Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

Town of Harwich

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

tel:  508-430-7506   fax: 508-430-4703

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD of APPEALS

Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:15 p.m.

Griffin Meeting Room, Harwich Town Hall

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM, the Harwich Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing in the Griffin Meeting Room at the Harwich Town Hall, 732 Main Street to hear the following cases.

Members Present:     Chairman Gary Carreiro, Kathleen Muller, David Ryer, Franco Previd and    Dean Hederstedt.

Call to Order: 7:15

Case #2015-43

Angelo Kyriakides, Tr. of the Kyriakides Family Trust has applied for a Special Permit to extend and convert a detached accessory building (garage) into a studio/office as well as add another bay and one bedroom. The application is pursuant to the Code of the Town of Harwich §325-54.A.(2)©,  §325-14.Q and 325-51.H as set forth in MGL Chapter 40A, §6. The property is located at 78 Bank Street, Map 14, Parcel W8 in the CV/RM Zoning District.

Angelo Kyriakides, owner and applicant presented his case. He started by re-stating the details of his application and updating them by adding that he had met with the Board of Health and had an engineer lined up to design a new septic system that will be sufficient for the size of the new project. Mr. Carreiro noted that The Zoning Board of Appeals had copies of the memo from Meggan Tierney of the Health Department regarding that proposed upgrade. Mr. Kyriakides said that he is an architect and will be creating all of the plans for the project.

PUBLIC comments included those of Katrina Ryan of 580 Route 28, a direct abutter to the rear of the property. She was concerned that her natural light would be reduced and that her view would change. She also said that the South Village Condo Association of which she is a member wanted to know if Mr. Kyriakides had any plans to rent his property. He said that he did not and that the South Village condos were significantly higher than his property making it less likely to significantly affect the light flow to the Ryan condo. Ms. Ryan was also concerned about a tree that has a branch over her roof. Mr. Kyriakides noted that he believed the tree in question would be removed if the proposed project was approved and moved forward as planned. By creating the plan submitted, he was trying to ensure that the old growth oaks on his property would be protected but the smaller trees at the edge which were already at risk due to poor health would be removed.

Paul Vasil of 50 Braddock Street stated his support for the proposal.

The Board had questions as to how to apply the Code properly when Mr. Kyriakides was applying for a change in use by adding an apartment over the garage. Mr. Ryer referred to 325-51 (H)(l) which appears to require that any new construction comply with the current setbacks when asking for that change of use to an accessory building with apartment. The submitted plan did not. Mr. Kyriakides as well as Mr. Hederstedt disagreed with that interpretation and felt that the plan only intensified a pre-existing non-conformity. He also shared his frustration in that he had been before the Board at a prior date and was told that he could not break up the plan into a series of buildings which is why he had created the new plan in the way it was presented. Mr. Ryer held to his interpretation that the extension of the current non-conformity was actually a new non-conformity because of the change in use. He said he believed the applicant needed a Variance. Mr. Kyriakides said he could not get a Variance because he could not show hardship but simply wanted to build a place where all of his 6 children and many grandchildren could stay with him when they visited. He asked if the outcome would change if he were to remove the kitchen from the plan. Attorney William Crowell, who was in the audience to present the following case added that his experience had led him to the belief that once a property owner puts a kitchen in an accessory building, the potential is there to rent it. An accessory building with a bedroom, bath and microwave cannot be rented as an apartment according to Board of Health requirements.

My Kyriakides asked to withdraw without prejudice.

Mr. Ryer moved and Mr. Hederstedt seconded to close the public discussion. All voted in favor.

Mr. Ryer then moved and Ms. Muller seconded to grant the request for withdrawal without prejudice. All voted in favor.

Paul M. Vasil and Michelle P. Pero-Vasil by their attorney, William D. Crowell, Esq. have applied for a Special Permit or in the alternative, a Variance to demolish and rebuild an accessory building (guest house). The application is pursuant to the Code of the Town of Harwich §325, Table 2 Area Regulations and §325 Table 3 Height and Bulk Regulations as set forth in MGL Chapter 40A Sections 6 and 10. The property is located at 50 Braddock St., Map 14, Parcel V12

in the CV and RH1 Zoning Districts.

Attorney William Crowell and the Applicant, Paul Vasil presented their case.

Attorney Crowell stated that his clients were looking for a Special Permit to demolish and rebuild a guest cottage, one of 3 structures on the property. The building in question is on the north side of the lot and is mostly in the CV Zone. There will be no change in the footprint but there will be a second floor with an additional bedroom. There is a new septic system that is sufficient for the addition of a bedroom. The application for the Special Permit is due to the increase in the habitable floor space. The new building will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current one. In terms of the Gale case, the pre-existing non-conformity is the proximity to the lot line on the southeast corner. The new building will simply intensify that non-conformity. There will be no substantial detriment to the neighborhood, no increase in traffic, noise, congestion, fumes, noise or the like.

Mr. Hederstedt wanted clarification regarding the site coverage which Attorney Crowell said would not be changing as the new building will be using the same footprint. Mr. Ryer asked if the new building would remain below the 30’ height limit and Mr. Vasil assured him that it would.

Mr. Hederstedt moved and Mr. Previd seconded to close the public hearing on the matter. All voted in favor.

Mr. Ryer then moved and Mr. Hederstedt seconded to grant the Special Permit according to the plans presented. The Board found that the proposal does fall within the Gale case and is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. All voted in favor.

Mr. Ryer then moved to accept the Minutes of the October 28^th meeting and Mr. Previd seconded that motion. All voted in favor.

There was some discussion on how to find a better definition of a kitchen in order to offer more consistency in cases that have accessory buildings, some with bedrooms and some as apartments. There was no resolution.

Mr. Hederstedt moved and Mr. Ryer seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor.