ZBA-2016-01 a Special Permit/Home Occupation,

Board Members: John B. Hawes, Jr., Chairman

Linda Tuttle-Barletta Jeffrey W. Brown Fergal Brennock

PLANNING BOARD REPORT

On March 9, 2016, with four (4) members of the Planning Board (Board) present, case number ZBA-2016-01 a Special Permit/Home Occupation, to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on March 23, 2016, was considered. The Board submits the following Report, as requested by the ZBA, to aid the ZBA in deciding on the application before it.

CASE #: ZBA-2016-01 SP

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 72 Winsor Avenue

Parcel ID # 1134 18 177

ZONING DISTRICT: Single Family (S-6) Zone

PETITIONER & OWNER: Diana Kierein and Mark Steinwinter

ZONING RELIEF SOUGHT: Special Permit per §5.02(d) and as defined in §2.35 Home Occupation

SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY: Zoning Board of Appeals

DATE OF STAFF REPORT: March 3, 2016

DATE OF PLANNING BOARD REPORT: March 10, 2016

PLANNING BOARD & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (4-0) Conditional Approval

DATE OF PLANNING BOARD: Held March 9, 2016

DATE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Scheduled March 23, 2016

72 Winsor Avenue March 10, 2016 ZBA 2016-01 (SP) Planning Board Report

of 7

I. PUBLIC NOTICE (M.G.L. CH. 40A, §11) A. Procedural Summary

Petition ZBA-2016-01 went before the Planning Board on March 9, 2016, and is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 23, 2016. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, sec.11 and the Watertown Zoning Ordinance, notice was given as follows: • Published in the newspaper of record (Watertown Tab) on March 4, 2016 and March 11,

2016; • Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on February 24,

2016; • Mailed to Parties in Interest on February 24, 2016.

B. Legal Notice “Diana Kierein, LICSW, 72 Winsor Avenue, Watertown, MA 02472 herein requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit in accordance with Watertown Zoning Ordinance, §5.02, Home Occupation, so as to allow a therapist practice in a residence. S-6 (Single Family) Zoning District. ZBA-2016-01”

House and driveway showing existing parking End of driveway, and rear deck (new client entrance)

Rear entrance for clients from deck Typical surrounding homes


of 7

II. DESCRIPTION

C. Site Characteristics The subject property is 4,792 square feet (0.110 acres) in size, with a Colonial style, gable roofed, 2-story house, built around 1927, with an exterior deck and a small shed to the back. The driveway and parking are located along the Southerly side yard (See site photos). Adjacent to the driveway is a Rear Yard with a lawn. As a single-family house, the subject property must have at least two parking spaces per §6.01 – Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. Given the length of the driveway, the property meets this requirement. The existing driveway width is compliant with §6.02(h) but does not have an existing parking landscape buffer. The site does not have parking in the Front Yard, which is consistent with §6.02(j).

D. Surrounding Land Use The site is within the Single-Family (S-6) Zoning District. Reflective of the underlying zoning, the property is surrounded by other large, primarily single-family homes. Some are older, reflecting the historic settlement pattern of Winsor Avenue and surrounding streets.

E. Nature of the Request The Petitioner proposes to convert part of an existing first floor Family Room (See Plans A901 and A101) into a psychotherapy office. No major changes are proposed to the exterior of the structure, although some windows will be replaced as part of the conversion of interior space to the office and a new bathroom. The use requires a Special Permit for a Home Occupation as a psychotherapy office. The Petitioner’s application provides proposed hours for the Home Occupation, which on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday are three slots beginning at 6:00 PM and ending at 9:00 PM. The office would also offer appointments on Wednesdays beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 9:00 PM and Saturday hours starting at 10:00 AM and ending at 2:00 PM. The proposed hours indicate that there is a 10-minute break between clients. Clients would enter and exit through a new rear entrance (See site photos and floor plans) into a waiting area and the first floor office, with client parking provided in the driveway. The Petitioner states in the application that there would be “no exterior alterations and no accessory buildings for storage.” The Petitioner also notes that her practice is limited to individuals and couples with a rare family session.

F. Public Comments As part of her request, the Petitioner included a list of neighbors who signed a form acknowledging the proposed Home Occupation, and indicating no protest. In addition, as of the date of the Planning Board Report, the Department of Community Development & Planning received one comment Email from 66 Langdon Avenue. They object to approval of Special Permit request (See 2/29/16 Email).


of 7

G. Relevant Permitting History

According to Town records, 72 Winsor Avenue has the following relevant permitting history:

• 1917/1919: A house and garage built on the property • 1985: Building Permit granted for a 8 foot by 18 foot rear addition • 1991: Permit granted to remove the one car garage (wooden structure)

The Planning Board and staff found that none of the previous permits materially affects this request for approval. III. FINDINGS §9.05 Conditions for approval of a Special Permit 1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure, or condition. Met with Conditions The Planning Board found the proposed use is allowed by Special Permit in the S-6 Zoning District so long as it meets the requirements for Home Occupation as defined in §2.35 of Watertown’s Zoning Ordinance (WZO). The criteria shown below will be met in that the proposed use:

a) Is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building. In this case, the Petitioner currently lives at the subject property and the proposal would use a small area of the first floor.

b) Does not change the essential residential character of the use with no exterior alterations/buildings not customary with residential use. Exterior alterations are minor and in keeping with the use as a single-family house with existing windows at the back of the dwelling being updated as part of the fit out of the new office and new bathroom.

c) Is carried on solely by the residents of the dwelling except that no more than two non-residential employees may be allowed. In this case, the Petitioner lives and plans to continue to live at 72 Winsor Avenue. The Petitioner also clarified that she does not have employees. She indicated that she is a sole proprietorship and the only clinician that will see clients in the Home Occupation if granted.

d) Is confined to no more than 25% of the total floor area of the dwelling. Based on the plans submitted, the new Home Occupation office, waiting area and bathroom comprise approximately 1/5th of the first floor, and well under 25% of the total floor area of the dwelling.

e) Is not visible from any other residential structure/with no outside storage of equipment/materials. The client entrance will be at the back of the house, and will be screened from existing abutting dwellings by a row of plantings, a shed and a fence.

f) Does not produce offensive noise, odor, smoke, dust, heat, glare, excessive traffic, or other objectionable effects. No nuisances were identified.

g) Does not increase the average daily automobile trips generated by the residence in which the home occupation is located. With conditions, will not increase the average daily trips (ADT) generated by the residence. The Petitioner’s application indicates she offers 50-minute sessions with a minimum of 10 minutes between sessions.


of 7

h) Is not a specifically identified use that is not allowed. The proposed psychotherapy practice is not a “clinic” within the prohibited uses listed in the definition of Home Occupation.

With single-family uses, the average trips per day is 10 (all trips including visits). Using the proposed hours listed in the Conditions Matrix, the expected client load could be up to 68 client appointments per week. However, the actual number of clients will be lower based on the Petitioner’s narrative. The Petitioner would also not be commuting to work, reducing the number of trips created. 2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Met: As proposed, the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Currently, the proposed client entrance faces the back of the property and Southerly Side Yard property line (See site photos). The proposal would involve clients parking in the driveway. Based on the length and width of the driveway, there is insufficient space for three cars to be parked in a “stacked” configuration at this time. In addition, the site is non-conforming in regard to the required 4-foot vegetated buffer along the existing driveway. As part of this request, the Petitioner is improving the existing condition by providing a vegetated buffer on the Southwest side of the driveway, which will help obscure visiting clients from the abutting property. Currently, there are only two parking spaces, (the Petitioner owns only one car), and so the proposed plan could create a third space, if necessary. The third space would require a shift in the parking to the rear, which can be accommodated by moving the raised bed next to the house. Staff notes the additional parking space would be created using a pervious surface. The Planning Board found it was appropriate that the third parking space would not be necessary unless the Petitioner/owner has a second vehicle. Because of this, the Planning Board found it was appropriate to condition the project such that the third space be a shadow space that would be required to be built only if needed. 3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians. Met: As proposed, there should be no nuisance or hazards to pedestrians walking along Winsor Avenue or to vehicles passing by. The use is within the structure and no noise or odors should be associated with the use. 4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the

proposed use. Met: The proposed psychotherapy office would not require substantial remodeling of the exterior. Some windows would be changed out, but no major exterior structural changes are proposed. There appears to be adequate space for the operation of the Home Occupation in the now Family Room with a new waiting area and bathroom. IV. PLANNING BOARD AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board (4-0) and staff recommends Conditional Approval of the requested Special Permit as it meets the criteria set forth in the Watertown Zoning Ordinance.


of 7

V. CONDITIONS

# Condition Timeframe

for Compliance

To be Verified

by 1. Control Plans:

A. Site Plan of Land – 72 Winsor Avenue (Existing), drawn by John R. Hamel, Professional Land Surveyor. Dated 2/29/16, received 3/3/16

B. Site Plan of Land – 72 Winsor Avenue (Proposed), drawn by John R. Hamel, Professional Land Surveyor. Dated 3/1/16, received 3/3/16

C. Home Office – New Construction Plan, Sheet A101, by StudioPSchema. Dated 1/15/16, latest revision 1/19/16, received 2/10/16

D. Home Office Reference Plans – Existing Floor Plan – Basement & First Floor, Sheet A901, by StudioPSchema. Latest revision 1/19/16, received 2/10/16

E. Home Office Reference Plans – Existing Floor Plan – Second Floor & Attic, Sheet A902, by StudioPSchema. Latest revision 1/19/16, received 2/10/16

BP/ Perpetual ZEO/ISD

2. Modifications. Neither the Petitioner nor any present or future owner of any interest in the project shall change or modify the Control Plans referenced in this decision, or the project itself, without first filing a formal request with the DCDP, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Building Inspector, for an opinion as to whether or not such change or modification requires further review from the Granting Authority. Minor modifications, which are found to be consistent with the project approval granted by the Granting Authority, may be considered and approved by DCDP Director.

Perpetual ZEO/ISD

3. Recording. Upon application for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall provide evidence to the Zoning Enforcement Officer that this entire decision has been filed with the Registry of Deeds.

BP ZEO

4. Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection. A copy of the Building Permit with final approval signatures from all relevant inspectors must be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer upon completion of the project.

CO ZEO

5. Codes/Regulations Compliance. The Petitioner shall comply with all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements, ordinances, and statutes.

CO ZEO/ISD

6. Permit Expiration. In accordance with WZO §9.13, a Special Permit granted under §9.04 shall lapse one year from the date of grant thereof if substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause, or, in the case of a permit for construction, if the construction has not begun by such date except for good cause, or as allowed by applicable State or Federal law.

Perpetual ZEO

7. General Conditions: Specifically, the Accessory Use/Home Occupation (Psychotherapy Office) shall:

A. Have no employees/staff other than the Petitioner and shall not be transferable to anyone other than the Petitioner.

B. Have at least a 10-minute break between sessions to ensure

Perpetual ZEO


of 7

# Condition Timeframe

for Compliance

To be Verified

by that clients do not overlap.

C. Only be allowed to operate in terms of client sessions during the following days/times:

• Monday-Friday: 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM • Saturdays: 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM

D. Only be allowed to operate in the new first floor office space.

E. Have no signage on site advertising the Home Occupation. 8. Expiration. This Permit shall expire upon abandonment of the use or

when the intent of the Petitioner to discontinue the use is apparent, and/or when the Petitioner vacates the property.

Perpetual ZEO

ZBA-2016-01 a Special Permit/Home Occupation,

Documents

Transcript of ZBA-2016-01 a Special Permit/Home Occupation,