Approved
Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals Public Meeting
Date: June 21 2012
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Wellfleet Sr. Center
Attendees:Chair Vern Jacob, Bruce Drucker, William Nicholson, Manny Heyliger, Robert Hankey, Roger Putnam, Mick Lynch, Sharon Inger, and Christine Bates, Committee Secretary
Chair Jacob called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
7:56 pm
12-10 Ricca Slone, 35 Long Pond Road, Map 15, Parcel 10: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1 to demolish and rebuild 1 bedroom cottage, expanding to 22.59’ x 21.62’. The Board consisted of Vern Jacob, Bruce Drucker, William Nicholson, Robert Hankey and Sharon Inger, replacing Manny Heyliger who recused himself. Chet Lay represented the applicant and stated the cottage will be replaced with a slight addition of 30 square feet. The plans stated this was identified as “Truro” and the Board
requested Mr. Lay to change the location to Wellfleet. Vern Jacob moved for Findings of Fact:
1) There are two cottages, a residential dwelling and a garage on the subject lot.
2) The use is nonconforming in that there are three dwellings on a single lot.
3) The dwellings are lawfully pre-existing, nonconforming having been constructed well before the existence of zoning in Wellfleet.
4) The applicant seeks to replace the one bedroom cottage closest to Long Pond Road with a similar one bedroom cottage that is slightly and insignificantly 30 square feet larger than the existing one bedroom cottage.
5) They proposed new one bedroom cottage will not intrude on any of the setbacks and will only increase the existing lot coverage from 3.08% to 3.10%.
6) There will be no change in use.
7) There will be no increase in use.
8) There was no objection from the abutters.
9) After considering the District Objectives for the zoning district as provided for in WZB 3.2 and the relevant criteria set forth in WZB 8.4.2, the Board finds that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh any adverse effects on the Town and the vicinity.
10) The new cottage will not be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing cottage.
Bruce Drucker moved to approve the Findings of Fact; seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 5-0. Bruce Drucker moved to grant the Special Permit based onthe Findings of Fact; seconded by William Nicholson, passed 5-0..
8:25 pm
12-11 Rispoli Ventures, LL (PB Boulangerie Bistro), 15 Lecount Hollow Rd., Map 30, Parcel 22: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 8.4.2 and M.G.L.c.40A s 6: movement of walk-in coolers from east side deck to north side deck, extension of the east end of north side covered deck, approval of altered parking plan, and construction and use of coffee bar under south side covered patio. Mick Lynch recused himself. The Board consisted of Vern Jacob, Bruce Drucker, William Nicholson, Robert Hankey
and Manny Heyliger Attorney Ben Zehnder represented the applicant and stated this is a request for ratification of over building of rear decks and placing the coolers on the rear deck which did not conform to the approved plan and special permit, as well as vetting for parking. Prior parking spots were removed for a patio area. He stated the Board had previously approved decking in the back of the building, along with a staircase and the additional deck is 125 square feet above what was approved, along with a new brick patio. There was discussion regarding the relocation of the cooler(s) from the approved plan without permission and the increases in violations for not following the approved plans and conditions. Attorney Zehnder requested the Board give retro-active relief to the new construction and that nothing else will be added to the east side deck (this would be a condition). In respect to the proposed coffee bar, Attorney Zehnder
stated Mr. Rispoli believes that the coffee bar would improve the customer flow and get people out faster. Other customers would wait to go into the Bistro for coffee and pastries.
Board members were concerned that if a permit were issued for the coffee bar that it might end up being something else given the applicant’s history. The Board discussed that the applicant had violated most of the other four special permits that had been issued. For example, Board members explained that the applicant had put a permanent roof on the outdoor deck even though it was supposed to be a removable awning; there had been a problem with the siding of the deck not being built pursuant to the approved plans; the approved 60 seat restaurant had substantially expanded its capacity since the initial special permit was issued; parking had been approved for a 60 seat restaurant but the present expanded capacity is well in excess of 60 seats and possibly growing; a prior special permit
approved construction of the east side deck and the installation of coolers on the east side deck, but instead the applicant expanded the deck on the north side and put the coolers there instead of the approved location; the applicant had altered the previously approved parking plan;the approved parking plan was based on 9 employees but there are more during the season at night: the applicant had gone from a few outdoor tables to about 14 outdoor tables in addition to expanding the seating capacity on the deck and had done so without a special permit for outdoor seating.
James D. Williams, abutter, stated he is against any increase in use for this~business because of the inadequate parking and traffic congestion. Richard Stevens stated there are 22 parking spots which is adequate for the restaurant. Vern Jacob stated the police and the DPW are involved with the traffic situation and not the ZBA. Alfred Pickard, speaking on his own behalf stated there are fewer spaces now than what was approved by both the Planning Board and
Zoning Board and questioned if there should be a new review by the Planning Board and whether a traffic study should be conducted. Attorney Zehnder stated the original application required 22 spaces and on the original plans there were 25 spaces. Now there are 22 spaces because the tenant parking is no longer required and the other spaces have been used for a bike rack. The Board expressed concern with the owner changing things on his own without coming before the required boards such as the seating outside, a picnic table, permanent roofing over the patio, expanded seating and other additional uses on the property without permits. Building Inspector Stevens stated the occupant load is
currently at 130, with 42 seats outside, and 80 seats inside. There was discussion regarding three requests for special permits in one application in violation of the Board’s rule requiring a separate application for each requested special permit. Vern Jacob stated new or amended application(s) should be submitted stating the apartment has been eliminated, request relief for the cooler/decking, and a third application requesting permission for the coffee bar.
The Board recommended Attorney Zehnder deal with the three requests, either in~the form of separate applications to amend special permits or 3 new applications. It was also recommended the outside seating be scaled back due to the parking situation and traffic congestion. Andrew Parent had previously allowed trucks to off-load materials on his property for the Bistro; now he is requesting money from PB’s which has not been resolved.
Attorney Zehnder requested a continuance and will provide a modified site plan identifying proposed outdoor seating and parking. Bruce Drucker moved to continue to July 19, 2012; seconded by Vern Jacob; passed 5-0.
8:05 pm
12-12 Audrey Danforth, 5 Holbrook Ave., Map 21, Parcel 105: Application for a Special Permit under WZB 6.1 to approve existing landing required for egress into required setback. The Board consisted of Vern Jacob, Bruce Drucker, William Nicholson, Manny Heliger and Robert Hankey. Ms. Danforth stated she is requesting the landing be larger than a standard landing because of the height of the landing and trouble with opening the screen door. Revised plans were provided showing the revised date.
Alfred Pickard,an abutter, stated he does not feel any new special permits should be issued until the previous permits are completed. Building Inspector, Richard Stevens, stated he feels a safe egress is an issue. The Board recommended Ms. Danforth make the platform smaller and have the center line of the steps go parallel to the dwelling to eliminate any safety issues with the road and future sidewalk installation. Ms. Danforth abruptly left the room in the middle of the hearing. Bruce Drucker moved to dismiss and deny the permit because the applicant abandoned the hearing & application; seconded by Robert Hankey Putnam; passed 4-1.
NOTE: Ms. Danforth later returned to the meeting at 9:25 pm and Vern Jacob requested she file a new application at no charge. She stated she would come back.
7:00 pm
12-13 Carol Ridker and Alice Carter, 15 Kimball St (a/k/a 206A Kendrick Ave), Map 20, Parcel 28: Appeal from Person Aggrieved to revoke Bldg. Permit 12-129 for construction of a new single-family home on the property now designated as Unit 8 of the Barefoot By the Beach Condominium. The Board consisted of Vern Jacob, Bruce Drucker, William Nicholson, Manny Heyliger, and Robert Hankey. Attorney David Reid, representing the applicants, gave an overview of the cottage colony units and property. He
stated the original property consisted of 15 cottages in 1993 and was divided into three parcels in 1994. In 2011 the cottages were changed to condominium ownership. The owner was granted a building permit by the Building Inspector for the construction of a new single family dwelling in a more conforming location on the lot in terms of side setbacks. He stated this property now has 4 structures on it plus the dwelling under construction and the appeal is to revoke the building permit. Mr. Reid stated the current lawful use of the property is for a cottage colony. He feels it is a change of use to add the new dwelling, which is not allowed under our bylaws. Mr. Reid stated cottage size is limited to 750 sq ft, and the new dwelling is over 1,841 square feet. There has been no seasonal use identified on the building permit as required by the by-law applicable to cottage colonies and it does not qualify as a replacement for a cottage. A
single family home requires a 30,000 square foot individual lot which isn’t present here. This would be a mixed use with 3 cottages and a dwelling with a density issue. Our bylaw only allows one dwelling per lot. To go from a conforming use to a nonconforming use would require a variance. The cottages are for commercial use. This lot is 59,700 sq. ft.~with 4 cottages. Mr. Reid asked the Board if this dwelling were allowed to replace one cottage, then all the rest of the cottages could be changed into larger single family dwellings. He stated he would ask the board to put a stop order on the building contruction.
Richard Stevens, Building Inspector, stated he talked with the owner of the proposed dwelling and stated he felt this was going to be more conforming, with allowed square footage which met the height requires, etc. and felt this was a by-right permit.
Attorney Reid stated this is still just one lot and isn’t affected by the the condo form of ownership. He stated all four of the units are now considered nonconforming. Carol Ritker stated she had received misinformation regarding the building from the Building Inspector’s office and questioned if the original cottage could be turned into a garage. Attorney Leslie Morse, representing some abutters, stated she supports the applicants.
Attorney Ben Zehnder, represented the property owner and stated he does not believe this is a cottage colony based on the bylaw and because the units are all larger than 750 sq ft, and that there is usually one dwelling in a cottage colony which is year round. He stated these are single family dwelling units. To replace the original cottage with another slightly larger dwelling, referencing WZB 6.1.5.1, states when you are constructing or changing a nonconforming structure, you are allowed to do so because you are not increasing the nonconformities. Chet Lay stated the original cottage is
nonconforming with setbacks. It was noted the septic system was upgraded in 1995 for the three units. Attorney Reid stated he feels the new construction should be removed. The owner stated there is only one septic system for the structure. Attorney Reid stated the lawful use of the property has not changed due to becoming condos and is still under single ownership. Attorney Zehnder read the definition of a dwelling, and feels these units are not a cottage colony.
The Board discussed the definition of a cottage colony and if this property falls under that definition and if the building permit should have been issued. Bruce Drucker recommended the applicants’ attorney request a continuance, that the attorneys discuss a possible resolution which the Board could approve, and that each provide proposed findings and a decision for the Board one week prior to the next hearing. Attorney Leslie Morse would like to be involved in the negotiations. Bruce Drucker moved to continue
to July 19, 2012; seconded by Manny Heyliger;passed 5-0.~
Other Business
An e-mail will be sent thanking Tom Reinhart for his service.
Vern Jacob reported Sibel Asantugrul has applied for membership to the ZBA. He stated if anyone wanted to support her, they should send a letter to the selectmen.
The Board will celebrate Roger Putnam’s birthday on July 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm (Monday) at VR’s. Christine Bates will extend an invitation to Don Palladino, Tom Reinhart, Jeff Stewart, and Paul Murphy,
Roger Putnam moved to approve the amended 05/03/12 meeting minutes; seconded by Robert Hankey, passed 8-0.
Roger Putnam moved to approve the amended 05/17/12 meeting minutes; seconded by Manny Heyliger; passed 8-0.
Sharon Inger moved to approve the amended 06/07/12 meeting minutes; seconded by Roger Putnam, passed 8-0.
Vern Jacob moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm; seconded by Manny Heyliger; passed 8-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine A. Bates, Committee Secretary
| 