HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - ZBoA - 02/07/2017 February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 1 of 6
COHASSET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: Tuesday, February 7, 2017
TIME: 7:30 PM
PLACE: Selectman's Office, Town Hall
Board Members Present: Woody Chittick
Charlie Higginson
Peter Goedecke
David McMorris
Matthew Watkins
Board Member Not Present: Ben Lacy
Recording Secretary Present: Chrissie Dahlstrom, Administrative Assistant
7:30 PM— Chairman Chittick called the meeting to order.
The Board discussed the next meeting date and all except Mr. Watkins can attend
on Tuesday, March 14, 2017. There will be enough members present for a quorum.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: Next meeting date will be Tuesday,
March 14, 2017
SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke
VOTE: 5 — 0 MOTION CARRIES
Chairman Chittick recused himself from the meeting. Mr. Goedecke, Vice
Chairman, oversaw this hearing.
7:35 PM— SPECIAL PERMIT - Filed by Philip D & Katherine W
Struzziero, land owners. The special permit is for a proposed first floor
expansion and second floor dormer expansion, both by extending existing
walls at non-conforming side setback at 13 Beechwood Street. File #16-12-13.
In attendance for this for this agenda item: Jeff DeLisi, Esq., Can Tiryaki, Tiryaki
Architects; John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Phil and Kate Struzziero of 13
Beechwood Street
Documents for this hearing: Planning Board recommendation for this project;
Letter of support from Susan Sardina of 217 South Main Street dated January 4,
February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 2 of 6
2017; Letter explaining a revised footprint of the addition from Can Tiryaki dated
January 26, 2017; Revised Architectural renderings prepared by Teriyaki
Architectural Design, LLC dated January 19, 2017; Plan entitled "Boundary
Exhibit" prepared by Cavanaro Consulting dated January 27, 2017; Letter by
Attorney DeLisi dated January 31, 2017; Email from Mr. Moran thanking the
Struzzieros for adjusting their plan
The supplemental documents submitted by Attorney DeLisi include revised plans
that eliminate controversy raised regarding the lot line in question. The first floor
addition has been revised by Teriyaki Architectural Design. The exterior wall of
the proposed addition now jogs 6" towards the house and is no longer flush with
the side of the dwelling keeping with the 6.2" distance from the east side lot line as
the remainder of the east side of the dwelling.
The plan for the proposed dormers has not changed.
There was another letter of support from Susan Sardina for a total of 4 letters of
support. Mr. Moran sent an email to the Struzzieros giving thanks for adjusting the
plan away from the lot line in question.
MOTION BY MR. HIGGINSON: To close the hearing
SECONDED: Member Mr. Watkins
VOTE: 4 — 0 MOTION CARRIES
Chairman Chittick returned to the meeting.
7:45 PM— SPECIAL PERMIT - Filed by Adam J. Brodsky, Esq. on behalf of
99 Border Street, LLC. The special permit is to raze and reconstruct an
existing nonconforming single family dwelling and attached garage on a
lawfully nonconforming lot at 99 Border Street. File #17.01.12.
In attendance for this aizenda item: Adam J. Brodsky, Esq representing 99 Border
Street LLC; John Cavanaro of Cavanaro Consulting; Brendan Sullivan of
Cavanaro Consulting; Allen Kearney, Landscape Architect of A. Kearney
Architects; Attorney Richard Henderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Lubitz of 103
Border Street; Maryann McGoldrick of 107 Border Street; Phil Cantillon of 97
Border Street
Documents for this hearinga: Letter by Attorney Richard Henderson requesting to
continue the hearing dated February 2, 2017; Land Court Complaint over lot lines
February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 3 of 6
between 99 Border Street and 103 Border Street; Letter of recommendation from
the Planning Board; Cavanaro Consulting Site Plan 15.099 dated January 9, 2017;
Cover letter from Attorney Brodsky; A. Kearney Architects Proposed plans A101,
A2015 A202, AE101, AE102; Massachusetts Historical Commission data sheet
recorded 10/1975 (rev. 1988); Registry of Deeds Book 33312 Page 360 #66970
dated 7.15.2015
The Richters wish to raze and reconstruct their home that sits on a small lot on the
Gulf River they purchased in 2015. The dwelling, located at 99 Border Street, is in
the Residence A district and the lot is pre-existing non-conforming. The house was
built in 1888 and has had numerous additions over the years leaving the home with
multiple levels. The Richters would like a traditional style home to keep with the
street scape of the neighborhood.
Mr. Cavanaro explained the proposed plan along with Mr. Kearney.
Dwelling Size:
Currently: 1691 sf
Proposed: 1664 sf
Front Setback:
The average building front set back within 200' is 6.65'.
Currently: 1.5'
Proposed: 7.5'
South Side Setback:
Allowed: 15'
Currently: 13.2'
Proposed: 13.6'
North Side Setback:
Allowed: 15'
Currently: 13.3'
Proposed: 13.3'
Allowed: 10' if roof is no higher than 15'
Currently: 12.4'
Proposed: 12.4'
February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 4 of 6
Rear Setback:
Allowed: 15'
Currently: 18'
Proposed: 19.4'
Building Height to Midridge:
Allowed: 35'
Currently: 21.5'
Proposed: 25.7'
The rear set back complies on the coastal bank and was approved by the
Conservation Commission who issued a storm water permit and an order of
conditions. The proposed plan will be to pull away from the coast.
The overall building coverage will be reduced.
The proposed garage will be widened for modern cars.
There is a pending lawsuit with 103 Border Street. A rock wall separates the two
lots. The north side setback is either 13.6' or 12.9', depending on the lot line in
question. The proposal for the north side of the dwelling will not increase the
nonconformity. When 103 Border Street had plans to build, Neil Murphy based
the side lot line on the rock wall in question, the owners at the time ultimately did
not built according to the that plan.
Neil Murphy lived at 97 Border Street and owned 2 properties that had 134' street
frontage. 103 Border Street was deeded with 60' frontage. The remaining lot, 99
Border Street, received the remaining 74'.
Attorney Henderson, representing the Lubitz family at 103 Border Street,
confirmed that the Conservation Commission and Planning Board gave a
recommendation to approve the application, but did not give an opinion on the land
issue.
Mr. and Mrs. Lubitz passed out photos of the property line in question. Mrs. Lubitz
would like to consider the bylaw 8.7.2 since in her opinion the proposed plan is
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. She pointed out missing
information on the application such as there are no letters of support from
February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 5 of 6
neighbors. There is no discussion of total square feet of the proposed new house
compared to the existing house. In the dense neighborhood there has been no
shadow or massing studies.
Bylaw 12.4 states the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on adjoining
properties and the igress and egress to property will consider pedestrian safety.
The Lubitzs were contacted by a constable informing them that to raze and
reconstruct 99 Border Street utilizing part of the Lubitz's property would be
necessary.
At the Conservation Commission meeting February 2, 2017 the access to the
reconstruction site showed use of 103 Border Street for a backhoe, construction
materials and placement of a portapotty located 5' from their property line. Photos
of the front of 103 Border Street show a retaining wall with a fence. The Lubitz are
questioning how they will gain access to their backyard with no boundary between
the disputed lands. They are concerned about their childs safety. If the access to 99
Border Street is through 103 Border Street, the fence that encloses their back yard
will be removed (even if temporarily). A photo shows the old retaining wall that
separates the two lots. The Lubitzs are concerned the wall will crumble down. A
section of 99 Border Street is on a slab that attaches to the stone wall and if the
slab is removed, will the integrity of the structure be compromised?
No one has informed them how the plan during and after the construction will
affect them.
Attorney Brodsky understands the safety issue and this hearing is the first time this
issue has been raised. A notice to abutters was sent out over the summer. The
project is redesigned so the side yard that abuts 103 Border Street is not being
used. The owners of 99 Border Street are more than happy to address the safety
concerns. They plan on putting a construction fence around the project for safety
sake. He pointed out endorsement letters are not a requirement for razing and
reconstructing and shadow and massing studies are not required done in Cohasset
except when requested by the Zoning Board.
Mr. Cantillon of 97 Border Street is also concerned about safety. His dwelling is to
the south of 99 Border Street with a steep drop off. He wants to be informed as
how construction will go. He had no design questions.
February 7, 2017 FINAL
Page 6 of 6
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: To continue the hearing to March
1492017
SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke
VOTE: 5— 0 MOTION CARRIES
BOARD BUSINESS:
Mr. Goedecke will draft an opinion for 13 Beechwood Street.
Mr. Goedecke hasn't had a chance to review the meeting minutes from January 3,
2017. The Board will vote on the meeting minutes on March 14, 2017.
9:05PM - DISCUSS WARRANT ARTICLES
In attendance for this for this agenda item: Maryanne Wetherald of 419 Jerusalem
Road; Attorney Tom Callahan, 35 Hillside Drive
Documents for this hearing: Issue #1: Scenic Roads; Issue #2: Stop Clear Cutting!;
Issue #3; Proportionate Houses!; Explanation of Amendment to Large Home
Review Process; Explanation of Amendment of Table of Area Regulations;
Explanation of Land Alteration Bylaw; Article D: New Land Alteration
Regulations; Notice of Public Hearing
Attorney Callahan explained the purpose for the group Citizens for Cohasset's
Future's warrant articles to improve zoning for the town. They are concerned with
ledge removal, removing heritage tress and allowing large homes on small lots.
The group has met with people around town for zoning goals. They would like to
work with the town to create new bylaws to retain the character of Cohasset.
11:45 Adjourn the meeting
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: To adjourn the meeting
SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke
VOTE: 5— 0 MOTION CARRIES