Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals 10/14/04
Date:           October 14,2004 
Time:           7:00 PM
Location:       Town Hall Meeting Room

Attendees:      David Rowell, Vice Chair, Robert Hankey, Peter Watts, William Nicholson, Jeffrey Stewart, Trevor Pontbriand, Charles Amsler, Sibel Asantugrul and Christine Bates, Committee Secretary

Regrets:                Steve Rose

        David Rowell, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

Public Hearings:

7:00    #04-40, Trevor and Kathleen Glucksman, 165 Commercial Street, Map       21, Parcel 118:  Application for a Variance or Special Permit   under Chapter 40-A of the Wellfleet Zoning Bylaws:  Temporarily         reside in studio while primary residence foundation is repaired.  Members of the Board for this case were David Rowell, Robert Hankey, Peter Watts, Jeffrey Stewart and Sibel Asantugrul.  Al Rich, builder, and Mr. and Mrs. Glucksman came to the table.  They explained the Glucksman’s have to vacate their primary residence for repair to their foundation.  They would like to live in the garage/studio during that timeframe.  There is water and electricity to the building at the present time.  They received approval from the Conservation Commission for the repairs of the foundation as well as hooking up the septic to the studio.  Abutter, Roy Perkins of 170 Commercial Street, gave verbal support for the project to C. Bates which was read.  David Rowell stated there is no relief available for a Variance or Special Permit to create either temporary usage or two dwellings under the Bylaws.  The only option would be for an Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit.  Rowell referred to a document from the Board of Health which stated the BOH did not want the structure to become habitable.  He stated the Glucksman’s would have to go before the BOH and if approved, come back to the BZA.  If the studio were to be upgraded to become habitable for a temporary basis, it would have to meet all building regulations.  Peter Watts stated the studio is in the flood plain and would need approval for flood relief, plus be raised to twelve feet above the floodplain elevation. It would require heat and septic as well.  Rowell recommended they withdraw without prejudice at this point in time, and talk with the Health Agent for further advice.  Stewart suggests the applicants understand the Wellfleet Bylaws and see their only option is n Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit.  Asantugrul asked if the studio could be hooked up to the septic system on a temporary basis.  Rowell stated no.  Amsler asked if it would be permissible to utilize a RV with hook up in the existing system.  Rowell stated it is not allowed.  Paul Murphy, Inspector of Buildings, stated camping is not allowed in Wellfleet on private property.  There was discussion if the Glucksman’s could obtain a Certificate of Occupancy among the Board and the Inspector of Buildings; decision was negative.  Rowell noted to the Board that the plan depicts the building as a garage, and the Board of Health put restrictions on the building.  Trevor Glucksman requested a withdrawal without prejudice. Rowell Moved to accept the withdrawal; Seconded by Robert Hankey, Passed 5-0.

7:20#04-41:  Peter J. and Natale A. Lee, Sapokonish Way, Map 9, Parcel 601:  Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.5:  Addition to a non-conforming structure which includes a full basement.  Board members for this hearing were David Rowell, Robert Hankey, Peter Watts, William Nicholson, and Trevor Pontbriand.  Site inspection made on October 13, 2004.  The lot size is 1.53 acres.  With the proposed 24 foot by 26 foot addition, the lot coverage will be less than 3%.  The Lee’s plan to make this dwelling a permanent residence. Ms. Lee stated the engineer did not include the existing stairs on the deck; however, it would not affect the decision because they are utilized as an egress.  A letter penned by Michael B. Murray from the National Park Service dated October 12, 2004 was read.  The Park requested that firm construction limits and fencing be placed no less than 10 feet from the NPS tract.  Another concern was adequate parking which will not encroach the Park land.  A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Blake, abutters, dated September 20, 2004, was read supporting the project. Dorothy Gotreau, abutter, sent an e-mail September 28, 2004 also supporting the project.  A letter dated October 10, 2004 from Sharyn Lindsay, abutter, stated she has no conflict with the plans.  Stephen Broker, abutter, sent a letter dated October 11, 2004 stated the project would have no adverse affect on the neighborhood.
The Lee’s stated the electric and septic system is located such that there were very few alternatives for the placement of the addition.  Asantugraul noted the non conformities were lot area, northerly and southerly setbacks, and the front setback.  Stewart stated the greatest intrusion was the deck and asked if it could be minimized.  Mr. Lee responded it would only be two feet more than the building.  Watts stated the Park is the neighbor where the greatest intrusions take place and they are not objecting; therefore, this would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood.  Rowell Moved for Findings of Facts:  
1.      Minimum lot in district is three (3) acres; existing lot is 1.53 acres.
2.      The current setback from the northern property line to the structure is 30 feet 8 inches on the northeast and 30 feet   6 inches on the northwest.  The district side requirements are 35 feet.
3.      The current set back from the southern property line is 19 feet.  The district side requirements are 35 feet.
4.      The existing lot frontage is 70 feet, 4 inches, the district existing lot frontage is 70 feet, 4 inches, the district   requirement is 200 feet.
5.      The proposed extension to the existing structure does not substantially increase its non-conformity due to the narrow   size    of the lot and the district setback requirements.
6.      The proposed addition and existing structure will be under the  5% lot coverage.
7.      A minimum of two off-street parking spaces are to remain after renovations.
8.      Proposed addition shows suitability and respect to site topography.
9.      There are four supporting letters from abutters.
10.     No objection from the National Park Service but they have a concern that no work be done within ten (10) feet of property line.
Peter Watts Moved to accept Findings of Fact; Seconded by Robert Hankey, Passed 5-0.  David Rowell Moved to grant a Special Permit with the following conditions:
1.      After reconstruction is completed, Health Agent to review.
2.      Two parking areas are to remain after construction.
Seconded by Trevor Pontbriand; Passed 5-0.

7:52    04-44:  Town of Wellfleet, 36 Gross Hill Road, Map 13, Parcel 16:  Application for a Variance under WZB 5.4.4 Relief from height of building; WZB 5.4.3  building coverage, and WZB 5.4.2 Minimum yard requirements:  Renovation of Fire and Police building.  Members of the Board consisted of David Rowell, Robert Hankey, Peter Watts, William Nicholson, and Charles Amsler.  Tim Smith, Town Administrator, verbally requested to withdraw without prejudice.  David Rowell Moved to accept the withdrawal; Seconded by Robert Hankey, Passed 5-0.

7:54 04-43:  Mary Jane Ekdahl and George Armstrong, 84 Chequessett Knolls Drive, Map 123, Parcel 59:  Application for a Special Permit under 8.4.3 and 5.4.2:  Installation of in-ground pool within side setbacks.  The Board consisted of David Rowell, Peter Watts, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson, and Sibel Asantugrul.  Jamie Veara, Attorney, represented the applicants.  A site visit was made on October 13, 2004.  Veara explained that due to the nature of the property, there is only one level area to place the pool.  He stated the 25 foot setback runs 14 feet from the proposed pool to setbacks. The required 4 foot walkway would make it 10 feet.  Fence is not included in setback.  Rowell stated pool installations require Board of Health review.  Veara stated he considers this a hardship based on topography.  He asserted pools add value to properties, pools are not detrimental to the neighborhood, and pools are an allowed use. A letter from Hayg Boyadjian, abutter, dated September 17, 2004 objected to the application.  Robert and Mary Goldman, abutter, expressed no objections in a September 13, 2004 letter.  Linda and John Riehl, abutters, object to pools in general on Cape Cod.  Watts asked if the applicants would consider replacing the spa with the pool.  Asantugrul asked if the pool be relocated towards the stone driveway.  Rowell offered the following options to consider:      
1)      move pool into the front of the property
2)      adjust pool to fit the 10 foot setbacks where garage is located.
3)      Consider the eastern lot line as frontage (due to the access of the driveway).
4)      There is a matter of right to fill the area with soil and eliminate the pool and build a patio.
Asantugrul stated one option is to shift the pool location so it would not be in the setbacks.  Watts felt there is no hardship unique to the area.  Rowell stated two lot lines could be considered frontage; therefore the pool could be installed.  Hankey feels there is no hardship.  Pontbriand stated you cannot change the definition of frontage.  Watts and Hankey oppose the variance.  Veara stated he talked to the pool designer and no matter how it is located, it would be in the setbacks due to the four foot required walkway.  He stated there will be no lights utilized at night.  Asantugrul identified a 31 foot area the pool could be located in.  Veara consulted with the applicants and requested the application be withdrawn without prejudice.  Rowell Moved to accept withdrawal; Seconded by Robert Hankey, Passed 5-0.

8:20 Steve Rose, Chair, joined the Board.

8:25 #04-34    Fernando and Charlene Domenech, Jr. 70 School Street, Map 13, Parcel 86:  Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.5:  Alteration of pre-existing, non-conforming, single family residence: Construct new screened porch and deck on rear of dwelling and remove existing metal shed and replace with new wooden shed.  (Cont’d from 8/25/04).  Richard Lay represented the applicants.  The Board members for this hearing were Steve Rose, David Rowell, Robert Hankey, Peter Watts, and William Nicholson.  Meeting minutes of August 25, 2004 were read.  A letter from the Wellfleet Historical Review Board dated October 11, 2004 was read which approved the plans.  Rowell expressed his concern regarding the shed.  He stated the current shed is not protected by grandfathering and did not receive permission to be installed.  Richard Lay stated the applicant wanted a new shed for storage because gasoline should not be stored in the cellar area.  Rowell’s concern for the new shed is increase in use and future neighbors might be impacted by the location of the shed.  Due to the condition of the current shed, it appears it has been abandoned.  Nicholson stated the shed is not detrimental to the neighborhood based on abutter’s approval of the plan.  Stewart stated the shed has to be located 10 feet from the house.  Rose Moved for Findings of Fact:
1.      Letter accepted from Historical Review Board requested by ZBA.
2.      Compliance with request for continuance.
3.      Non-conforming into the setback and will be an increase in the non-conformance of the north and south setback.
4.      Positive feedback from abutter.
5.      No increase in use.

Watts Moved to accept Findings of Fact; Seconded by Robert Hankey; Passed 4-1.  Nicholson Moved to approve Special Permit with conditions.  Rowell Moved to have current shed removed and not replaced.  No one on the Board Seconded.  Therefore, condition not applicable.  Rose Seconded to approve Special Permit with no conditions; Passed 4-1.

8:55 04-18:  Wellfleet Harbor Actors Theater, Route 6, Map 6, Lot 212:  Applicant appeals a determination that the proposed non-profit theater use is not a permitted public or semi-public institution of a philanthropic or charitable purpose; Applicant requests a Special Permit under WZB 5.4.13 to allow two principal uses and two principal buildings on one lot in the C zoning district; a Special Permit under WZB 6.3.13 as a Development of Significant Impact to determine that traffic  impact and financial impact studies are deemed unnecessary; Special Permit under WZB 5.2 for a use closely resembling in its neighborhood impacts a use listed as a permitted or authorized use under special permit in the Commercial Zoning District; and Special Permit under WZB 6.11 to allow the conversion of the property to the condominium form of ownership.  Reopening Case from June 10, 2004.  Members of the Board for this hearing are Steve Rose, William Nicholson, Peter Watts, David Rowell, and Robert Hankey.  Trevor Pontbriand recused himself.  Myer Singer, Attorney, and Jeff Zinn represented WHAT.  Singer stated the Cape Cod Commission would reach a decision on November 4, 2004 regarding the DRI and asked to be scheduled with the ZBA the first meeting in December.  Watts Moved to continue to December 16, 2004; Seconded by Stewart; Passed 5-0.  Singer asked the Board if they would consider holding the hearing in a larger room due to the number of people anticipated on attending.  The Board stated they would take the request into consideration.

Watts Moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35pm; Seconded by Robert Hankey, Passed 9-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Rose, Chair                                       Christine Bates,
                                                                Committee Secretary