Zoning Board of Appeals

Department of Planning & Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 1 JFK Memorial Drive Braintree, MA www.braintreema.gov Joseph. C. Sullivan Mayor Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 IN ATTENDANCE: Stephen Karll, Chair Michael Ford, Member Michael Calder, Member Richard McDonough, Associate Steve Sciascia, Associate ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Rosenberger, Zoning Administrator Mr. Karll called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. OLD BUSINESS: 1) Petition Number: 17-29 Petitioner: 148 Hancock Street LLC (Yong Guang Lin) RE: 148 Hancock Street 148 Hancock Street LLC (Yong Guang Lin), 148 Hancock Street, Braintree, MA 02184 for relief from Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135, Sections 135-403, 407 and 806 to request relief from the off-street parking requirements for a proposed auto repair garage with accessory office space. The applicant seeks a permit, variance and/or finding that the proposed alteration is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is located at 148 Hancock Street, Braintree, MA 02184 and is within a Commercial District Zone, as shown on Assessors Map 1007, Plot 10, and contains a land area of +/- 7,378 sq. ft. Notice Pursuant to notice duly published in a newspaper in general circulation and posted at Town Hall, and by written notice in compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, mailed to all parties in interest, a public hearing was to be held on July 26, 2017 by the Zoning Board of Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 1 Appeals at Town Hall, One JFK Memorial Drive, Braintree, MA and mutually continued to August 28, 2017 at 7 p.m. Sitting on this case for the Zoning Board of Appeals were: Acting Chairman Michael Ford, Michael Calder and Richard McDonough, Members; and Steve Sciascia, Alternate. Evidence At the initial public hearing on July 24, 2017, the petitioner, along with his representative Attorney Justin Bobo, discussed the petitioner is seeking an off-street parking variance due to a change of use from a contractor’s warehouse with accessory office space to an auto repair facility with accessory office space. Mr. Bobo described the property contains an existing two- story colonial-style building with approximately 2,300 sq. ft. of accessory office space across two floors. An attached three-bay garage of approximately 1,025 sq. ft. is also on the lot. The Zoning Administrator highlighted the proposed use is allowed in a Commercial Zoning District. However, due to the large amount of accessory office space as compared to the auto repair garage (twice the size), the Building Inspector directed the petitioner to meet the off-street parking requirements for an office use. As a result, the proposed change of use requires a total 12 off-street parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator noted the existing site is not in compliance with a 1997 ZBA approved site plan depicting nine (9) off-street parking spaces. The lot has been restriped and currently provides approximately seven (7) off-street parking spaces (three in the garage bays and two sets of tandem parking spaces). The Zoning Administrator discussed he has yet to receive an updated plot plan portraying compliance with the 1997 ZBA site plan. After a brief discussion, Acting Chairman Ford requested the petitioner to continue the hearing due to lack of an updated plot plan for the hearing. Attorney Bobo agreed. As such, the Board and the petitioner mutually agreed to continue the public hearing to August 28, 2017. At the continued public hearing on August 28, 2017, Attorney Bobo provided updated plans depicting nine (9) off-street parking spaces located on the property. The Board found the submitted plan to be in compliance with the 1997 ZBA plan. In addition, the updated plan depicts five (5) off-street parking spaces that are shared with the adjacent 136 Hancock Street property. The plan depicts the majority of the shared off-street parking spaces on the 148 Hancock Street property. The petitioner also provided a support letter from Vic Varrasso, owner of 136 Hancock Street and former owner of 148 Hancock Street. Mr. Ford discussed he did not have an issue with the requested variance. Mr. Sciascia highlighted that, based on his observation, a number of auto repair garages in town appear to be utilizing on-street parking spaces and/or lacking sufficient parking for their uses. As grounds for the variance, Attorney Bobo noted the property was highly irregular in shape and size. The unique size and shape of the property, in addition to the location of the MBTA tracks immediately adjacent to the property, significantly reduces the ability for any business to meet off-street parking requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Bobo discussed the accessory office space would only be utilized for the auto repair business and not be rented to another business. The applicant presented the plot plan entitled "Plot Plan, 148 Hancock Street, Braintree, MA”, dated August 21, 2017, stamped by Stamped and prepared by Don Rosa, PLS, of Randolph, MA. The Planning Board submitted a recommendation to endorse the staff recommendation of a continuation due to lack of plans for the initial public hearing. Vic Varrasso, owner of Varrasso Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 2 Electric of 136 Hancock Street, submitted a letter of support on July 5, 2017. No one else spoke in favor of or opposition to the petition. Findings The Board found that the existing lot is highly irregular in shape and constrains the ability to provide the twelve (12) off-street parking spaces required. In addition the Board found the petitioner has submitted evidence that the existing site is in compliance with the 1997 ZBA approved plans that depicted nine (9) off-street parking spaces. Furthermore, the Board found the existing nine (9) off-street parking spaces, coupled with the ability to share up to five (5) additional off-street parking spaces with 136 Hancock Street, the majority of which are contained on the 148 Hancock Street property, is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the business. Lastly, the Board found that the requested relief could be granted without nullifying or derogating from the purpose and intent of the zoning by-laws, and will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. Decision On a motion duly made by and seconded, the Board unanimously (3:0) voted to grant the requested variance, pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 135- 407 and 806, in accordance with the plans submitted and the condition that the office space to be only used by the petitioner’s auto repair business. NEW BUSINESS: 1) Petition Number: 17-31 Petitioner: Donald K. Mullaney RE: 147 Richard Road Donald K. Mullaney, 147 Richard Road, Braintree, MA 02184 for relief from Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135, Sections 403, 407 and 701 to construct a one story, 16’ x 24’ rear addition that will encroach into rear yard setback. The applicant seeks a permit, variance and/or finding that the proposed alteration is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is located at 147 Richard Road, Braintree, MA 02184 and is within a Residence B District Zone, as shown on Assessors Map 1087, Plot 87 and contains a land area of +/- 12,500 sq. ft. Notice Pursuant to notice duly published in a newspaper in general circulation and posted at Town Hall, and by written notice pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, mailed to all parties in interest, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at Town Hall, One JFK Memorial Drive, Braintree, MA on August 28, 2017 at 7 p.m. Sitting on this case for the Zoning Board of Appeals were: Stephen Karll, Chairman; Michael Ford and Michael Calder, Members; and Steve Sciascia, Alternate. Evidence Donald Mullaney, the petitioner, explained he is seeking to construct a one story, 16 ft. x 24 ft. rear addition to an existing one story ranch-style single family dwelling. The proposed addition would expand/alter an existing bedroom to become a master suite with a master bathroom. Chairman Karll asked the petitioners as to why the addition cannot be built without encroaching Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 3 into the rear yard setback. Mr. Mullaney discussed the dwellings in the area where setback further than normal on the lots and therefore do not have large backyards. In addition, the majority of the dwellings, including his, do not have basements. As a result, the proposed size of the addition is needed to make-up for the lack of storage and is impacted by the shallow rear yard areas. The petitioner's lot is pre-existing nonconforming, as it contains 12,500 sq. ft., where 15,000 sq. ft. is required. Accordingly, a finding is required pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 6. A variance is required for relief from the side yard setback requirements. The existing dwelling is 43.3 ft. from the rear yard lot line. The proposed addition will encroach into the rear yard setback, with a resultant rear yard setback of 27.3 ft. The Zoning Bylaw requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet. As grounds for the variance, the petitioner stated there are topographical changes on the property necessitating the proposed addition as the most feasible. Mr. Mullaney also stated an addition that met the setback requirement would not meet their needs. Lastly, the petitioner stated the proposed relief is extremely small (approximately 2.7 ft.) and would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The petitioner presented the plan entitled "Plot Plan Showing Proposed Addition to 147 Richard Road in Braintree, Mass.”, dated June 27, 2017 and prepared by Neponset Valley Survey Assoc., Inc. of Quincy, MA. The petitioner also presented floor plans and architectural renderings titled “Renovations at 147 Richard Rod., Braintree, MA 02184”, labeled A1-A4 and F1, dated March 9, 2017 and prepared by LFH Drafting. The Planning Board submitted a favorable recommendation. No one else spoke in favor of or opposition to the petition. Findings The Board found that the existing lot is pre-existing nonconforming in terms of lot size, as noted above. In addition, the Board found the petitioner had presented a unique hardship with respect to the sloping topography on the property. As a result, the Board found the sloping topography has limited the petitioner with regard to the placement of the addition. The Board further found the desired relief was consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the Board further found that the requested relief could be granted without nullifying or derogating from the purpose and intent of the zoning by-laws, and will be appropriately designed. Decision On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously (3-0) voted to grant the requested finding, pursuant to Bylaw Section 135-403 and the requested variance from the rear setback requirement, pursuant to Bylaw Section 135-407, in accordance with the plans submitted. 2) Petition Number: 17-32 Petitioner: John M. Kelley, Jr., Mary C. Kelley and Stephen Zeboski RE: 0 & 36 Bowditch Street Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 4 The Board, after discussion and a request by the Board for more time to visit the properties, asked the petitioner to continue the public hearing to September 25, 2017. The petitioner agreed to the public hearing extension. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted 3-0 to continue the public hearing to September 25, 2017. 3) Petition Number: 17-34 Petitioner: Carl & Margaret Johnson RE: 1908 Washington Street The petitioner requested the initial public hearing to be continued to September 25, 2017. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted 3-0 to continue the initial public hearing to September 25, 2017. 4) Petition Number: 17-35 Petitioner: Paul J. and Kristina M. Kippenhan RE: 50 Liberty Park Avenue Paul J. and Kristina M. Kippenhan, 50 Liberty Park Avenue, Braintree, MA 02184, for relief from Bylaw requirements under Chapter 135, Section 135-407, 609 and 701 to construct a 18’ x 36’ in-ground pool, shed and patio area; proposal will exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement. The applicant seeks a permit, variance and/or finding that the proposed alteration is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is located at 50 Liberty Park Avenue, Braintree, MA 02184 and is within a Watershed Residence B District Zone, as shown on Assessors Map 1096, Plot 1A, and contains a land area of +/- 28,163 sq. ft. Notice Pursuant to notice duly published in a newspaper in general circulation and posted at Town Hall, and by written notice pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, mailed to all parties in interest, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at Town Hall, One JFK Memorial Drive, Braintree, MA on August 28, 2017 at 7 p.m. Sitting on this case for the Zoning Board of Appeals were: Stephen Karll, Chairman; Michael Ford and Michael Calder, Members; and Richard McDonough, Alternate. Evidence Deborah Keller, a civil engineer for Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors representing the petitioners, explained the petitioners are seeking to construct a pool and patio/landscaped area in the rear corner of their property. The proposal would require a variance from the Board as the pool and patio area would increase the existing lot coverage to 27% from 20%. Ms. Keller also discussed the proposed project will require a special permit from the Planning Board due to the proposed location of the pool and patio areas within 30 ft. of an Open Space Conservancy Zoning District (Section 135-702). The adjacent property is the Braintree Town Forest. Furthermore, the petitioners will also be required to file with the Conservation Commission due to the location of the pool and patio area within 100 ft. of a designated Wetland area. Mr. Karll asked the petitioner’s if they would consider locating the pool and patio area 30 ft. away from the Open Space Zoning District. Ms. Keller presented a sketched plan depicting an Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 5 alternate location for the pool and patio area that would reduce the encroachment into the 30 ft. buffer zone from 1,024 sq. ft. to 512 sq. ft. In addition, the lot coverage would be slightly reduced to 25%, but would still require a variance. Mr. Ford acknowledged the petitioner’s willingness to work with the Board and discussed he did not have an issue with the original proposal. Ms. Keller noted the proposed location was selected by the petitioner’s as it would provide the best location for visibility from the dwelling for safety reasons as the petitioners have four children. Mr. Karll discussed he was comfortable with either plan. A variance is required for relief from the lot coverage requirements. The existing lot coverage of the property is 20%. The proposed pool and accompanying patio area will increase the lot coverage to 27%. The Zoning Bylaw permits a maximum of 20% lot coverage. As grounds for the variance, the petitioners discussed the lot slopes in a northerly direction toward the abutting Town Forest property and is uniquely shaped. In addition, the petitioner described the inability to reasonably use their property due to the strict 20% lot coverage regulation. Also, the petitioners told the Board the proposed location was selected as it provided the best visibility between the rear of the dwelling and the pool. If the pool were located adjacent to the garage, the pool would not be visible to ensure safety of children swimming in the pool. Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted the adjacent properties have similar pool and patio areas in their rear yards. Lastly, the petitioner highlighted the proposed location will not be detrimental to the public good as the pool will provide a 14 ft. setback from the rear property line. The petitioner presented the plan entitled "Site Plan- #50 Liberty Park Avenue, Braintree Massachusetts”, dated July 17, 2017, updated on 8/15/17 and prepared by Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors of Hanover, MA. The Planning Board submitted a recommendation to endorse the staff recommendation of denial. Brad Cartwright, of 70 Liberty Park Avenue, expressed his support for the proposed pool and discussed the proposal would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Jim Hanlon, of 60 Liberty Park Avenue, stated his support for the proposed pool. No one else spoke in favor of or opposition to the petition. Findings The Board found the petitioner had presented a unique hardship with respect to the sloping topography on the property. As a result, the Board found the sloping topography has limited the petitioner with regard to the placement of the proposed pool and patio addition. The Board further found the desired relief was consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the Board further found that the requested relief could be granted without nullifying or derogating from the purpose and intent of the zoning by-laws, and will be appropriately designed. Decision On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously (3-0) voted to grant the requested lot coverage variance, pursuant to Bylaw Section 135-407, in accordance with the plans submitted and the condition: 1.) If the petitioners seek to relocate or change the location of the proposed pool and patio area due to the Conservation Commission or the Planning Board, the lot coverage is to not exceed 27% and the pool shall be setback 10 ft. from any side or rear yard lot line. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the May 15, 2017 and July 24, 2017 meeting minutes. The Board adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. Town of Braintree ZBA Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 7