Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - ZBoA - 03/28/2017 (2) March 28, 2017 Page 1 of 8 COHASSET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: Willcutt Commons, 91 Sohier Street, Cohasset MA Board Members Present: Woody Chittick Charlie Higginson Peter Goedecke David McMorris Ben Lacy Board Member Not Present: Matthew Watkins Recording Secretary Present: Chrissie Dahlstrom, Administrative Assistant BOARD BUSINESS 7:30 PM — Chairman Chittick called the meeting to order. 7:31 PM —Approve Meeting Dates The Board discussed the next meeting date and all except Mr. Goedecke can attend on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. There will be enough members present for a quorum on Wednesday, May 3, 2017. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: Next meeting dates will be Tuesday, April 4 and Wednesday, May 3 SECONDED: Member Mr. McMorris VOTE: 5 —0 MOTION CARRIES 7:35 PM —Wilmarc Charles — Request for Extension of Comprehensive Permit for 25 Ripley Road. Mr. Charles is seeking extra time from the Board on his Comprehensive Permit for the property at 25 Ripley Road. He has expressed he has had recent money issues and is working with an investor on how to proceed. The three year loan modification from 2013 was briefly described: for the first two years the payments were based on a loan balance of $450,000 and the last year was based on a balance of $250,000. Mr. Charles March 28, 2017 Page 2 of 8 defaulted on the modification because he didn't make the payments on the last year's payments. Mr. Charles is working with an attorney from the bank. He does not have a business plan nor an offering memorandum. Currently, Mr. Charles is behind six months and he believes the likelihood of the bank approving the loan modification is high. The property is assessed at $715,000. The Board was happy with the 2013 initial plan. As of today, there isn't an offering memorandum. Mr. Charles has an investor that will help after he gets approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the bank. The bank has not indicated Mr. Charles cannot use the property. Right now Mr. Charles has family living at 25 Ripley Road. The plan that was set in place in 2013 was the best plan for that parcel. This Board at this hearing expressed willingness to grant Mr. Charles a 90 day extension. In July Mr. Charles hopes to return to the Board with a forbearance of a renewed loan modification agreement. 7:46PM - DISCUSS WARRANT ARTICLES— CITIZENS ZONING PETITION In attendance for this for this agenda item: Maryanne Wetherald of 419 Jerusalem Road; Paul Hickey of 400 Atlantic Avenue Documents for this hearing: Land Alteration Amended 3/20/2017; Memo from Planning Board 3/28/2017; Large Home Review Version 3/22/2017; Planning Board Follow 3/16/2017; Cohasset Property Data Revision 8; All Properties; Cohasset Property Data Nonconforming Revision 8 Land Alteration Ms. Wetherald reported that the Planning Board hasn't yet decided on their position and that any further modifications must be made at town meeting because it's already on the warrant. 11.4 Land Alteration Limitations, Section A The ZBA's first observation was in reference to anomalies embedded in District allowable clearing percentages: for a large lot in A District there is tremendous freedom to clear and yet for a much smaller lot in District C, clearing would be very restricted. Standards based on lot size and not district makes more sense. If a home was constructed on a small lot, there would need to be clearing to construct and it takes a long time for trees to grow. One would argue, if you own it, why not use your lot the way you want to? March 28, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Other questions that aren't clear are: • Would there be regulations with site plans? If not adhered to, who objects? • The Planning Board approves the site plan that is within regulation and if the applicant cuts more trees than planned, how is this going to be enforced? • How does the Planning Board figure the percentage of coverage, is it canopies, shade area or the amount of trees? • If the applicant doesn't like the Planning Boards Conditions, where is that appealed? • Does a complaint come to the building inspector? Does this becomes a zoning bylaw? • When a neighbor complains their neighbor cleared more than they stated on their plan and the building inspector agrees, what would the repercussions be to the homeowner? • When a neighbor complains their neighbor cleared more than they stated on their plan and the building inspector disagrees, does the neighbor appeal to the ZBA? • Does everyone who wants to cut down a tree have to hire an arborist? • How does a homeowner have consistency in the topography? • What is considered a rare and endangered species? • If the home owner doesn't like the Planning Board conditions and they are not abiding, what happens? • Does the Planning Board tell the homeowner which specific trees can stay or go? • Does the ZBA decide if The Planning Board exceeded their procedure? • Line B3 in the proposed zoning petition states the applicant must comply even if the storm water permit isn't required, how does the Planning Board determine they are in compliance with the storm water? • There aren't references to paths; if it's not mentioned, is it allowed? • Land Alteration Limits, Item C: C) In the further case of excavation, and in the case of filling and grading, outside the footprint of any building or structure foundations, Post-Construction Grade shall differ from Pre-Construction Grade by no more than a two-foot or five- percent (5%) change in grade, plus or minus, whichever is greater. March 28, 2017 Page 4 of 8 • Is the 2 feet or 5% 40' above sea level? If it's greater, does this require a permitted variation? • What happens when you are outside of the footprint and are trying to level the yard on a parcel, you can't if you have a high and low point? • If you can only change the yard by 5% when changing the grade, do you have to have a split level yard? • Does a home owner need to keep scruffy trees to keep the new bylaw? Things for the Citizens Zoning Petition to consider: • The proposed petition doesn't give a distance from the home for grading within the allotted percentage • The verbiage on the limit of how much ledge and earth can be removed is not easy for the ZBA to determine in future cases and needs to be corrected • Invite a permitting system to a board to look at the plan first • Must be literal as possible • Absent clear and objective standards, court appeals will be plentiful... The Board asked the audience if there were any questions. Paul Hickey of 400 Atlantic Avenue (a proponent) admitted that undefined language and terms present administrative hurdles. A citizen should be able to read the zoning bylaw and know what they can and cannot do. The Petition is well intentioned but not precise enough. The ZBA suggested setting up a committee and possibly a lawyer to draft the Petition. The language isn't clear and can be interpreted in more than one way. The bylaws avoid inconsistencies. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: To recommend or not recommend the Citizen's Petition on Land Alteration as presently worded VOTE: 5 —0 To not recommend the proposed amendment Large Home Review According to the draft on 3/20/17 Citizens Zoning Petition, there is a large home review process through the Planning Board. A large home is a home larger than 3,500 sf. The Planning Board thinks there is a lot of sentiment in town with an attempt to address the concerns of the residents. March 28, 2017 Page 5 of 8 The Zoning Board sees some problematic issues with the Planning Board deciding on: • Exterior materials • Architectural style • Casting shadows • Exterior colors of homes • Coverage ratios on homes on different sized lots What's a visual amenity of the neighborhood, what does that mean? The major concern is excluding anything nonconforming. The Planning Board did make a recommendation for this at the town meeting as it's written. However, there are items to be fixed. The petition isn't clear if the applicant doesn't like large home review condition, do they appeal to ZBA and the ZBA would determine whether the Planning board exceeded their conditions? MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: To recommend or not recommend the Large Home Review as presently worded VOTE: 3 votes to not recommend, and 2 votes in favor of the amendment if petitioners would be willing to make certain working changes (with no working changes, the vote would be 4 to 1 against) DELIBERATIONS Chairman Chittick recused himself from the meeting. Mr. Goedecke, Vice Chairman, oversaw this hearing. 8:55 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. Mr. Goedecke composed a draft. There weren't any new documents filed since the February meeting. Minor changes to the draft were discussed among the Board. MOTION BY MR. HIGGINSON: To accept the decision as amended SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke March 28, 2017 Page 6 of 8 VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Chairman Chittick returned to the meeting. CONTINUED HEARINGS 9:00 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 for this agenda item: Attorney Adam Brodsky; Katie and Ted Lubitz of 103 Border Street; John Cavanaro and Brendan Sullivan of Cavanaro Consulting; Philip Cantillon of 97 Border Street; Alan Kearney of Kearney Architects Documents for this hearing: Letter of concern from the Andersons of 113 Border Street and the McGoldricks of 107 Border Street; Letter dated March 13, 2017 by Attorney Brodsky; Photos of retaining wall with Cavanaro site plan dated 1/09/2017; From Attorney Brodsky Exhibit A packet and Statutes packet, Elevation, Streetscape and Floor Plans, Construction Methodology dated March 7, 2017, Neighborhood Comparison by finished area dated march 3, 2017, Foundation/wall inspection letter from SSB Engineering, LLC dated march 7, 2017; From Attorney Henderson Memorandum of Law dated March 7, 2017 with Exhibits A, B, C and D, Cases and Statutes Attorney Brodsky represents the Richters of 99 Border Street. Mr. Cavanaro and Mr. Sullivan are the engineers working on this project. The structural engineer was not available to attend and has been briefed. Mr. Cavanaro explained the changes to site plan. There was a spa in the southeasterly portion of plan and is now removed from the plan. Lot coverage was adjusted to account for that. Neither side lot setback will get closer to side lot lines the proposed plan is increasing the front lot setback by 6' (west), increasing the southerly side lot line by 4", keeping the front setback same side lot lines on the norther and decreasing the rear setback by 1.4 feet. The property line between 99 Border Street and 103 Border Street is in dispute and is presently being heard in Land Court. The Zoning Board of Appeals is considering the application for a special permit with the stamped plans for boundaries lines with the March 28, 2017 Page 7 of 8 facts before them, not what might or might not be determined in Land Court. The Board is no considering a variance. The house sits askew on the property and currently there is an overhang over the driveway. The proposed plan shows that building setbacks will increase. The footprint will remain the same with an increase in height on the south side. The proposed height is well below the maximum height allowed, but higher than current height. There will not be any shading impact on the103 Border Street, including the corner of the overhang that is currently encroaching on the Lubitz's airspace by 8" since they are on the north side of the proposed dwelling. The structural engineer is confident they can work within the confines of 99 Border Street and there won't be any staging on the north side yard property. If access is needed they will need to secure permission. They are planning to work from the street side. Attorney Brodsky believes that the current plan largely addresses the Lubitz's concerns. He stated there will be no adverse impact on them, no shading and the privacy impact is the same as today. The Lubitzs responded that there has been no dialogue on how this construction will affect them, and made the following points: • The plan does not show the height, and they believe the fagade closets to their property is much taller than neighboring homes, being three stories tall with a terrace that will look down on the Lubitz's property. • The foundation plan is not clear: will there be structural shoring from the Lubitz's property to hold up the wall if the foundation turns out to be compromised/unsound. Mr. Cantillon of 97 Border Street asked if the north side's fagade would be changed; Mr. Cavanaro explained there are no changes to the north side of the proposed plan facing 97 Border Street from the first set of plans. Mr. Lubitz will provide dense lot line information. Kearney Architects will provide an updated streetscape plan drawn to scale. The Conservation Commission agreed to all construction on 99 Border Street. March 28, 2017 Page 8 of 8 The Board will continue this hearing so Attorney Henderson can submit more evidence to consider. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: Continue the hearing to April 4, 2017 SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke VOTE: 5 —0 MOTION CARRIES BOARD BUSINESS: 11:05 PM —Approve Minutes from January 3, 2017 MOTION BY MR. LACY: Approve meeting minutes from January 3, 2017 SECONDED: Member Chairman Chittick VOTE: 5 —0 MOTION CARRIES 11:15 PM - Adjourn the meeting MOTION BY MR. HIGGINSON: To adjourn the meeting SECONDED: Member Mr. Goedecke VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES