Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-8-10Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 N A N -11U ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �N CLEF " 2 Fairgrounds Road 2017 SEP 15 AM 8: 2 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov Commissioners: F,d Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim Koseatac Alternates: Mark Poor Geoff Thayer Jim I Iondani -- MINUTES -- Thursday, August 10, 2017 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:07 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Marcus Silverstein, Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO); T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Absent: None Late Arrivals: Botticelli, 1:25 p.m. Early Departures: Koseatac, 4:35 p.m. A enda as amended ado ted by unanimous consent APPROVAL1. OF 1. 1uly 13, 2017: Motion to Hold for September meeting. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried unanimously 1. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanlev Applicant is requesting release of Lots 1, 33, 38, 39, and 40 from the Covenant recorded at Book 1010 Page 46 with the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. Votirng Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Thayer Alternates Poor, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Requesting the release of five lots; mo are affordable. Public Ed Pesce, Consulting Engineer — He visited the site today; there are a few things still pending but overall the infrastructure is complete. Incomplete are two locations: Lots 15 and 16, the pavement needs to be repaired to eliminate ponding; that repair is planned for October. The Community Recreation Complex is now complete. The final landscaping of trees along areas of lots that aren't developed yet, that is part of the approved plan if not the infrastructure. Discission (1:09) Antonietti — Read a statement from Mr. Josh Posner about meeting cost certification and ensuring the project is completed as required. Cost Certification is required in the last year. Toole — He's concerned about losing leverage. We've asked Mr. Posner to clear up some other matters, which he has not yet done. Reade —lir. Posner will be back either September or October to clear those up. We are eager to release the lots to get started with the building permits. Toole — He will not sign the building certificate until the outstanding matters are taken care of. He would like to wrap that and this into one permit to be discussed when Mr. Posner returns. Asked about the cost of the remaining work. Pesce — Pavement aprons total about $3,000 and trees $8,000 to $9,000. The work they've done thus far looks good. _1s soon as two houses under construction are done, some trees can be planted. Poor — Suggested releasing one market rate unit and one affordable unit. Reade — Asked the Board to release two market rate units to offset the cost of construction of the two affordable units. O'Mara — He thinks that's fair. Reade — Mr. Posner assured that he will submit technical corrections packet to clear up the outstanding matters. Toole — He's been in email contact with Mr. Posner about the spec -house; Mr. Posner promised he won't do that again. Mr. Posner asked if he could sell that house; he told Mr. Posner, after speaking to Ed Marchant, that they need to modifi- the comprehensive permit. He could agree to releasing one and one; releasing four lots is a concern. Thayer — He too is okay with one and one but not three or four. Motion Motion to Release one market -rate lot and one affordable -rate lot with specific lots to be determined at a future date. (made by: Thayer) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 Page 1 of 7 Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 2. 063-96 167 Hummock Pond Road, LLC 167 Hummock Pond Road Brescher Applicant is requesting Rescission of prior Special Permit Decision granted in 1996 to Frank H. Powers, Jr. and Karen A. Pourers !Prior Owners) and William Sandole (Prior Applicant) to allow an expansion and change of use from a retail food and wholesale fish outlet to wholesale fish outlet with retail component. The relief is now obsolete due to zoning changes as it was formerly located in a purely residential zoning district (LUG -2) at the time of the granting of the 1996 permit. It is now in Village Neighborhood district in which the current uses as a Retail Sales operation, with Accessory Take Out service and Catering components, are allowed by right. V'oting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing John Brescher, Glidden & Glidden — This has a special peanut from 1996 to operate as a fish market. The change of zoning allows this use by right. The requested expansion falls under the Board of Health. It meets parking requirements. Public None Discussion (1:24) None Motion Motion to Approve the rescinding of the special permit 063-96. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarth% Vote Carried 5-0 3. 058-12 William J. Richards and Gary S. McBournie 6 Gardner Road Halsted Applicants are requesting Rescission of prior Variance relief granted in 2012 to validate and allow a ground cover ratio in excess of the 7%. The most recent As -Built shows two structures consisting of a compliant ground cover ratio of 6.89%. The Locus is situated at 6 Gardner Road, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 43 as Parcel 8, and upon Land Court Plan 18172-A. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 24255 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Limited Use General 1 (LUG -1). Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Patricia Halsted — At the last meeting, they requested a modification of the variance; it was determined that was no longer needed. Now asking that variance be rescinded. Public None Discussion (130) None Motion Motion to Approve the rescinding of Variance relief. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 4. 16-17 Gerald A. Hamelburg and Barbara Hamelburg, Trustees of Erkim Realty Trust 9 DaVis Lane Alger Applicants are seeking relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 for a waiver of the ground cover ratio provisions in Section 139-16. Specifically, applicant seeks to validate the ground cover upon the premises. The most recent As -Built survey shows a 200 square foot zoning shed, exempt from ground cover calculations, and a dwelling containing approximately 1,531 square feet for a total ground cover ratio of 4.98% where 4% or 1,500 square feet is maximum allowed. The structures are otherwise conforming to the provisions of the by-law. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 9 Davis Lane, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 82 as Parcel 74, and as Lot 13 upon Land Court Plan 36551-B. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 1216- at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Limited Use General 2 (LU G-2). Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. — Presented supplemental material at the table: house building permit, shed building permit, and photos of the area and the shed and a similarly permitted shed across the street. After the last meeting, we obtained and now have provided a 2016 opinion from Town Counsel that a 200 square feet (SF) shed qualifies as a zoning shed. Due to the house 2nd -floor bathroom overhang, the allowable groundcover is exceeded. Gerald & Barbara Hamelburg Steve Theroux, Nantucket Architectural Group, LTD Public Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Discussion (1:32) Toole — He spoke to the Building Commissioner about this, who didn't want to go against the opinion. We don't have to agree with Town Counsel but the applicant was issued a permit and we would be hard-pressed to counter that. We can craft a decision that does a better job of defining the notion of a shed. We had a discussion that it can't be more than 200 SF gross floor area measured on the inside of the walls; ground cover is measured on the outside of the walls. Poor — There is a zoning bylaw that states that spaces substantially underground do not count as ground coyer Alger — The bylaw needs to be amended. Reade — The shed is not part of this application. Town Counsel has made a ruling on what constitutes a zoning shed. Toole — Between now and next Town Meeting, we need to get something into a decision that we can refer to which v. -ill prevent this from happening again. Currently, we need to decide exclusive of the shed about the excess ground cover. Page 2 of 7 Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 Discussion about habitable 2nd -floor space over non -habitable 111 -floor space counting as ground corer. Theroux — Explained how the miscalculation occurred. Noted that this is in the back of the house where it can't be seen. Asked the board to grant the relief. Poor — It would be a substantial hardship to be remedied by the homeowner and is a de minimis intrusion and not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. O'Mara — He's willing to support this application. In his opinion, in order to prevent this from happening, they would have to have done a survey of the entire interior of the house. Toole — He'd like a finding about the shed in the decision. Discussion about whether or not the situation is unique in regards to the shape of the structure and lot. Antonietti — We have previously granted variances based upon the shape of the structure upon the lot. Poor — He'd want to see that decision in writing before using a previous decision as precedent for granting for this. Toole — At the last hearing, we wanted to have the shed signed off before ruling on this; that has not been done. Alger — Her client can't get the shed permit signed off because there are no doors on it yet. Silverstein — The inspections could be done but the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) can't be issued since the entire site is not in compliance. Theroux — For the shed, we are required to have Historic District Commission (HDC) sign -off and the Building Commissioner's sign off; we can't get HDC signoff until the doors are on. Bottieelli — Asked how the board feels about approval based upon the "topography" of the structure. Toole — The bylaw states "shape or topography"; those are two different things. McCarthy — What she's hearing is that, with this particular house, an overhang is not a shape of a structure that is unusual enough to rise to the level of allowing the variance. Reade — In this case, the unusual shape of the overhang threw off the groundcover. Silverstein — In regards to the shed, where the building permits become involved relates to single -floor area. As long as this or other similar sheds are being used as sheds, they are granted groundcover exception. If that use changes to garage, it counts for groundcover. Reade — Referred to Town Counsel's opinion about what constitutes a zoning shed. Discussion about whether or not the Board is ready to issue a decision and how to proceed. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested based upon the shape of the structure, the financial hardship to the owner to remove the overhang, and that it is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood; and the 200 SF shed is to be used for storage only with no finished interior walls, plumbing, and heating; the Board finds that a zoning shed is a one-story structure no greater than 200 SF including the walls at grade, is for storage only, and not to have plumbing or heating. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 111. NEW BUSINESS 1. 20-17 Arthur I. Reade, Jr., Trustee, Rein Three Walsh Nominee Trust 3 Walsh Street Reade :Applicant seeks Variance relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the front yard setback requirements in Section 139-16.A. Specifically, applicant seeks a waiver to validate the siting of the dwelling's front steps with a front yard setback distance of 3.4 feet in a zoning district which requires a minimum distance of 10 feet. The dwelling is otherwise dimensionally compliant with the provisions of Section 139-16. The Locus is situated at 3 Walsh Street, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.1 as Parcel 56, and as Lot C upon Plan Book 13, Page31. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1363, Page 191 on file at the Nantucket County Registn_- of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential 1 (R-1). Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac :Alternates Thayer, Mondani Recused Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Circa 1929/1930 with zero rear -yard setback and 1� floor elevation lower than the current flood zone requirement. Work is to renovate, raise above the flood zone, to more out of the rear setback, and add stairs to the front. More steps are required to get from the proposed 1`1 -floor height and ground level; the steps are proposed to end 10 feet from the front yard setback with the land terraced to Walsh Street; presented photos of the completed work at the table. The building commissioner considers the brick terrace and steps as structure and so does not conform to zoning. Asking for a variance to validate the condition of the house. James Brown, builder. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors Mr. Harry Rein, owner Public None Discussion (228) O'Mara — Disclosed that he was involved in the sale of the property over 20 years ago and has no on-going activity- with the applicant. No one objected to his sitting on the board. Silverstein — They are unquestionably not landscape steps with the retaining walls along the steps; the alternate houses photographed and included in the packet to support the claim are obviously not the same. These weren't a mistake; at the Page 3 of 7 Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 time they were constructed, there was no modification to the building permit to address these. The original plan would have conformed with the front -yard setback. Reade — Contends this was a surprise to the owner. Brown — HDC had approved the final design. It was presented as a wood structure outside the setback line. Santos — He did the permitting for the ConCom; there was an HDC plan for a landscape feature step; this was in place when he did the as -built. Thayer — This was no error. Rein — The intent was to recreate what was there. He had assumed the architect got the appropriate permits; the HDC approved it. To him it was a surprise that the final design was not approved or permitted. Botricelli — She can see that because they had to raise the house to get it out of the floodplain and there was no other -,vas to get down to grade without being in the setback. It might have been less of an intrusion to continue the wood steps down. Toole — Expressed frustration with the attitude that it is better to ask forgiveness than go through the process. Reade — Assumptions were made that landscaping could deal with the issue once it was decided steps into the setback %vas an unsatisfactory alternative. Feels if they had come in to ask for the variance, it would have been approved. Botricelli — Agrees with -Xlr. Silverstein that these are not landscape stairs. Reade — The abutting property has a similar layout: stone terrace with granite steps. Presented photos of the abutting property at the table. Bottieelli — Those are clearly landscape steps. Thayer — The flood zone states 7.3 and the plans say- the 1st floor is at elevation 8. Santos — That is due to the 1st -floor framing, it's flood zone plus one. Antonietti — There is an article proposed for Special Town Meeting that, if passed, would change the bylaw to allow-, in these situations, two steps into the front -yard setback. Bottieelli — This site actually has topography issues and she feels it is unique situation. Rein — They asked permission: went to the HDC and received approval for the steps. The reality- is that the architect did not get the amended plan permitted and approved. He relied on the architect. Toole — They had the opportunity to talk to the professional most in tune to the process and they did not. He'd like to hear from the architect. O'Mara — He'd like to hear from the architect as well. Not only are there topography and soil conditions, there is a statutorial condition. McCarthy — She'd also like to hear from the architect. Brown — This whole stair design question was batted around for months and the HDC approval came late in the process. Bottieelli — She would have suggested a different approach had they come to the Board, but she feels this is an approvable request given where this site is located. Mondani — He's not sure the architect's comments would make a difference. Koseatae — He'd like to hear from the architect. Botricelli — We might have to uphold the ZEO's ruling that the steps are not landscape. Silverstein — Non -landscape steps are steps required for access to the structure regardless of material. Motion Motion to Continue to October 12 meeting. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Koseatae) Vote Carried 4-1//Botricelli opposed 2. 22-17 Fernando C. Colon Osorio and Laurie Margolies, Trustees, Eel Point Road Nominee Trust, 189 Eel Point Road Reade .-Applicants request Variance relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the front yard setback requirement of 35 feet pursuant to Section 139-16.A. Specifically, applicants seek to construct a garage to be sited S feet from the front yard lot line but 28 feet from the traveled portion of Eel Point Road. Due to wetlands and an existing septic system, the proposed location is the only appropriate siting of the garage which will house mechanical equipment to serve a year round dwelling. The Locus is situated at 189 Eel Point Road, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 33 as Parcel 20, and as Lots A-7 and A-8 upon Land Court Plan 13887-I. Evidence of owner's tide is registered as Certificate of Tide No. 23130 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Limited Use General 2 (LUG -2, Voting Toole, Bottieelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatae Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 4 of 7 Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — They need a building to house mechanicals; soil conditions and wetland topography preclude a full basement for that use. The proposed location for this structure would be 28 feet from the Eel Point Road layout; there is no alternative location for this due to the wetlands. No building has yet been designed. Fernando Colon Osorio — He wants to live in the house year round. The two -car garage and space are for cars and mechanicals; at this point there is no intent to put a 2nd -floor on the garage. The crawl space is too ,vet for the equipment. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — Flood elevation is 9 and 151 -floor is at elevation 7.5; mechanicals would have to be at 9; they will have to be elevated within the garage, which is at elevation 8. The land drops to elevation 2. Public None Discussion (3:05) Toole — There seems to be other alternatives than a 2 -car garage. Antonietti — Stated there was a gentleman present earlier who could not stay; he sent an email after leaving the meeting requesting to remain anonymous. risked it would be okay to read the email into the record. O'Mara — If he wants to speak to the project, he should be identified. Consensus agrees. Botticelli — Doesn't feel a 2 -car garage is necessary. McCarthy — Agrees; if he had been able to obtain the extra land through the yard -sale program, he should have been allowed to put a structure on the side. Poor —risked Mr. Osorio if he had discussed a land swap with the Town and Nantucket Islands Land Bank. Osorio — He didn't know that was an option. He wants a garage to protect his cars and hold the mechanicals. Reade — Explained why the yard -sale fell through. McCarthy — She's okay with this proposal. Toole — He'd support a smaller 1 -story- structure and not as close to the road. O'Mara — .Agrees with Mr. Toole. Santos — The slab on grade has to be 10 feet from the leaching pit and pump. Botticelli — She'd like to see photos of the house. Asked the existing ground cover ratio. Santos — With four acres, ground cover is not an issue. Presented photos of the house at the table. Toole — More design thought needs to be given to this before the Board can make a ruling. Discussion about ways to avoid building in the setback. Reade — Asked for a continuance to explore alternative locations. \lotion Motion to Continue to October 12. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Foie Carried 5-0 3. 23-17 Richard Sears and Tracey Lynn Sears 104 Cliff Road Reade Applicants request Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-30 from the provisions of Section 139-33._-1 in order to alter the pre-existing nonconforming structure by adding a shower, a stoop, and air-conditioning unit within the 30 -foot front -yard setback area. The dwelling will be no closer to the front yard lot lines than the existing structure as a result of the proposed work. The applicant proposes other additions and alterations to the dwelling which will comply with all zoning requirements. The applicant further proposes to move a shed, currently sited within the front and side yard setbacks, outside of all setbacks. The Locus is situated at 104 Cliff Road, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 41 as Parcel 11, and Lot 4 upon Land Court Plan 13328-D. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 23563 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential 20 (R-20). V'oiing Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alt:,rnates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Re(used None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Noted that the entrance to property is from Westmoor Lane. For practical purposes, Cliff Road is the rear of the house; to place the compressors on the side, it would be more visible and intrusive to the neighbors, who have expressed opposition to placing it on the side. This would not extend any further into the setback than the existing basement bulkhead. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — The basement access as constructed is a structure. Richard and Tracey Sears Jay McConnell Public Francis Farrell, 4 Westmoor Lane — He supports the application to put the compressors on the Cliff Road side. Page 5 of 7 Minutes for .August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 Discussion (3:46) Toole — His issue is demarcating the line from the bulkhead versus the house wall. He doesn't think an at -grade bulkhead justifies moving the entirety of the exterior wall to that extremity. McConnell — There are stairs to a 6'6" area for mechanicals; the rest of the house is over a crawl space. The compressor was to the right of the bulkhead; in this location it is directly opposite the inside unit and eliminates the need for external lines. Botticelli — _Asked why it couldn't be around the corner. O'Mara — Pointed out that unless the brush is cut, the house won't be visible from Cliff Road. Reade — The hedge provides a visual and audio buffer from Cliff Road; he doesn't believe anyone would remove it. He feels this location has less impact to pedestrians in the neighborhood as well as the neighbors. Noted that the shed is no longer being considered. It will be moved out of the setbacks. Toole — He would be okay with redefining the line as the wall of the house; the access and compressor would be accepted but nothing else may go there. \lotion Motion to Grant the relief with no further construction in the front yard setback without ZBA approval and establishes the line at the wall of the structure. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: _McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 4. 24-17 Shannah Green 49 Fairgrounds Road _Ager Applicant requests amendment of prior Special Permit relief granted to allow construction and use of a yoga and dance studio. Specifically, applicant seeks to modify conditions in order to allow: 1) an increase in occupancy from 12 to 15 students; 2) change in hours of operation; 3) substitution of updated Site Plan as new "Exhibit _, ; and 4) removal of condition restricting relief to initial applicant. The Locus is situated at 49 Fairgrounds Road, is shown on Tax assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 306, and Lots 56 and 57 upon Land Court Plans 34507-H and 34507-I. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 16996 in the Nantucket Count- District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential 10 (R-10). Voting Toole, Botticelli, T\TcCarthy, 0" Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. _Ager P.C. — Modification to the special permit to allow construction of studio and increase the number of students, extend the hours of operation, and substitute an updated site plan. Submitted the revised site plan at the table. The proposed parking is in compliance. also want the relief changed to not be particular to the applicant. Shannah Green — They have a parking monitor to direct over -flow parking, no one parks on Fairgrounds Road. That will continue to be available when the new director takes over. Public Sarah _Ager, Sarah F. _Ager P.C. Discussion (4:02) McCarthy — No one has complained about the business in 16 years. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: 'McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 5. 25-17 Peter C. Rowe and Betty Santini Rowe 44 _Arkansas _Avenue Williams Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-30 from the provisions of Section 139-33.A in order to extend a rear yard 1st floor deck an additional 16 feet beneath a larger existing 21d floor deck while maintaining the zero (0) foot setback. The proposed work consists of maintaining the siting of the existing storage unit and outdoor shower and the construction of a set of stairs to 2nd floor deck on the new portion of the deck. All three will be sited within the required 10 -foot side yard setback area. In the alternative and to the extent necessary, applicants are seeking relief pursuant to Section 139-32 front the setback provisions of Section 139-16._-1 to allow construction of the deck as proposed. The Locus is situated at 44 _-Arkansas Avenue, is shown on Tax assessor's Map 59.4 as Parcel 150, and as Lot 470 upon Land Court Plan 3092-40. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 25844 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Village Residential (AR). CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 6. 26-17 Scott B. Paton and Kristin S. Paton 33 Orange Street Brescher Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-30 from the provisions of Section 139-33._-1 in order to alter the pre-existing nonconforming dwelling structure. Specifically, applicant proposes to renovate and build a 2 -stony addition and basement on the south and west elevations. A portion of the work will take place within the northerly side yard setback. The dwelling -,e-ill be no closer to the northerly side yard lot line than the existing structure as a result of the proposed work. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 33 Orange Street, is shown on Tax assessor's Map 42.3.2 as Parcel 199, and as Lot 470 upon Plan Book 16, Page 81. Evidence of owner's title recorded in Book 1570, Page 270 on file at the Nantucket Count- Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). Voting Toole, Botticelli, _McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 6 of 7 Minutes for August 10, 2017, adopted Sept. 14 Representing John Breseher, Glidden & Glidden — The structure is non -conforming as regards the side -yard setback and rear -%and setback. The lot is undersized for the district. The work is to lift and place back down on an 8 -foot basement in the same location without changing the current non -conforming conditions. This has HDC approval. His client «-ill accept all exterior construction restrictions. The owner will reach out to the abutters before construction starts. Public Scott Lashelle, 2 Martins Lane — His concern is the digging of a new basement so close to his house, which at one point is only two feet away. Discussion (4:11) Botticelli — This is three feet from a neighbor; he needs that neighbor's permission. She doesn't see -,;•h%- the rear shed within the setback is being increased to two stories. Toole — Due to its being so close to the property line, the ZB_1 needs a detailed methodology. O'Mara — Frequently we have the applicant provide an engineer to explain how the work will be done. Normal%- we don't allow a full basement this close to another structure. We want to know if there will be vibrating. Thayer — He feels they should excavate underneath the rear ell. This is being continued to September for a protocol everyone is happy with. The applicant needs to talk to all the neighbors lotion Motion to Continue to September 14. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Botticelli) Vote Carried 5-0 OTHER 1. Discussion regarding zoning articles proposed for Special Town Meeting Warrant: Antonietti — The Planning Board public Hearing is Monday at 7 p.m. Discussion will include: Defining a zoning shed. Proposed definition of a breezeway. Ten-year period to grandfather a non -conformity. ADJOURNMENTV. Motion to Adjourn: 4:42 p.m. Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. None Submitted by: 'berry L. Norton Page 7 of 7