell Ave.,
is 9,786 square feet with a 2.5 story gable roofed house and a 2 -car hip roofed garage. The
driveway and parking are located along the northerly side yard. There is a smaller fenced rear
yard with lawn and a play structure.
B. Surrounding Land Use
The site is within the S (Single -Family) Zoning District. Reflective of the underlying zoning, the
property is surrounded by a mix of single and two-family homes. Directly to the east, the zone
changes to SC (Single -Family Conversion) which has a mix of housing styles. To the north along
Russell Ave. there are many historic single-family homes and to the south along Mt Auburn
Page 2 of 7
31 Russell Avenue August 14, 2012
ZBA 2012-18 SP Planning Board Report
Street there is more of a mix of uses with larger apai luent buildings, historic homes, and small
offices. A historic commercial neighborhood business district is located at the end of the block to
the southwest along Mt. Auburn St.
C. Nature of the Request
The Petitioner proposes to convert an existing unfinished garage into a finished studio space to be
used for Pilates sessions with only minor changes to the exterior of the structure. The conversion
is allowed by right with a building permit, while the use requires a Special Permit for a Home
Occupation. The proposed use for private instruction would be limited to no more than two
clients at one time although the majority of the time there would only be a single client, with
proposed hours of operation no later than 8 PM.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were eight neighbors/abutters present at the Planning Board who testified and all but one
raised concerns about the proposed use. The testimony included: concerns about potential use of
on -street parking; traffic congestion from existing uses (including Church of the Good Sheppard
and the High School) in the neighborhood; the location and conversion of the garage/outbuilding;
existing cut -through traffic; how to monitor the use; the ability of others to ask for similar special
permit approvals; and, the appropriateness of evening and weekend use. There was also concerns
about the driveway and backing out along the long narrow drive without a turn -around. Four
letters were received raising concerns about the project and one letter was received in support.
IV. FINDINGS
&9.05 Conditions for approval of a Special Permit
1. Is the specific site an appropriate location for such a use?
Staff Finding - Met with conditions - The proposed use is allowed by special permit in this
Zoning District so long as it meets the requirements/criteria for Home Occupation as defined in
§2.35. The findings for the criteria are as follows:
a) Is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building (the use is limited in
hours and is in an existing accessory structure)
b) Does not change the essential residential character of the use with no exterior
alterations/buildings not customary with residential use (there will be an addition of a
door in the garage but it is customary to have a door and it will be required to face south
into the rear yard)
c) Is carried on solely by the residents of the dwelling except no more than two employees
may be allowed (will be limited to instruction by the resident/property owner)
d) Is no more than 25% of the total floor area of the dwelling
e) Is not visible from any other residential structure/with no outside storage of
equipment/materials (the use is within the structure and is not visible)
f) Does not produce offensive noise, odor, smoke, dust, heat, glare, excessive traffic, or
other objectionable effects (this project would not create any of these nuisances as
proposed)
g) With conditions, will not increase the average daily trips generated by the residence
(ADT for a single-family residence is 10 trips per day but different families would create
different actual trips. )
h) This use is not one of the specifically identified uses identified as not allowed (This use
Page 3 of 7
31 Russell Avenue August 14, 2012
ZBA 2012-18 SP Planning Board Report
is for single and two client sessions/trainings which would not be considered a group)
The proposal would remove two parking spaces within the garage for the conversion of the
accessory structure but there is room for at least two cars to be parked side by side in front of the
garage and for several more cars to be parked stacked along the remaining approximate 100 feet
of driveway. Additionally, there is parking on the street for two-hour increments and the house is
within a few hundred feet of a bus stop. The existing accessory structure, although non-
conforming regarding setback, would work well as an office/studio and has only minor external
modifications proposed.
The Board discussed that the parking and entrance would be visible from the neighboring yards
and houses. They thought those impacts could be lessened by tall vegetative screening and/or
fencing at the studio entrance/door into the rear yard and between the driveway and the
neighboring property to the north. The Board discussed limiting the evening hours and weekend
hours as one option for allowing a use like this. There was also some discussion about the
impacts of one versus two clients coming for a session and the differences in traffic impacts. One
suggestion was that there would be less impact if the use were limited to one client per session.
2. Will the use as developed adversely affect the neighborhood?
Staff Finding - Met with conditions/PB Finding - Not Met — Staff found that with conditions,
the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Currently, the proposed door is facing the
property line and should be relocated to the southern side of the structure to reduce impacts on the
neighboring property and to meet building code requirements. The driveway as indicated on the
plot plan will have ample space to accommodate any clients along the side and rear of the house.
The number of trips generated from the proposed use could potentially have adverse effects on
the neighborhood unless specific conditions limiting the number of clients/sessions are added to
the approval of the Special Permit. With single-family uses, the average trips per day is
approximately 10 (all trips including visits). The proposed use has requested 20-25 sessions over
6 days with one to two clients per session. This could generate 40-100 trips/week or an average
of 6 to 16 per day. These numbers depend on the mix of single or paired clients and the number
of clients who choose alternative means of transportation. Based on this analysis, the number of
sessions should be limited to reduce the timing of trips and the number of potential trips made per
day (Condition # 7).
The Board discussed that the driveway is very long with no turn around and there is little
screening along the driveway and the property to the north. The Board discussed that the hours of
operation were not appropriate and that weekend and evening hours should be reconsidered for
this use and location.
3. Will there be a nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians?
Staff Finding - Met with conditions/PB Finding - Not Met —As proposed, there should be no
nuisance or hazards to pedestrians walking on the sidewalk or vehicles passing by. The use is
within the structure and no noise or odors should be associated with the use. Vehicles arriving
and departing could increase the amount of noise and should be carefully managed so as not to
create a nuisance. There are no other indications of nuisances.
The Board discussed the lack of a turnaround in the driveway, the length of the driveway, and the
closeness of the garage to the property line. They had concerns about the layout and there was
discussion that it might be difficult to maneuver within the site for clients.
Page 4 of 7
31 Russell Avenue August 14, 2012
ZBA 2012-18 SP Planning Board Report
4. Are adequate and appropriate facilities provided for the proper operation of the proposed
use?
Staff Finding - Met/PB Finding - Not Met - The remodel of the interior of the structure as
proposed appears to be adequate for the operation of the accessory use. The door will need to be
relocated from the northern side yard property line to the interior side of the structure.
The Board discussed that there was no screening between the driveway and the adjoining
property and that the entrance to the studio would not be screened from the residence to the south.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff recommends Conditional Approval. Based on the information provided and the
additional testimony received, and based on the project as proposed, the Planning Board voted to
recommend Denial (vote 4-0 against) of the requested Special Permit as it does not meet the
criteria set forth in the Watertown Zoning Ordinance.
VI. CONDITIONS
The following conditions were recommended as part of the initial review for a conditional
approval.
#
Condition
Timeframe
for
Com liance
To be
Verified
b
1.
The Control Plans shall be:
1) Certified Plot Plan, 31 Russell Avenue, June, 27, 2012 by
Christopher Charlton, PLSContinental land Survey
2) Van Brunt Residence, Existing Garage Floor Plan, June 21,
2012 by Synnott Architects, Inc.
3) Van Brunt Residence Studio Floor Plans, June 21, 2012 by
Synnott Architects, Inc.
The plans shall be updated with the door relocated from the
north side to the south side of the structure.
BP,
Perpetual
ZEO/ISD
2.
Neither the Petitioner nor any present or future owner of any
interest in the project shall change or modify either the control
plans referenced in this decision, or the project itself, without
first filing a formal request with the DCD&P, Zoning
Enforcement Officer, and Building Inspector, for an opinion as
to whether or not such change or modification requires further
review from the Granting Authority. Minor modifications,
which are found to be consistent with the project approval
granted by the Granting Authority, may be considered and
approved by DCD&P Director.
CO
ZEO/ISD
3.
Upon application for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall
provide evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this
entire decision has been filed with the Registry of Deeds.
BP
ZEO
Page 5 of 7
31 Russell Avenue
ZBA 2012-18 SP
August 14, 2012
Planning Board Report
#
Condition
Timeframe
for
Compliance
To be
Verified
by
4.
A copy of the Building Permit with final approval signatures
from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the Zoning
Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project.
CO
ZEO
5.
The Petitioner shall comply with all other applicable local, state,
and federal requirements, ordinances, and statutes.
CO
ZEO/ISD
6.
In accordance with WZO §9.13, a special permit granted under
§9.04 shall lapse one year from the date of grant thereof if
substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for
good cause, or, in the case of a permit for construction, if the
construction has not begun by such date except for good cause,
or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law.
Perpetual
ZEO
7.
Specifically, the accessory use (Pilates Studio) shall:
• Have no employees/staff other than the
petitioner/property owner
• Have a maximum of 4 sessions in any one day with at
least a 15 minute break between sessions to ensure that
clients do not overlap, and no more than 20 sessions in
a week. Sessions shall have no more than two clients.
• The proposed schedule to be submitted for review with
any revision requiring review and approval by the ZEO,
including marketing materials for the classes.
• Only be allowed to operate: Monday -Friday 7 AM -8
PM and Sunday 8 AM -Noon
• There shall be a one year review to consider any
impacts on the neighborhood of the home occupation
• Any signage shall comply with the WZO and be applied
for through a separate sign application.
Perpetual
ZEO
8.
This permit shall expire upon abandonment of the use or when
the intent of the owner to discontinue the use is apparent, and/or
when the petitioner vacates the property.
Perpetual
ZEO
Page 6 of 7
0
210
a20 ft
#16 #20
#14
Th e dedu sha ven an this mile ere
prow en rar Irlrcrnlati anal ann
planning purp oses only . The
Town and it6 can6uttanie are not
rempansibit farthe rniause or
rnlsrepresenhatlon rat Me data.
j TONlEcts dirt'
Ph.rhtng Toone
Bri Idngs try C stegnry
Lardmak
PuizlicEkilding
111. Sdxal
Etildings
Open Weter
Pacels
Padds yith Orlhxe
(V rladrs
R OW
Properly Line
Zoning
0 Cluster R otiderrtisi - CR
0 Resid erliel-R.75
Reddertiel-R1.2
0 Industrid -11
0 Industrid -12
Indufirld -12
0 CF3 CFftra Business
�rnted 9uelnes -L9
El NeigiterhoedR usin me -NE
J Sinsi eFerri ly_ S10
jJ 5injsFerri ly-SB
0 sinyeFerri lyCorxension -s
TxaFisrniy-T
0 Op en Speceironservmcy -
0 Plead St corridor Did - P'
31 Russell Street
dS 8T-ZTOZ WIZ
2nu2AV TTassng -LE