Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals Public Meeting
Date: May 25, 2006
Time: 7:00 PM
Attendees: Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Vern Jacob, William Nicholson, , Charlie Amsler, Bruce Drucker, Robert Hankey, and Christine Bates, Committee Secretary.
Regrets: Sibel Asantugrul
Chair Pontbriand called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Chair Pontbriand gave an overview of the hearing process.
7:04 pm 06-19 James Wilson / David Parish, 20 Wellfleet Woods Lane, Map 8, Parcel 119, Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.1: Replace existing conforming deck with screened-in porch within side setback. A letter dated May 16, 2006 from the applicant’s representative, Michelle Hauge, was received requesting a withdrawal without prejudice. Trevor Pontbriand moved to allow the application for a Special Permit to be withdrawn without prejudice; seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 7-0.
7:06 pm 06-14 Sarah Robin, 29 Briar Lane, Map 14, Parcel 26: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.21: Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit. Change the use of the second story to affordable housing (Cont’d from 04/27/06). The Board for this hearing was Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson, and Charlie Amsler. Ms. Robin stated there will be no structural work done and all egresses are in compliance. A letter directed to Health Agent Hillary Greenberg from Emily E. H. Beebe, RS dated May 16, 2006 was read into the record stating the two bedroom affordable accessory dwelling unit and the 28 seat restaurant would not increase the use at this location beyond its approved capacity. The Board determined the application and
plans meet the requirements outlined in bylaw 6.21.3. Robert Hankey moved to grant the Special Permit with the following conditions:
1. The Special Permit conditions that follow shall be deemed an affordable housing deed restriction in a form satisfactory to the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with Section 6.21.2 of the Wellfleet Zoning By-laws. Failure to comply with any of these provisions shall be considered a violation of Special Permit requirements. Failure to comply with any of the provisions may result in fines established in Section 8.3 of the Wellfleet Zoning By-laws and in enforcement requirement removal of the unit.
2. All occupants of the affordable accessory dwelling unit described herein shall upon initial application and annually thereafter on the first of September, submit to the Town or its agent necessary documentation to confirm their eligibility for the dwelling unit. Specifically, all dwelling units must be rented to those meeting the guidelines for a low or moderate-income family. For the purpose of this section, low income families shall have an income less than eighty (80) percent of the Town of Wellfleet median family income, and moderate income families shall have an income between eighty (80) and one hundred twenty (120) percent of the Town of
Wellfleet median family income, as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Published Income Guidelines, and as may from time to time be amended.
3. Maximum rents for the affordable accessory dwelling unit described herein shall be established in accordance with HUD published Fair Market Rental Guidelines. Property owners are required to submit to the Town or its agent information on the rents to be charged. Each year thereafter on the first of September, they shall submit information on annual rents charged to the Town or its agent. Forms for this purpose shall be provided. Rents may be adjusted annually in accordance with amendments to the Fair Market Rental Guidelines.
4. The property owner named herein shall complete and submit to the Inspector of Buildings an application for a Building Permit to allow a change in use.
5. The property owner named herein shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Inspector of Buildings prior to the affordable accessory dwelling unit being occupied.
Seconded by Trevor Pontbriand; passed 5-0.
7:15 pm 06-16 Lawrence & Karen Goldberg, 75 East Hill Road, Map 29, Parcel 445: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.5.2b to construct a small deck within setback (Cont’d from 05/11/06). The applicant’s representative did not appear at the hearing. Trevor Pontbriand moved to continue to June 8, 2006; seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 7-0.
7:20 pm 06-15 Harborside Village Cooperative Corporation, Harbor Lights Circle and Weatherly Ave, Map 20, Parcel 19: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.1 and 6.1.5 to replace 17 existing trailers with 17 new trailers set on piers, above base flood elevation and not in the Floodplain District (Cont’d 04/13/06), The Board for this hearing was Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson and Bruce Drucker. Attorney Myer Singer represented the applicant. Mr. Singer presented an overview of the history of the trailer park. He stated this is a pre-existing non-conforming use. The property is located within the flood plain. All trailers that are proposed to be replaced will be located outside of the
resource area. The plan was approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Singer reviewed the bylaws that the application was applicable for. He stated all proposed trailers will be put on supports. There was discussion regarding the definition of trailers. Harborside Village Coop has their own regulations which all owners adhere to regarding setbacks, improvements to the park, etc. Mr. Myer stated each site could contain a maximum of 840 square feet of roof coverage. Currently the trailers cover 64,939.80 square feet for site coverage of 15.29%. The proposed trailers will cover 67,103.60 for coverage at 15.80%. There is a total of 424,540 square feet to the property, with the exclusion 4,960 square feet of wetland. He stated no shed would be allowed in the future.
A letter dated 5/11/06 from Carol Connell was read into the minutes to support the project, with concerns no work will take place during the summer months.
Vinnie Massina, Chairman of the coop Board, stated work is on-going regarding the noise level of the blower building. The park has a waste treatment plant, town water, and works closely with the Department of Environmental Protection, Conservation Commission, etc. He explained the reason he is on the list to get a new trailer is because his trailer was built in the 1950’s and is out of code and he feels it is unsafe for his family.
Liz Denzell stated no construction would take place during the season from May 15 through September 15. Maria Hollis stated there is very little work because the trailers are self contained. The only work would consist of pouring the concrete slabs and hooking up to the electricity and septic.
Massina stated the cooperative did not want any conditions placed on the decision that would impact any future owners from replacing their trailers. That was why they placed an 840 sq. ft. maximum roof coverage per site.
Pontbriand questioned the bylaws the application were filed against and stated he did not feel 6.1.5 would apply. He also wanted to clarify the definition of trailers. Bruce Drucker stated he considered them a building that houses people. Pontbriand was concerned about future applicants from the park regarding lot coverage, and the application did not state it included the additions of screened porches and decks.
Myer Singer reiterated the 840 square feet includes the trailer and any screened porch per site. The cooperative’s setbacks are 8 feet end to end apart and 10 feet side to side for locations of the trailers and additions. Liz Denzell stated some people are opting for a smaller trailer in order to have screened porches and decks and felt it was prudent to add the additions to this application so they wouldn’t have to come back individually. Robert Hankey stated he felt each site should be an individual application. Myer stated the Building Inspector agreed to the application to include the additions as each person would have to present an engineering plan to him anyway.
Stewart questioned the entrances to the park, stating he is aware of only two and the plan shows four. He stated he is aware the cooperative is in land court regarding closing paper roads. He is aware of people utilizing the roads for access to their property and feels it should be noted on the plan. Singer replied there will be no changes to access properties. The land court issue is to clear up the deed regarding subdivisions and perimeters. Hollis (former owner) informed the Board the park would like to dissolve the paper roads as many of the trailers are located directly on them. Helen Wilson stated if anything were to happen to the roads, it would have to go before the Planning Board first. Hankey expressed concern regarding the paper roads in the wetlands. Myer
responded by stating the ZBA doesn’t have any authority regarding land rights, and the trailers are already existing.
Further discussion took place regarding the lot coverage and the parks limitation of 840 square feet per site. Myer stated the setbacks are voluntary now, but the ZBA could place a condition on it. The trailer park pre-existed before the 1982 bylaw. A woman from the audience stated that when there is a trailer sold, the buyer knows how much area they have and that it can’t be altered. Pontbriand was concerned that the site plan provided with the application did not show the additions to the other trailers. Liz Denzell stated she verified the numbers to include decking and sheds and agreed the application plan did not include the sheds and screened porches of other sites. Discussion resumed regarding the need for a certified engineering plan. It was concluded that it would
not be necessary. Stewart suggested Myer provide information on the general elevations of the trailers and additions.
Pontbriand questioned Paul Murphy if the additions to other trailers would come before the ZBA, to which he responded yes. Pontbriand read Murphy’s letter to Massina regarding additions to the trailers. Massari stated the cooperative is happy to have the Building Inspector involved in the regulation of additions and decks.
Pontbriand requested Myer to provide proposed findings and conditions. Pontbriand moved to continue to June 22, 2006; seconded by Nicholson; passed 5-0.
Other Business
A discussion took place regarding the process of identifying the bylaw to be put on the applications. Many applicants do not go to the Building Inspector as suggested. If the Building Inspector tells people they have to come before the ZBA, he will inform them of the appropriate bylaw. If an application is misfiled (Variance versus a Special Permit), the hearing would have to be continued in order to re-advertise the hearing.
The Board made recommendations for the instruction sheet and application forms.
A discussion took place regarding if a chimney on a structure can be located within the setbacks. Murphy stated it counts as coverage and would not be in compliance.
Robert moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45; seconded by Trevor Pontbriand; passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Bates, Committee Secretary
| 
