Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals Public Meeting
Date: December 14, 2006
Time: 7:00 PM
Attendees: Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Vern Jacob, William Nicholson, Charlie Amsler, Bruce Drucker, Robert Hankey, Roger Putnam, and Christine Bates, Committee Secretary.
Chair Pontbriand called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Pontbriand welcomed Roger Putnam to the ZBA as a new member. Chair Pontbriand gave an overview of the hearing process.
Public Hearings:
7:05 06-44 Ferber, 935 State Highway, Map 36, Parcel 190-C: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.1 to expand cottage (Cont’d from Nov. 9, 2006). The Board consisted of Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson and Bruce Drucker. The minutes of the November 9, 2006 meeting were read into the record. Ferber presented revised plans to the Board. He stated the existing cottage is 302 square feet and the 11/9/06 meeting minutes should reflect that number. Ferber asked the Board to review 6.1.5.b with regard to increasing the nonconforming use and stated he does not feel the old plan is more detrimental to the neighborhood. He is not happy with the revised plans and stated none of the abutters have raised any objection to the
old plan. Discussion took place among Board members; they did not want to make the property more non-conforming and suggested squaring off the new design. Ferber will stay with the new design as submitted. Pontbriand moved for findings of fact:
1. The property is a pre-existing, nonconforming cottage colony under a condominium form of ownership.
2. The application is in reference to unit #3.
3. The proposed addition will not create any new non-conformities.
4. There were no objections from abutters.
5. There will be no change or increase in use.
6. The proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Jeffrey Stewart moved the Findings of Fact; seconded by Robert Hankey; passed 5-0. Jeffrey Stewart moved to approve the Special Permit based on the Findings of Fact; seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 5-0.
7:15 06-47 Newman, 149 Commercial St., Map 21, Parcel 120: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.1 to construct expansion between two cottages. The Board consisted of Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson and Bruce Drucker. John Newman represented the owners, John and April Callahan. The Callanhan’s want to join the two existing cottages with a connection consisting of two bathrooms, which would turn two cottages into one. The Board determined there will be no foundation, it will not alter the setbacks, and may result in less intensive use. Newman stated he discussed the project with the Health Agent and there were no issues. Trevor Pontbriand moved for Findings of Fact:
1. The existing property is nonconforming, containing a single family residence and 3 cottages.
2. The existing cottages are nonconforming due to being within the side setback.
3. The addition will create no further intrusion into the side setback.
4. The proposal will bring the property closer to compliance by merging the two cottages to one.
5. There will be no increase in use.
6. There was no objection from abutters.
7. The proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
8. The applicant has received verbal approval from the Health Agent.
Trevor Pontbriand moved to approve the Findings of Fact; second Bruce Drucker, passed 5-0.
Trevor Pontbriand moved to approve the Special Permit based on the Findings of Fact; seconded by Bruce Drucker; passed 5-0.
7:25 06-45 Joyce, Baker Avenue, Map 20, Parcel 57: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1.5 to demolish two existing structures and construct one single family dwelling on existing footprint of current main house. The Board consisted of Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson and Bruce Drucker. Thomas Joyce gave the history of the property and stated he came before the Board for a Special Permit in January, 2006 which was appealed by an abutter. The abutter approves of the proposed plan. The garage/cottage will be eliminated and the main structure will be rebuilt. A letter from abutters Altman and Ogur dated November 20, 2006 was read into the record with no objection. The Board determined this proposal significantly reduces
the overall use of the property. Discussion took place regarding the height of the proposed dwelling, and the number of stories. Joyce stated he would like to add two dormers on the gable roof which is not shown on the current plans. He also stated there might be some adjustments to the floor plan. Due to the proposed change in plans, Joyce requested a continuation. Trevor Pontbriand moved to continue to February 8, 2007, seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 5-0.
timeMinute55Hour197:55 96-35 Townsend, Old Paine Hollow Road, Map 30, Parcel 86: Amendment to conditions placed on Special Permit granted in 1996. The Board consisted of Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson, and Bruce Drucker. Attorney Ben Zehnder represented the Townsend’s and Duane Landreth represented Pinto, an abutter involved in the Land Court case. Zehnder stated this application is related to an appeal of the Building Inspector from abutter Pinto (Case 05-04), where the ZBA upheld the Building Inspector. Negotiations between Pinto and Townsend have resulted in the parties entering into an agreement to amend the conditions in Special Permit 96-35. A letter dated December 10, 2006 from the Kilpatrick family, abutters,
objected to the proposed additional fencing which runs adjacent to their property line. There was discussion regarding what the current uses are as they are not specified in the application. Landreth wanted the Board to refer to the Pinto appeal and Zehnder stated the amendments only apply to two particular items, which are the use of barn and snow plowing. Drucker pointed out a typographical error. The Board stated they would have difficulty with item (g) regarding the Townsend’s “not engaging in wood processing operations between 8:00 am and Noon on Saturdays in a manner that is solely intended to aggravate abutting land owners or tenants”; Landreth stated it may not be enforceable, but the parties agreed to the wording; Zehnder stated this is an indulgence, but helps solve a problem. Stewart requested changing the wording to read this is an amendment to Permit 96-35 as well as eliminating (a) or changing the language. Zehnder and Landreth agreed to change (a) to read
“Finding of Fact”. The Board requested further clarification of the conditions proposed. Zehnder and Landreth stated the majority of the wording could not be changed due to the land court issue. Ben reviewed what the Board would like regarding re-titling, findings of facts, etc. Both lawyers requested a decision tonight due to future litigation and court issues. Drucker stated he is not comfortable with the way things are written, would like to know what all the uses are and feels he doesn’t know what he is approving. Zehnder gave an overview of the 1996 Special Permit and Landreth discussed the Pinto appeal. Zehnder feels the proposed conditions are better than what is in the 1996 Special Permit; both lawyers do not want to revisit the problems but want to solve a problem and close the addressStreetLand Court case. Drucker suggested the title of the document be changed to “Amendment to Special Permit 96-35” and to change proposed condition (a) to a “Finding of Fact”. Both
lawyers agreed to the revisions. Trevor Pontbriand moved to Amend Special Permit 96-35 with the submitted conditions and findings as revised; seconded by Robert Hankey; passed 5-0.
8:53 06-46 Town of Wellfleet, Fire Department, 2896 State Highway, Map 13, Parcel 3: Demolish existing structure and replace with municipal fire station: Application for Variances under WZB 8.4.3 and MA General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 10 from WZB 5.4.2 to allow building within 100 feet of Rte 6 without wood siding, and reduce minimum vegetative cover; WZB 5.4.4 allow building to be in excess of 28 feet; and Special Permit under WZB 6.12 for alternative landscaping and perimeter buffering and parking lot plantings specifications. The Board consisted of Trevor Pontbriand, Jeffrey Stewart, Robert Hankey, William Nicholson, and Bruce Drucker. Attorney Ben Zehnder represented the Town of Wellfleet and the Fire Department. Chief Dan Silverman, Captain Ferreira, Antonio Kenny,
John Keenan and Bill Reich were introduced. Zehnder requested withdrawal of the Special Permit for “landscaping and parking lot plantings and to reduce vegetative cover under 6.12 and 5.4.2”. Bruce Drucker moved to allow the applicant to withdraw the Special Permit portion of the request without prejudice; seconded by Trevor Pontbriand; passed 5-0.
Zehnder provided proposed findings of fact and provided a history of the current structure on the property. Zehnder identified the uniqueness of the shape of the lot which is somewhat like a triangle, identifying slopes and low areas which creates standing water and poor drainage. A model of the proposed building was available for the Board to look at, including how it would sit on the property. Zehnder stated this is the only logical location for the building. John Kenan, Architect, gave an overview of the building structure, identifying 3 floors (cellar, administration areas, and bedroom areas. Due to regulations, the building is required to have an elevator which creates a roofline height of 30 feet, 2 inches above the proposed slab. Discussion took place regarding the building
materials and Keenan explained it will be a steel and concrete block structure with manufactured stove veneer covering. The proposed building will be non-combustible and the exterior materials are guaranteed for life. Captain Ferreira stated the building is designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane while protecting the public servants who live there and the Town’s apparatus. Zehnder stated the height issue is due to topography and the elevator requirements, but for aesthetic purposes the architects designed a roofline which requires a variance. Drucker asked if they could work with the Planning Board to change the bylaws but Silverman stated time is of the essence due to rising building costs, and changing the bylaws would delay construction for over a year. Silverman stated the building has to be raised to create the proper drainage on the site and excavation will be done on the property to raise it. Silverman stated they wanted the
building to be fire proof, be able to withstand storm conditions and be maintenance free, which will reduce costs to the town over the long term. Architect Keenan stated his company was given the requirements for the project by the town’s building committee; he identified unfinished spaces totaling 14,000 sq. feet. Silverman stated most towns on the Cape have multiple fire stations, that Wellfleet has only one building and should be designed for additional growth of staff. Silverman stated he didn’t feel the building could be reduced in size to meet the setbacks. Hugh Gilderson, member of the Building Committee, stated the design has no frills and is strictly functional.
There was discussion regarding the size of the building, the proposed cost to the Town, and what kind of questions may be brought up at Town Meeting. There was discussion regarding the recently built Senior Center.
Stewart requested the applicant present other options regarding the proposed plan because the application as submitted does not provide any alternatives (regarding alternative drainage issues and the potential costs). Zehnder agreed to provide alternative drainage plans. Stewart noted that the state owns a good portion of the land along Route 6 and the building will sit back farther from the paved road than 50 feet.
Merlin Hiller, an abutter located on Long Pond Road, is very pleased with the proposal but is concerned with construction hours on nights and weekends. They currently get exhaust fumes at their home and suggested the truck bays be located on the other sides of the building.
Building Inspector, Paul Murphy, stated he thinks the height issue should be based on the existing grade and there is no way the Fire Station can be built without a variance with the current plans. Silverman stated they have not determined the cost for sump-pumps, etc. as alternatives to the height issue. They are looking to simplify rather than complicate the issue due to costs. Stewart stated he would like to see alternatives to support their position.
The Board members stated they would like to see an alternative design to reduce the height issue, justify the variance requests based on MA law and the major criteria such as soil conditions, etc., address the drainage issues, provide an alternative roofline, and demonstrate why the building cannot be built to meet the 100 foot setback requirement. Trevor Pontbriand moved to continue the case to January 18, 2007; seconded by Jeffrey Stewart; passed 5-0.
Trevor Pontbriand moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 pm; seconded Robert Hankey; passed 8-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Bates, Committee Secretary
| 
