Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - ZBoA - 01/05/2015 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5, 2015 Members Present: S. Woodworth Chittick, Chairman Peter Goedecke Charles Higginson Benjamin Lacy David McMorris Jennifer Schultz Others Present: Jennifer Brennan Oram,Assistant Clerk, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting held in the Board of Selectmen's Meeting room,Town Hall, Cohasset, MA. Chairman S. Woodworth Chittick called the meeting to order at 7:3013M. Board Business Minutes—After extensive edits, Chairman Chittick moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 2014 as amended. Mr. David McMorris seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Next Meeting Date—The Board agreed that the next meeting of the Board would be on February 2, 2015. Mr. Peter Goedecke will not be present. HEARINGS APPEAL—Filed by Attorney Philip B. Posner, on behalf of his clients,Jason and Carolyn Soules,of the Building Inspector's denial of enforcement action at 392 Jerusalem Road (landowner David F. Crowley- Buck,Trustee 392 Jerusalem Road). File#14.08.22. Chairman Chittick stated that this hearing has been continued for a few months in the hopes that a settlement would be reached. It was not. Attorney Amanda B. Carozza of Mintz Levin addressed the Board. She and her firm are the new counsel for Jason and Carolyn Soules. Attorney Corozza reviewed her supplemental brief filed with the Board on December 30t". She stated that the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs.Vanderweil of 390 Jerusalem Road have also submitted a letter of support for the Soules. They have the same concerns regarding the lights. The Soules are concerned about the several lamp posts that are located along the 150' driveway easement they have with Mrs. Crowley. The lights in question are all approximately 8 feet high (with the post and the light); 5 are within the shared driveway easement. The other issue is the brightness of the lights which Attorney Carozza feels is in violation of the Town's light radiation bylaws. She stated that Building Inspector, Robert Egan, opined that these light posts fell under the exemption in the bylaw of structures allowed within the setback(mail boxes, lights etc.). She does not agree and feels they are structures per the definition of the Town's Bylaws. The allowed structures are specific. She then distributed the following cases to the Board: Globe Newspapers &others vs. Beach Hill Architectural Commission, Kitras v. Eccher, Marhefka v. Zoning Board of Appeals and Myles Hirsch v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury. Attorney Carozza reviewed the ZBA—1.5.15-JBO 1 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5, 2015 cases. It is her opinion that these are structures by the Town's definition and she feels that they are spite lights and they should be removed. Chairman Chittick asked how she could determine they are spite lights. She stated that they were not put in until 2011 when there was a dispute between Mrs. Crowley and the Vanderweils. Mr. Lacy stated he wanted to know about the previous lights. Mr.Jason Soules stated that there were no lamp posts at the end near Jerusalem Road, but there were four at the top of the hill. Attorney Carozza stated that the new posts that have been put in are much more substantial. She also feels §§4.3 and 4.3.7 addresses lighting issues relative to this appeal. It is her opinion that these lights violate these bylaws as they are very bright and shine into homes. There was then discussion regarding what enforcement the Board is being asked to for. Mr. David McMorris stated that they are being asked to see if the Town's Zoning Bylaws apply and if these are deemed to be structures, it would be up to the owner to replace them with something that complies. Attorney Jeffrey DeLisi addressed the Board on behalf of his clients,the Crowley family. He asked to address factual allegations. He stated that the lights are not 150 watt lights as stated. These lights call for a 75 watt maximum, but they are currently using 40 watt bulbs. The lights were replaced in 1984 and those lights were 60 watts. The granite posts were installed prior to the Soules closing on their property. He does not agree with Attorney Carozza's opinion that these lights are structures. He stated the posts are made of granite only. Mr. McMorris pointed out that there is also wire and glass. Attorney DeLisi stated that this would put the light under a utility pole which are separately defined. In regard to the poles height being 8',the only defined height requirement is for a fence (6 feet). Also, if they are deemed structures, and pre-existing nonconforming structure applies, would there be a statute of limitations? Attorney DeLisi then filed a letter of support from Melissa Brown of 32 Linden Drive. Landowner,Janice Crowley,then addressed the Board. She stated that she has been in Town for 30 years and wished to address some misconceptions. She stated that the driveway is not a common driveway, but there are easements for the Soules and the Vanderweils to pass over her property. The lights were replaced in 1984, but the material used didn't last near salt water, so in 2011 she installed the granite poles. The lights installed on top are very popular,they are often referred to "onion" lights. Ms. Crowley then reviewed large poster boards with photos of lights around town which she also submitted to the Board in the form of an 8% by 11 packet. Chairman Chittick opened the comments to the audience. Mr. Ronald Hobson of 32 Linden Drive stated that Ms. Crowley was a good person and he took umbrage with people talking poorly about her. Mr. Glenn Ordway of 6 Deep Run stated that he did think the lights were too bright and questioned if they were 40 watts. Attorney Carozza rebutted and stated that the driveway is in fact a common driveway as it is shared between three people. The granite poles were installed in 2011, so there is no statute of limitations and regarding the photos from Ms. Crowley, she said 8 poles are very different than 1 pole. Attorney DeLisi clarified that the granite poles are 8 feet prior to being put into the ground and the driveway is 300' in length. The Board discussed the hearing and agreed that they would like to go out and look at the property again. Chairman Chittick moved to continue the hearing. Mr. Lacy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. ZBA—1.5.15-JBO 2 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5, 2015 SPECIAL PERMIT under§8 and an APPEAL—Filed by Attorney Charles Humphreys on behalf of his client,Gerd Ordelheide,Trustee,Sarro Realty Trust d/b/a Red Lion Inn, of the Building Inspector's decision dated November 13, 2014,ordering the cease and desist of outside weddings at 71-85 South Main Street. §§8 and 12.2.4. File#141.02.08. Attorney Humphreys addressed the Board on behalf of his client,the Red Lion Inn. Chairman Chittick pointed out that the applicant had filed for a Special Permit, as well as an Appeal. He stated that the Zoning Board is no longer the Special Permit granting authority for the Village. Attorney Humphreys agreed to waive the §8 Special Permit request and will send a confirmation in writing. They will only focus on the appeal. Attorney Humphreys then reviewed the background for the Board. He explained that the issue of outdoor weddings came up in 2013 and a public hearing was held before the Board of Selectmen. At the time of the hearing he argued that a wedding ceremony was not entertainment. The complaint was dismissed. A year later they received a letter from the Building Inspector. He stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Board's 2000 decision that prohibits outside weddings. Chairman Chittick stated that the permit did not deal with outside issues. Attorney Humphreys stated that of the 120 weddings held at the Red Lion last year, 20 of them requested to have ceremonies outside; 75%of weddings were held by clergy. Attorney Humphreys then cited that under the table of uses, it states that a religious use is permitted as a matter of right. There is no prohibition on the use and therefore they are entitled as a matter of right. Chairman Chittick asked Attorney Humphreys if he thought the basic premise was that if a bylaw is silent on the use then the use is considered not permitted? There was then an extended conversation about weddings and what is allowed in residential v. commercial. Chairman Chittick stated that the 2000 decision spoke of the function areas and things within the walls and was silent on anything outside. It was a narrow decision and the Board needs to uphold that decision. He feels the Applicant needs to apply for Special Permit relief. Attorney Humphreys does not feel they need relief because he feels they are allowed to have outside wedding as a matter of right. Chairman Chittick stated that the Board would need to modify its 2000 permit, but that is now under the purview of the Planning Board. Attorney Mark S. Bourbeau addressed the Board on behalf of his clients, Rowena and Michael Karp of 91 South Main Street. He stated that he agreed with the Board that if there is a need for a change,the change would need to be with the Planning Board. He does not agree with Attorney Humphrey's religious argument as weddings are an act of the State. He added that the original Special Permit was granted to extend a nonconforming use and it was silent on wedding ceremonies. It did address the noise and that noise was to remain inside the function hall. He feels that if the Red Lion Inn wants to intensify its use and go outside the hall for weddings,they can go to the Planning Board and the Planning Board can set additional conditions. Attorney Humphreys rebutted and stated outside weddings are not an intensification as those attending the weddings are already at the wedding inside the function hall. ZBA—1.5.15-JBO 3 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5, 2015 Chairman Chittick asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Mr. Gerd Ordelheide, owner of the Red Lion Inn, addressed the Board. He said that when he purchased the property it was a dump and then he invested a substantial amount of money into it. The only way he can make money is by having weddings. They are only doing 15 ceremonies outside and these are the same weddings that are already inside. Mr. Michael Karp stated that when the original hearing process was going on before the Board back in 1998 and 1999, he and his wife expressed that they were petrified about any outside functions. He stated that they can hear every wedding and they feel they cannot do anything on their property during the weddings as they have had wedding parties yell at them. Mr. Ted Carr of 88 South Main Street stated that it seemed this appeal was based on the decision of the 2000 decision and asked the Board if there was a statute of limitation [to appeal the decision]. Ms. Schultz stated that is not what is before the Board. What is before the Board is an appeal of the letter to the Red Lion Inn from Building Inspector, Robert Egan. Mr. Carr applauded the Town for enforcing the rules from the 2000 decision. After a brief conversation, Chairman Chittick moved to continue the hearing until February 2, 2015. Mr. Lacy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. CONTINUED HEARINGS/ DELIBERATIONS SPECIAL PERMIT—Filed by Rosemarie McGillicuddy seeking to restore a previously existing razed garage with a new garage,family room and deck at 53 Bow Street. §§§8.8, 9.7.8 and 9.11. File #14.11.06B. Mr. Peter Goedecke asked questions regarding the coverage calculations presented at the hearing in December. Attorney Henderson worked with the Board and determined that the filing should be approved under §8.8. After further discussion, Ms.Jennifer Schultz moved to close the hearing. Mr. Lacy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. After further discussion, Chairman Chittick moved to grant the relief sought under§8.7.2 and §9.7.8. Ms. Schultz seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous (Chairman Chittick, Mr. Higginson and Mr. McMorris). SPECIAL PERMIT—Filed by Megan Hayes and Dan Olk. Seeks to construct a second story addition within the existing footprint at 35 Elm Court. §8.7.2. File#14.11.06A. Chairman Chittick moved to close the hearing. Mr. Lacy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. After a brief discussion, Chairman Chittick moved to grant the relief sought under§8.7.2. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous(Chairman Chittick, Mr. Higginson and Mr. McMorris). ZBA—1.5.15-JBO 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5, 2015 SPECIAL PERMIT - Filed by Cavanaro Consulting on behalf of landowner,Jeffrey Schwartz, seeks to change the grade within the Flood Plain; alteration of building within the front yard at 40 Hobart Lane. §§8.7.2,9.7.8. Chairman Chittick moved to close the hearing. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. After a brief discussion, Chairman Chittick moved to grant the relief sought under§8.7.2 and §9.7.8. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous (Chairman Chittick, Mr. Lacy and Mr. McMorris). SPECIAL PERMIT—Filed by Cavanaro Consulting on behalf of landowners Steven Mathews& Cathy Forest, seeks to setback conforming addition to existing non-conforming dwelling at 36 Parker Avenue. §§8.7.2,9.11. File#14.11.06E. Chairman Chittick moved to close the hearing. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. After a brief discussion, Chairman Chittick moved to grant the relief sought under§8.7 and §9.11. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous(Chairman Chittick, Mr. Higginson and Mr. McMorris). SPECIAL PERMIT—Filed by Cavanaro Consulting on behalf of landowners Hugh & Pam Kelly seeks to build an addition to an existing non-conforming accessory building at 15 Border Street. §8.7.2, File #14.11.06D. Chairman Chittick moved to close the hearing. Mr. Higginson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. After a brief discussion, Chairman Chittick moved to grant the relief sought under§8.7.2. Mr. McMorris seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous (Chairman Chittick, Mr. Higginson and Mr. Lacy). Chairman Chittick moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lacy seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 11:15PM. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Brennan Oram Assistant Clerk, Zoning Board of Appeals Documents: Supplemental Filing filed by Attorney Amanda Corozza, Mitz Levin—via email December 30, 2014. Letter from Lisa and Bill Vanderweil date stamped December 29, 2014. Globe Newspapers &others vs. Beacon Hill Architectural Commission Kitras v. Eccher Marhefka v. Zoning Board of Appeals Myles Hirsch v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury Letter from Melissa Brown of 32 Linden Drive regarding Soules Appeal. Packet submitted by Janice Crowley—date stamped January 5, 2015 ZBA—1.5.15-JBO 5