Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - ZBoA - 05/03/2017 FINAL COHASSET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE:Wednesday, May 3, 2017 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: Selectman's Office,41 Highland Avenue, Cohasset MA 02025 Board Members Present: Woody Chittick Charlie Higginson Peter Goedecke David McMorris Matthew Watkins Board Member Not Present: Ben Lacy Recording Secretary Present: Chrissie Dahlstrom BOARD BUSINESS 7:30PM: Chairman Chittick opened the hearing at 7:30PM. 7:32 PM:Approve meeting minutes for February, March and April MOTION BY MR. HIGGINSON: APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2017 WITH NOTED EDITS SECONDED: CHAIRMAN CHITTICK VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES It was discussed March meeting minutes needed further editing. MOTION BY MR. GOEDECKE: APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 4, 2017 WITH NOTED EDITS SECONDED: CHAIRMAN CHITTICK VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:40 PM: Set meeting dates for June and July All can attend June 6, 2017 hearing. Mr. Goedecke cannot attend the July 11, 2017 hearing. MOTION BY MR. HIGGINSON: NEXT MEETING DATE WILL BE JUNE 6, 2017 SECONDED: CHAIRMAN CHITTICK VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Page 1 of 6 FINAL CONTINUED HEARINGS 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 hearing: 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; Laura Murphy, Interior Designer; Ted and Katie Lubitz of 103 Border Street; Grenville Anderson of 113 Border Street; George McGoldrick of 107 Border Street; Philip and Catherine Cantillon of 97 Border Street Documents for this hearing: Letter from Attorney Henderson dated May 3, 2017; Letter from Attorney Brodsky dated April 27, 2017; Revised Cavanaro Site Plan dated April 26, 2017; Revised A. Kearney Architects dated April 18, 2017 Rich requested not to close the hearing on 99 Border Streets razing and reconstructing of a nonconforming dwelling because a large filing was submitted by Attorney Brodsky days before the hearing and he would like time to review. The Board stated the hearing would be open until a draft was written. On April 27, 2017 Mr. Brodsky submitted revised plans with material changes to the plan. Mr. Cavanaro explained the changes to the site plan.The revised plan shows the proposed home is changing its shape from a U-shape to a box shape in an effort to reduce any nonconformity. The proposal is to further reduce the southern side setback by pulling the side wall in 4'.The homeowner reversed the gable on the south side and it is now proposed to peak towards the street, pulling the roofline away from abutter.The changes reduced the building coverage and it now conforms at 24.4%of building coverage (25% is allowed).The lot coverage will be reduced by 1.6%and will be more conforming.The height of the proposed plan is 29.9%this is below the allowed height of 35'.The proposed height to the ridge is 32' with the ability to reach 40', 8' under. The total volume of setbacks is currently 2,112 cubic feet and if approved,the volume of the setbacks decreases to 503 cubic feet, a 72% reduction.The footprint of the existing dwelling is 1,691 sq. ft and the proposed is 1,575, conforming to the coverage allowed. The clients are working within the footprint they currently have. Both 97 Border Street and 103 Border Street received have received permits for special permits. Both abutters average grade is lower than 99 Border Street which allowed them to bring the rear of the house higher, getting a more visual space by having the street view of their home look smaller and larger in the back. 99 Border Street doesn't have the same grade advantage. Page 2 of 6 FINAL The homeowners reduced the garage to a 1.5 garage.This change increased the front yard that is now conforming without encroaching on 103 Border Street for construction.They are staying within the footprint on the northern side. The special permit for 97 Border Street in 2001 was built. The height of this dwelling is 37' to the ridge. There is no record of fagade calculation. In 2013 the special permit to raze and reconstruct 103 Border Street was granted to the former owner but was not built.The plans north roof peak was 20' higher than the existing. In that case the Board did not find this to be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Attorney Brodsky pointed out there would be no shading, no loss of light, no additional noise, no additional traffic, and no additional loss of privacy to 103 Border Street.The Lubitz' were concerned about privacy in their back yard.Attorney Brodsky argued the view to the backyard of 103 Border Street from 99 Border Street will not change. Attorney Brodsky requested to close and deliberate; no more submittals. Questions and Comments: Mr. McMorris: The only nonconformity is the square on Northside? Mr. Cavanaro:Yes.The proposed foundation is pulled further back. Attorney Henderson: I would like to discuss 8.7 and 12.4. We were told to submit all documentation for tonights meeting by the April 27, 2017 to give the Board enough time to review prior to the hearing. The Lubitz' had prepared for the meeting on April 26, 2017 and new plan came on April 27, 2017.There was not enough time to prepare with the changes to the plan. I am not waiving our turn to discuss, I am just not discussing tonight. Mr. McGoldrick of 107 Border Street:There are no bylaws that discuss proportion and this house looks too big for the property.The third floor is too much. Also, although this has to do with Conservation Commission and not the Zoning Board of Appeals,the rear of the land there are oak trees within the 50' buffer,will the oak trees remain? Attorney Brodsky: Conservation Commission gave an Order of Conditions.There are conditions on the trees. No proposal to take any trees down.There weren't any requests to take a tree down; however, if they change their mind,the homeowners would need to go back to the Conservation Commission. Mr.Anderson of 113 Border Street: I worry about mass and height. Comparing the proposed plan to the neighboring lots in regards to having a three story home and land dropping off is a concern. Philip Cantillon of 97 Border Street: Is the proposed plan staying within the footprint? Mr. Cavanaro:Yes. It pulls away from 97 Border Street slightly but goes higher. Page 3 of 6 FINAL Mr. Lubitz of 103 Border Street: With the new proposed changes, will this need to go to before the Conservation Commission again? Is there no silt sock with debris going over line?What are the demolition plans? I want to see how plans affect them on 12.4. Board:These are questions for the applicant. Mr.Anderson of 113 Border Street: What will happen if the disputed lot line does change after going through land court, will that effect the ZBA decision? Board: We have to discuss that, but we make the decision based on the information before us. Mr. Lubitz of 103 Border Street:The estimated property size on the tax line is smaller than what is presented. Board:The Assessors may tax on that basis but the ZBA does not rely on it. Attorney Brodsky:The Conservation Commission doesn't need a formal hearing for small changes.The plan approved by the Conservation Commission has erosion controls and construction fencing all the way around the project.The homeowners will work with the Conservation Agent and will give neighbor assurances. No need for more plans,there is enough information to make a decision. The Board didn't want to close the hearing in order to allow Attorney Henderson time to submit a response since there have been changes since April 27, 2017, even though they are minor.The plans will not be changed. The Board will give Attorney Henderson two weeks to submit any arguments (May 17, 2017) and a rebuttal from Attorney Brodsky will be submitted within a week (May 24, 2017).There will be no further submittals after this date. After all submissions, Chairman Chittick will draft a decision. NEW HEARINGS 8:30PM-SPECIAL PERMIT or VARIANCE—Filed by Attorney Jeffrey A DeLisi on behalf of his clients, Donald P Ryan and Elyse M Ryan,Trustees of the Ryan 88B Beach Street Trust, u/d/t dated January 5, 2017. Special Permit (and, if necessary,variance) per bylaw sections 8.7 and 9.11 relative to side yard setbacks previously issued to raze and reconstruct the existing dwelling and detached accessory structure, both located in the flood plain at 88B Beach Street. File#17-02-21. In attendance for this hearing: Attorney Jeff DeLisi; Donald and Elyse Ryan of 88B Beach Street;John Cavanaro and Brendan Sullivan of Cavanaro Consulting; Steve Myers of Myers Architecture and Design Documents for this hearing: History of Quitclaim Deed for 88B Beach Street; Myers Architecture plans dated March 22, 2017; Cavanaro Consulting Site Plan dated 2/17/2017; ZBA Decision dated February 11, 2008; Planning Board Recommendation in favor of the project; 3 letters of support from neighbors; Meyers Architecture and Design dated February 16, 2017 Page 4 of 6 FINAL Attorney DeLisi gave an overview on this property.This unique property is a peninsula on Little Harbor with rock outcroppings on the lot. 88B Beach Street is in RC district with flood plain over issue section 9.11.The homeowners are looking for relief for a special permit or a variance. In 2008 a variance was issued to raze and reconstruct the dwelling, but not the garage.The reason for the variance was because the new dwelling's orientation was proposed to be closer to the side lot line. The applicant sold the property and the next owner pulled the permit and it is still valid today.The razing and reconstruction plan didn't come to fruition. The Ryans purchased the property in January 2017 and the permit has since expired. Presently, this is a seasonal home.The permit issued in 2008 was for a three bedroom house. The Ryans would like to build a four bedroom home to accommodate their family.The Ryans want to lengthen the building in the front(southward)to gain the space for another bedroom. Currently,the house cement masonry foundation is 800 sf and is not flood compliant.The proposed dwelling is elevated on piers which brings the on the ground footprint to 180 sf.The rear deck will be removed.The current garage structure is 248 sf and the proposed is 545 sf, and would be flood compliant with flood vents.The paved driveway will be eliminated and replaced with a gravel driveway. These changes would reduce the lot coverage by 5%. The house and garage predate zoning in Cohasset. After the house and garage were built,the parcel was subdivided in 1957 and the lot size was described in relation to the mean high water. In the title prior to 1957,the deed defined the lot boundaries as mean low water.The true description is mean low. Unless mean high water is noted on the title,then properties own to mean low water. Mean low holds in this case.Attorney DeLisi took all the deeds for this property and put them in chronological order for mean low.The predecessor's deed and the deed to the Ryans are identical. The request for relief is for 9.6, 9.7 or 9.11 to reconstruct the house and utilities.As to reconstructing the garage,the request for relief is for 9.11 and 8.7.2. The existing garage would be demolished and the proposed replacement garage will be less non- conforming and will be constructed on a slab with flood vents.The garage will be compliant and will increase to allot for two cars. It will be 3 ft. taller than it is currently. Attorney DeLisi would like the Board to consider the Variance that was granted in the 2008 decision since the findings have already been made. Should anyone appeal,this would help, but no opposition is expected. The Planning Board approved the recommendation for this large home. Conservation Commission also approved this plan. Three letters of support from the neighbors were submitted. Attorney DeLisi requested a draft written by the next meeting. Mr. Higginson will draft a decision. Page 5 of 6 FINAL MOTION BY CHAIRMAN CHITTICK: CONTINUE THIS MEETING TO JUNE 6, 2017 SECONDED: MR. GOEDECKE VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 9:33 Close the hearing. MOTION BY MR. GOEDECKE: CLOSE THE HEARING SECONDED: MR. WATKINS VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Page 6 of 6