HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-12Minutes for October 12, 2017, adopted Nov. 9 iV r1 ft-
TC1, N' CLEC:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
2 Fairgrounds Road 2017 NOV 13 AM 8: 27
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
www.nantucket-ma.gov
Commissioners: Ed Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim Koseatac
Alternates: Mark Poor Geoff Thayer Jim Mondani
-- MINUTES --
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community- Room —1:00 p.m.
Called to order at 1:08 p.m. and Announcements made.
Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; T. Norton, Town 1Fnutes Taker
Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani
\bsent: Poor
Late Arrivals: McCarthy, 2:02 p.m.
I'arly Departures: None
Town Counsel: Ilana Quirk, Kopelman & Page, P.C. (by phone)
Ap,enda as amended ado ted bv unanimous consent
APPROVALI. OF
1. September 14, 2017: Motion to Continue to November 9, 2017. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried unammoush-
11. • BUSINESS
1. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade
Request to Continue to November 9, 2017 and potential request to extend the public hearing.
Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani
.\Uternates None
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation
Representing None
Public Sheldon Rogers, 4 Thistle Lane (Lot 22)
Simonas Zekas, 8 Blazing Star Road (Lot 27)
Richard Robinson, 10 Wood Lily Road (Lot 20)
Michelle Johnson, 2 Fox Grape Lane (Lot 14)
Carlese Gumbs, 12 Blazing Star Road (Lot 24)
Discussion (1:1 !) Antonietti —The applicant asked on Tuesday for the continuance; the workgroup met. The applicant said they %wanted to
have a community dialogue, which did not happen.
Rogers — Stated his opinion that this builder has done everything to get people not to show up for these hearings. He
had to make a special trip to attend this meeting. In reading all the minutes; this developer has done ever -thing contrar
to the law. The developer says they want to have a community meeting but that can't take place unti_ the other residents
return next summer. The deeds that were supposed to be issued for the affordable properties were changed considerably.
The pool did not pass the building department inspection and the design was changed so that elderh can't use it. All the
driveways have been moved. Giving them an extension is a "slap on the wrist". The selling of two lots shafted the Land
Bank; and this Board is supposed to police the permit for the development and feels this Board is not properly doing so.
People made an effort to be here and be heard. He objects strenuously to the continuance. Asked that resident concerns
be put on the record; the representative can watch the video.
Toole — We can try to reach the representative to see if they want to come; feels it isn't productive to have a discussion
without the applicant in attendance.
O'Mara — Agrees.
Antonietti — She notified stakeholders by email. One representative is supposed to be here later for another matter.
Toole — He'd like to call Ms Quirk, Town Counsel.
Reade — We had hoped to have a dialogue with the stakeholders between the workgroup and today but they didn't -,want to
have a discussion without their lawyer. We're not prepared to go forward with anything today.
Rogers — There is a specific law dealing with the easements that states there can be no easements or rentals. This Board
has to ensure the easements are removed.
Toole — Asked Ms Quirk if there is a reason not to listen to public testimony today.
Quirk — It's a policy decision of the Board to continue the hearing. If you decide it's more appropriate to go forward, u-ou
can take testimony. Even if you do continue, you can allow people to submit materials at this hearing.
Reade — He's okay with the Board taking materials; they are asking for the continuance to work things out in a manner
Page 1of6
Minutes for October 12, 2017, adopted Nov. 9
acceptable to everyone.
Consensus agrees that since people are here the Board will hear their testimom .
Rogers — Point 1) the State mandates the deed for affordable homes; there is an addendum attached to even- deed; read
Item Two of the State -mandated deed addendum in regards to use of the property. Point 2) you approved a swimming
pool; (submitted at the table pictures of the original pool and the current pool).
Toole — Noted that the pool is not at issue in this application so shouldn't be discussed at this time.
Rogers — Contends that the easements are illegal; stated he submitted a plan to correct the issue Xyhich is included in the
packet.
Toole — Suggestions were made at the workgroup. His impression from reading Mr. Posner's letter is that nothing was
decided. The idea of the continuance is that there will be further discussion and a resolution. Ultimately_ it comes down to
the ZBA making a decision. We prefer if all parties are happy; but that might not happen.
Rogers — Looking at the deed people got, the wording in the State mandate was changed; even -one has brought a copy.
Zekas — His deed is in the packet. He looked at the study about lot area easement; he found a mistake on the spreadsheet
Mr. Posner sent; he would like to submit that to the Board.
Antonietti — Noted she did not include the deeds for Lot 20 and 24 but did include for Lot 14 and the entire document
for Lot 27. The spreadsheet is also in the packet.
Toole — Mr. Rogers is saying the deed riders were added at the last minute. He will look into that.
Zekas — He doesn't think it was right to put the easements on the smallest lots; the easement takes up his whole back yard.
As for the continuance, he's grateful that -,\lr. Rogers was able to be here and recognizes what an inconvenience it -,t-as for
him. He doesn't have a big issue with the continuance. They are willing to see what Mr. Posner proposes; however, so far it
hasn't been much.
Johnson — She didn't bring her deed but will forward it to lis Antonietti. Her deed says any use of her propem- or activity
thereof is prohibited. If she had known at the time she signed it that what was on the rider, she wouldn't have signed the
rider. Feels it is up to the ZBA and lawyers to find out if it was legal. The garage is an encumbrance on her properm
Robinson — The question of legality is an important element. The easements affect the market -rate owners just as much;
they might have been handed something they shouldn't have. The builder's proposed fix for Lot 20 and Lot 1- is
inadequate; he suggested an easement on Lot 16 for a parking space.
Toole — The developer gave us a letter with a variety of thoughts-, the idea of the continuance is to allow• time for further
discussion with the stakeholders. Unless they are stating that they are no longer interested in talking to the developer, these
comments being made should be directed at the developer.
Robinson — But he's not here.
Gumbs — She feels a vote would be a good thing. She doesn't think any solutions brought to the table are adequate or
equal their loss of land due to the easements.
Reade — He reiterated Mr. Posner intends to work with the people affected and how to work out best through their
attorneys. Their objective is to get together with the people to work out something; it might mean amendments to the
permits. They are absolutely committed to finding a solution acceptable to all stakeholders.
O'Mara — It would be unusual to take a vote with the applicant not here.
Botticelli — Only one person asked for a vote. She wanted to give all the stakeholder here an opportunin- to speak. A rote
would be premature at this time.
Thayer — He's not prepared to vote on the modification.
Mondani — Asked what the repercussions are for not continuing.
Quirk — You have a request to modify a comprehensive permit. If you close the public hearing, you have 40 days to make
a decision and you can't take any new evidence.
Mondani — Feels it should be continued.
Toole — It isn't to anyone's benefit to close the public hearing. The applicant has agreed to extend the time.
Quirk — Recommend continuing and accepting the extension.
Motion
Motion to Continue to November 9, 2017 at 1 p.m. this location and accept the extension to midnight April 11,
2018. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote
Carried 5-0
2. 20-17
Arthur I. Reade, Jr., Trustee, Rein Three Walsh Nominee Trust 3 NN'alsh Street Reade
Request to Continue to November 9, 2017.
Voting
Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani
Alternates
None
Recused
None
Documentation
None
Representing
None
Public
None
Discussion (200)
None
,\lotion
Motion to Continue to November 9, 2017 at 1 p.m. this location. (made by: O'\Mara) (seconded by: Botticelli)
Vote
Carried 5-0
Page 2 of 6
Minutes for October 12, 2017, adopted Nov. 9
3. 22-17 Fernando C. Colon Osorio and Laurie Margolies, Trustees, Eel Point Road Nominee Trust 189 Eel Point Road Reade
Request to Continue to November 9, 2017.
Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani
:1lternates None
Recused None
Documentation None
Representing None
Public None
Discussion (201) None
Motion Motion to Continue to November 9, 2017 at 1 p.m. this location. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote Carried 5-0
4. 26-17 Scott B. Paton and Kristin S. Paton 33 Orange Street Brescher
Request to Continue to November 9, 2017.
Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani
Alternates None
Recused None
Documentation
None
Representing
None
Public
None
Discussion (2:u.,.)
None
\lotion
Motion to Continue to November 9, 2017 at 1 p.m
Vote
Carried 5-0
5. 27-17
Douglas Lebrecht and Gina Lebrecht
Voting
Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani
Alternates
None
this location. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Botticelli)
4 Daffodil Lane
Connollc
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation
Representing Mike Connolly — Explained the reason for the variance request. This was continued to talk to Planning
Public None
Discussion (2:W,) Leslie Snell, Planning Deputy Director — The applicant's plan for a rear -lot subdivision was approved by the Planning
Board. To qualify they have to provide a plan which meets subdivision and zoning bylaw requirements: once the
Planning Board approves that plan, they can proceed. The two lots appear to meet requirements; however, because of the
curve of Daffodil Lane it has an effect on the regularity formula. The intent behind the regularity factor is to prevent lots
from being highly irregular in shape. If the ZBA grants the variance, the applicant can proceed to the Planning Board and
either implement the plan or receive special permit relief.
Toole — Asked, if Daffodil Lane were a straight diagonal line, would the lot meet requirements.
Connolly — No; the two lots are as rectangular as they can get them.
Toole — It doesn't meet all the dimensional requirements and the regularity factor is one of those. He doesn't see the
hardship.
Thayer — He could vote for this because the only problem is the regularity factor.
O'Mara — This Board has seen a lot of oddly shaped lots which are the reason the regularity factor was included.
Snell — Made the point that the secondary and rear lots are not subject to the regularity factor.
Mondani — The problem is using topography to get around irregularity issues.
McCarthy — The article specifically calls out that it must demonstrate the lot meets all dimensional requirements with no
waivers; if we grant a waiver, they still don't meet the minimum requirements because of the waiver.
Snell — With a variance the applicant could move forward with the plan for Lot B as shown in the packet or use it to
apply for Planning Board special permit.
Toole — We would prefer that the Planning Board grant the waiver; doesn't believe it is this Board's purview to grant a
waiver.
McCarthy — If we grant the variance, they still have to prove to the Planning Board that they meet the requirements.
She's not comfortable with granting the variance.
Toole — Doesn't think this is a ZBA matter. They should go to the Planning Board; they still don't meet the requirement.
We could vote or we could continue while the applicant pursues another option. The Planning Board could grant a
waiver. A variance doesn't mean they meet all the requirements; it does the exact opposite.
Connolly — Asked the Board to continue this.
,\lotion Motion to Continue to November 9, at 1 p.m. at this location. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: U- Sara,
Vote Carried 5-0
Page 3 of 6
Minutes for October 12,2017,adopted Nov. 9
6. 28-17 Sarah Ann Miller and David E.Bossi 27 Milk Street Brescher
Requested Withdrawal Without Prejudice
Voting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara,Thayer, Mondani
Alternates None
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing John Brescher,Glidden&Glidden-Request a withdrawal without prejudice
Public None
Discussion(2:02) None
Motion Motion to Accept the withdrawal without prejudice.MO/GT(made by:) (seconded by:)
Vote Carried 5-0
7. 29-17 19-21 Starbuck Road,LLC 19&21 Starbuck Road Brescher
Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Mondani
Alternates Thayer
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing John Brescher, Glidden and Glidden — Requested a continuance because they received a letter from an abutter
requesting screening and wants the landscape designer to attend and propose those details.
Public Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger,P.C.—Reminds the Board that if this is heard,it's tied into 34-17.
Mark Palmer,308 Madaket Road
Discussion(2:27) O'Mara—Asked about the rules that must be complied with.
Leslie Snell,Planning—Explained Article 69 requiring special permits for pools in Village Residential (VR) and why the
Planning Board used the option for special permits. Conditions to be considered: screening, noise, equipment location,
outdoor lights, outdoor speakers, anything that impacts neighbors; or the Board makes the determination that extra
conditions aren't necessary.
O'Mara—If they meet the setback requirement and the closest neighbor is 100 feet away,the Board could choose not to
enclose the equipment.
Snell—The language for a special permit(139-30A)was changed by the Attorney General: "The granting authority`shall'
issue special permits for structures and uses ..."If this Board denies the relief,it has to come up with a very firm finding.
Botticelli—The use of"shall issue"is a huge difference over"may issue".
Snell—This Board has to issue a special permit unless you can find a specific reason it doesn't meet requirements: listed
some of the requirements.
Mondani—Asked if this is unique or is there another body doing the same thing in other districts.
Snell—VR allows pools under special permit;Residential Old Historic (ROH) prohibits pools;pool are allowed by right
in all other districts.
O'Mara—He noted one of the letters requests a litany of restrictions; one restriction is that pool water not be disposed
of in Madaket.
Alger—Presented at the table the Conservation Commission performance standard for pools that prohibits discharge of
water within their jurisdiction and requires that all chemical treatment must stop three weeks before discharge and not
start until April 1.
Palmer—He sent a list of protections to be applied to all pools in Madaket;one of those is no lighting in the pool.
O'Mara—Lighting interior to the pool is required by law.
Motion Motion to Continue to November 9,2017 at 1 p.m. this location. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote Carried 5-0
8. 34-17 Robin E.Halik and Clifford W.Halik 221 Madaket Road Alger
Voting Botticelli (acting chair), McCarthy, O'Mara, Mondani
:alternates None
Recused Toole,Thayer
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger,P.C.—Objects to any testimony being taken due to lack of quorum.
Public Mark Palmer,308 Madaket Road—He would like to submit testimony.
Discussion(2:29) Antonietti—This has a quorum issue.Sitting Board present is Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, and Mondani
Motion Motion to Continue to November 9,2017 at 1 p.m.this location. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Mondani)
Vote Carried 5-0
Page 4 of 6
Minutes for October 12,2017,adopted Nov. 9
9. 35-17 115 Washington Street Extension,LLC 115 Washington Street Alger
Voting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara,Thayer, Mondani
Alternates None
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger, P.C. —At the last meeting, the Board had requested a variety of full-sized copies of the
plans for the various dwellings.Reviewed the reason for the request for relief on a pre-existing,non-conforming lot.
Terry Sanford—Presented the architectural plans for the existing and proposed at the table.
Public None
Discussion(2:58) Toole—Asked the total number of bedrooms in the proposed versus existing.
Sanford—There are a total of nine bedrooms in the existing layout;the proposed will total 12 bedrooms.
O'Mara—Three years ago, there were nine bedrooms in five buildings. These were built in the 1940s, according to his
research.
Toole—Four of the five structures had been used as dwelling units since the advent of zoning.
Alger—The buildings predate 1965.The fall back would be to 81L.
Toole — One of his concerns is the volume going in versus what's there now. Asked if there is a letter from the Fire
Department indicating they are comfortable with this configuration.
Alger—It meets the 12-foot roadway requirement for emergency vehicles.
Toole—There are two buildings past where the 12-foot width of the road ends.There are some safety concerns.
Sanford—No building is more than 50 feet from a public way.There is a hydrant on the corner. He would be happy to get
that letter, but he has experience with what they require. Explained the height requirements due to the velocity zone in
regards to the elevation of the structures.
Toole—The high water is at minus 3.5 and freeboard is minus 1. Doesn't understand the reason for their being raised so
much.Would need something in the file about the flood-plain level.
O'Mara—Asked where the Washington Street public parking is located.Asked who owns the land in front of Sayles.
Sanford—Believes that is all Town-owned land.
Thayer—Questioned whether or not there is sufficient room to park a car,back out,turn around,etc.
Toole—He sees no way, on the far right structure, that there's enough room for turning around without doing a 4-point
turn. He has concern about the fire truck access. The road meets the 12-foot requirement to the first building, not after
that.
McCarthy—Those are valid concerns but doesn't know if they are within ZBA jurisdiction.
Toole—This Board has say over the density. Confirmed the ground cover meets the zoning district minimum. This Board
usually restricts construction dates,and this can be restricted that they don't come back for further variances.
Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested with a construction moratorium between Memorial Day and Labor Day
and provide flood plain elevation. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by: Mondani)
Vote Carried 5-0
III. NEW BUSINESS
1. 36-17 Juliet Farlow Hunter 97 Sankaty Road Hunter
Applicant requests modification of prior Variance relief granted in 1999 limiting, among other things, ground cover for all structures to
2500 square feet with only one dwelling to be constructed upon the lot. Specifically,Applicant seeks to eliminate the following conditions
which burden the property: a) Only one dwelling to be constructed upon the lot;b) No structure within 50 feet of the Wetlands Resource
Area; and, c) Ground Cover for all structures limited to 2,500 square feet. Applicant further requests a finding that:he premises is a pre-
existing, nonconforming lot of record. The Locus is situated at 97 Sankaty Road and is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 49 as Parcel 94.
Evidence of owner's title recorded in Book 638, Page 339 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Limited
Use General Three (LUG-3).
Voting McCarthy (acting chair), O'Mara, Koseatac, Mondani,Thayer
Alternates None
Recused Botticelli, Toole
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Bill Hunter, Vaughan, Dale, Hunter and Beaudette P.C. —Explained the request; reviewed the history of the variance
allowing the splitting one lot into 84 Baxter Road and 97 Sankaty Road. He is asking the restrictions be lifted; he wants
an additional 609 square feet (SF) groundcover,which is 3% of the lot area, and wants to be able to construct a second
dwelling;the 50-foot no-build setback is a performance standard of the State Wetlands Act and it is now redundant.
Page 5 of 6
Minutes for October 12,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Public Arthur Reade,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,& Gifford LLP for Hearst Family of 82& 82A Baxter Road,Josh Posner and
Eileen Rudden of 80 & 77 Baxter Road, and Helmut Weimar of 79 Baxter Road —To get the variance, conditions were
applied. Agrees about the 50-foot no build area. The issue comes down to the groundcover and number of dwellings.
Originally the decision allowed 1,355 SF of groundcover on each property and was modified to allow it to go to 2,500 SF.
His clients don't see any justification for an increase in groundcover when what exists is in excess of what would have
been allowed with the two properties as one. Concerned about the possible addition of another dwelling without having
any architectural or site plans. Thinks discussion would be better to have when someone has a proposal to build
something. Object to there being a"blank check" for groundcover.
Discussion(3:24) Botticelli—Noted for the record that she has a professional relationship with the Hearst Family.
Hunter—Lot 84 Baxter Road is allowed 1500 SF;the variance allows for 97 Sankaty Road to have 2,500. In terms of the
other lot,it is larger now and so is under the allowable 3%groundcover;we want the 3°O. Looking at how the property is
shaped, the natural location for construction is on the north end away from the wetland. Noted this Board grants this
type of variance all the time,cited examples.Argued the restrictions are a financial burden on the owner.
O'Mara—Doesn't think it is unreasonable to ask for a set of plans for a prospective building.
McCarthy—The argument against this is that the Board has to rely on a previous Board's decision. Doesn't think the
applicant should be made to come up with something that he would be held to. This is a large lot with a lot of open
space. 609 SF is not a huge request.
Koseatac—Agrees with Ms McCarthy.
Mondani—We are removing existing restrictions.
Thayer—Asked if Mr.Hunter would be willing to limit to two dwellings.
Hunter—No;if someone wanted to put in a pool and cabana,they couldn't without removing the garage/studio.
McCarthy—Asked why it was limited to 2500 rather than being granted full groundcover.
Hunter—At that time,the restrictions made sense to him.Reiterated that the request for relief is very modest.
O'Mara—He would like to take a look to see what's going on relative to the neighbors.Asked Mr. Hunter to agree to a
continuance.
Motion Motion to Continue to November 9,2017 at 1 p.m.this location. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Koseatac
Vote Carried 4-1//Mondani opposed
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
1. None
V. AD OURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn:4:11 p.m.
Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website:
1. Draft minutes for September 14,2017
Submitted by:
'ferry L. Norton
Page 6 of 6
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9 N A N T U C K
44„. ., ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TCS.( CLE
2 Fairgrounds Road 2011 NOV ( 3 AM
\ Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
bAA _ www.nantucket-ma.gov
Commissioners: Ed Toole. (Chair),Lisa Botticelli(Vice chair),Susan McCarthy (Clerk),Michael J. O'Mara,Kerim Koseatac
Alternates:Mark Poor,Geoff Thayer,Jim Mondani
— MINUTES —
Thursday,September 14,2017
Public Safety Facility,4 Fairgrounds Road,Community Room—1:00 p.m.
Called to order at 1:08 p.m.and Announcements made.
Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti,Zoning Administrator;T.Norton,Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Toole,Botticelli,McCarthy, O'Mara, Poor, Thayer,Mondani
Absent: Koseatac
Late Arrivals: None
Early Departures: O'Mara,5:03 p.m.
Motion to A. .rove the • •enda as amended. made b :Botticelli seconded b : O'Mara Carried unanimous)
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. july 13,2017: Motion to Approve. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Botticelli) Carried unanimously
2. August 10,2017: Motion to Approve. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Botticelli) Carried unanimously
II. OLD BUSINESS
1. 051-03 Rugged Scott,LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley
Applicant proposes to modify/clarify the Comprehensive Permit as follows: (a) clarify cost certification procedure for vacant lots sold by
the Applicant prior to construction of improvements (Lots 2, 31 and 41); (b) update plans to the extent necessary to depict various
easement areas existing upon certain lots,including driveway/access (Lots 4 and 28),irrigation (Lots 22 and 25),and garage use easement
areas (Lots 14, 20, 24 and 27); and (c) to allow for the placement of a garage within the garage easement area on Lot 27. To the extent
necessary, Applicant requests modification of the Comprehensive Permit, so as to effectuate the foregoing relief. Applicant further
requests the release of any building lots still subject to the Covenant. In addition,Applicant seeks a determination, pursuant to "60 CMR
56.05 (11)(a)(b), that an encroachment of the pool fencing and the new generator into unpaved portion of the roadway layout may he
authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals as an insubstantial modification and,as such,incorporated into the Comprehensive Permit,as
previously amended.Locus is situated within the Rugged Scott,a/k/a Beach Plum Village,40B subdivision,and the above-referenced lots
are shown on Plan No. 2006-19.Evidence of owner' title is in Book 761,Page 53 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds.The
site is zoned Limited Use General 2(LUG-2).
Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara,Thayer
.Alternates Poor, Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Marianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Reviewed reasons for this hearing. First order of
business is to determine whether or not these are substantial or insubstantial
Josh Posner,Rugged Scott Development
Public Matt Martinez,2 Thistle Way(Lot 25)
Carlese Gumbs,12 Blazing Star Road(Lot 24)
Benjamin Winikoff,5 Blazing Star Road (Lot 41)
Donna Snow,for cousin who owns one of the affordable lots.
Discussion(1:th)) 1) Cost Certification: a market-rate property was sold to another entity, which had the contract to build and sell the
house.
Hanley—Summarized how Cost Certification is supposed to work.
Toole — Massachusetts (Mass) Housing said selling the property before the cost certification is complete is unorthodox
and trusts the Board to ensure the financial results are made available at the time of the certification.
Motion Motion to Determine that this is an insubstantial change. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:McCarthy)
Vote Not Carried 4-1//McCarthy for
Hanley—Proclaimed for the record that they are reserving their right to file an appeal.
Open Public Hearing 1:25 p.m.:
Toole — The suggested language states that the books for Lot 2 (3 Wood Lily Road) will be made available. Ensured
language was inserted stating this will not happen again.
McCarthy—If there is an issue, she'd like that ascertained sooner rather than later and would like Mass Housing to have
the opportunity to see the books.
Page 1 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
((Public Hearing portion for Cost Certification not properly closed.))
Motion Motion to modify the language of the Comprehensive Permit as noted. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by:
McCarthy)
Vote Carried 5-0
2) Mechanism for Granting Easements: (A) irrigation easements, (B) driveway/access easement, and (C, Garage
easements.
Toole —Basically the garage easements take land from an affordable property and grants it by easement to a market-rate
house for the purpose of a garage. Once everything is cleared up in a satisfactory manner, there should be a new
Comprehensive Plan.
Mondani—Granting the easements are insubstantial but burdening properties with a garage is substantial.
Motion Motion to Determine that(A) and(B) are insubstantial changes. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara,
Vote Carried 5-0
Motion Motion to Determine that(C) is an insubstantial change. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Botticelli)
Vote Not Carried 5-0
Open Public Hearing, (C) 1:39:
Toole — The garages on Lots 14 (2 Fox Grape Lane), 20 (10 Wood Lily Road), and 24 (12 Blazing Star Road; were
approved on the original comprehensive plan but there was no mention of the easements.Lot 27 (8 Blazing Star Road, did
not have a garage permitted at all with the easement attached to Lot 28 (1 Blue Flag Path);that's another issue.
Hanley—The garages on the affordable lots don't affect the affordability component; the price is based on the number of
bedrooms.All the garage easements were in place before the affordable lots were sold and the easements called out in the
purchase and sales agreements (P&S);all houses have space for parking two cars.Mass Housing has seen the deeds.
Toole — He'd like to see the P&S to ensure the easement was called out. He got the sense that people buying the
affordable lots had to accept the easement or"get back in line." If the applicant had come to the ZBA first,as they should
have,the question is,would this Board have allowed the easements on these lots. When the plan was presented, there was
no mention that the developer would take a portion of the affordable lot and essentially give it to a market-rate house.
O'Mara — Asked about the mechanism used to determine the tax assessment difference between the now reduced
affordable lot and the market-rate lot that now has a garage.
Botticelli—Noted that when Lots 20&24 were conveyed,the foundation for the garages were in place.
Posner—Because the affordable residents are all year-round,the first taxable$450,000 are waived.
Antonietti—Referred to the language for Lot 27 on pp 230-231,Part 1,ZBA Packet.
Martinez—The easements have been problematic for the community; they don't leave the affordable houses with enough
parking. In two instances,if the garages were given over to the affordable houses, the market-rate houses could still build a
garage.The Board needs to look for long-term solutions to aid the viability of the community.
McCarthy—Owners can put easements on a property;if that is in place when the property is transferred, the new owner
accepts the burden.
Mondani—He'd like to see how the easement was portrayed to the affordable buyers,whether or not they were pressured
to accept the easements. Noted that if the easement had been done between two owners, the beneficiary would have paid
for it.
Discussion about whether or not the affordable buyers were coerced to accept the property with the burden of the
easement and whether or not the Board would have approved those easements.
O'Mara—There is no practical answer on how to resolve this issue.We agree we didn't approve this and if we try to undo
it,a lot of innocent people will suffer.
Thayer—The developer made the changes on his own;it is up to him to figure out how he negatively affected some of the
homeowners and to address the issues.
Snow — With the way housing is on Nantucket, to be able to get an affordable housing unit, if you don't accept the
easement,you're pushed to the end of the list.Feels this isn't fair.
Posner—Reminded the Board about a chart he submitted that shows the impact of taking the land from the affordable
homes and the result in terms of usable lawn area after building the garages. He thought what he did was okay. Reminded
the board the lots the garages went on were larger leaving all the affordable lots with about the same amount of usable
space.There had never been any expectation that an affordable lot would have a garage.
Toole—Pointed out that the way the plan was presented,the garages belonged to the lots they were on,rather than being
subject to an easement for use by an abutter. With Lot 27, the house is smaller leaving room for a garage for the abutter.
The easement is in place but the garage is not built.
Antonietti — Pointed out that the affordable house on Lot 37 (4 Wood Lily Road) has not yet been built but the plan
shows a garage.
Hanley — Noted the easements can't be undone; lenders are involved. The affordable houses are built according to the
agreement:3 or 4 bedrooms,price set,2 parking spaces,and meet code.A property owner can grant an easement.
Toole —The developer did not follow the rules for 40B projects; he did not amend the Comprehensive Permit. Doesn't
think the developer should be allowed to put an easement on Lot 27 for the purpose of a garage.
Page 2 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Thayer—In this whole process, the affordable buyers are supposed to be treated the same as the market-rate buyers. He
feels the developer should reach out to the property owners to resolve some of the issues this situation created.
Gumbs — Feels they are impacted by the garage; their parking is essentially in the road. It is difficult to get out of their
driveway.Also the garage door cuts into their yard.
Martinez—The issue with Lot 24 is that the driveway isn't long enough for two cars. Reiterated that the implication is for
the whole neighborhood;affordable owners have to park in the road.
Winikoff—Feels the developer did a beautiful job; he owns a market-rate house which he lives in four to five months a
year. He pays more in taxes than the affordable owners and the garage is assessed to him; contends that if the garages go
back to the affordable-property owners,the garages wouldn't be assessed for taxes.
Hanley—Asked to continue the discussion on lots 14,20,24,and 27;would like to meet with a couple of board members
and some homeowners to discuss a way to resolve this. In regards to the determination that (C) is substantial, stated she
retains the right for the applicant to appeal the decision.
Motion Continue (C)to October 12 accepted by unanimous consent
Vote N/A
3) Pool septic generator and fence
Hanley—This encroaches one foot into the grassy shoulder of the road. The fence runs along the sidewalk; none of the
improvements are in the roadway. Under homeowners documents, they do have easements to put utilities in the roadway
layout.
Motion Motion to Determine that this is an insubstantial change. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: McCarthy)
Vote Carried 5-0
4) Last Three Lots Release.
Hanley—Holding back the lot releases won't change any of these other issues.
Toole—This board has been asking for clarification on these problems for six meetings and it hasn't happened. At the last
meeting we said we wouldn't release the lots.
Hanley — The problem is that we can't get the building permits and order two affordable modu]ars if the lots aren't
released. They want to start construction this Fall. If this is continued another month, they can't get started on
construction;the infrastructure is in place.
Antonietti — If the board grants the release, it can impose the condition that no Certificates Occupancy 'CC)) be issued
until the problems are fully resolved.
Winikoff — The lots to be released abut his; he'd loved to see the lots released so construction can be concluded.
Expressed concern about another summer with construction going on around his property.
Motion Motion to Release the remaining lots,no COs on these properties are to be issued until the remaining items are
resolved. (made by:Toole) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote Carried 4-1//Toole opposed
2. 20-17 Arthur I.Reade,Jr.,Trustee,Rein Three Walsh Nominee Trust 3 Walsh Street Reade
CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12,2017
3. 22-17 Fernando C. Colon Osorio and Laurie Margolies,Trustees,Eel Point Road Nominee Trust Reade
CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12,2017 189 Eel Point Road
4. 26-17 Scott B.Paton And Kristin S.Paton 33 Orange Street Brescher
CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 12,2017
III. NEW BUSINESS
1. 25-17 Peter C.Rowe and Betty Santini Rowe 44 Arkansas Avenue Rowe
Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and Section 139-33.A in order to alter and extend
the pre-existing nonconforming dwelling. Specifically, applicants propose to extend a rear-yard, P'-floor deck an additional 16 feet
beneath a larger existing 2nd-floor deck while maintaining the zero (0) foot side yard setback. The proposed work further consists of
maintaining the siting of the existing storage unit, relocating an outdoor shower 4 feet away from the existing building exterior wall,
toward the rear of the new deck, remaining under the existing 2nd-floor deck, 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 Variance relief pursuant to Section 139-32 from the setback provisions of Section 1.39-16.A to allow the
proposed alterations. 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 Count-District
of the Land Court.The site is zoned Village Residential(VR).
Voting Toole,Botticelli, McCarthy, Poor, Mondani
Alternates Thayer
Recused O'Mara
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Page 3 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Representing Peter Rowe, owner — Explained the reasons for the requests. Submitted at the table: photos of the view, letters of
support from the owners of 40 and 42 Arkansas Avenue, and a corrected plot plan. They have Historic District
Commission(HDC) approval for the work.
Betty Rowe,owner
Chris Carey,Contractor
Public Bob Kucharavy,23 South Cambridge Street
Discussion(2:45) Toole — Paraphrased a letter of objection in regards to its being "unsightly" in a pastoral setting. Noted that any who
wants to do this has to come before the board.
Thayer—He doesn't have any concerns with this.
Kucharavy—He wrote the letter. He objects to the project due to the possible precedent that would be set. There is no
association;these are townhouses with deeded properties.
B. Rowe — The current asphalt deck will be replaced with a wood deck; she feels they need the exterior stairs for fire
evacuation.
Carey—Noted that the precedent has already been set by a similarly approved deck and stairs at 76 Arkansas.
McCarthy—She feels this is a reasonable request and doesn't have a concern about trying to do something like this.
Botticelli—It would be better if the staircase were tucked in rather than hanging outside the 2nd-floor deck. Understands
the reason to have a staircase down.
Thayer—They are asking for permission where most of the changes have HDC approval and it's not detrimental.
Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by:Botticelli)
Vote Carried 5-0
2. 27-17 Douglas Lebrecht And Gina Lebrecht 4 Daffodil Lane Connolly
Applicants are seeking Variance relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the regularity factor requirements in Section 139-
16.D(1). Applicants propose a rear lot subdivision pursuant to Section 139-8.E as recently added to the Nantucket Zoning By-law by
virtue of passage of Article 72 at the 2017 Annual Town Meeting. The proof plan meets all dimensional standards except the regularity
factor due to the length and shape of the original lot. The Locus is situated at 4 Daffodil Lane, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 68 as
Parcel 719,and as Lot 439 upon Land Court Plan 16514-16. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 24280 in the
Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Residential Forty(R-40).
Voting Toole, O'Mara, Poor, Thayer, Mondani
Alternates None (Botticelli, McCarthy left the table)
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Michael Connolly—Explained reasons for the request. The irregularity on the front lot doesn't change no matter how
he lays it out.
Public None
Discussion(3:02) Toole—Confirmed that they can ask for relief if they don't meet all the subdivision proof plan criteria.
Antonietti—They can have substandard frontage.
Toole—This meets every proof criteria except the regularity factor. Summarized a letter of objection from Jill Johnson,
10 Daffodil Lane. He's curious why the Planning Board didn't maintain the ability to grant the variance.
Antonietti—The Planning Board has the ability to grant a special permit for the rear lot with the stipulation that all other
conventional subdivision dimension criteria be met.
Poor—Suggested continuing to get more information from the Planning Department.
Motion Motion to Continue to the October 12 meeting. (made by: Poor) (seconded by:Mondani)
Vote Carried 5-0
3. 28-17 Sarah Ann Miller and David E.Bossi 27 Milk Street Brescher
Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-33.A in order to alter and extend the pre-
existing nonconforming dwelling. Specifically, applicants propose to lift the structure to install a new foundation resulting in a vertical
expansion within the side yard setback without any change in footprint.The altered dwelling will be no closer to the westerly side yard lot
line than the existing structure. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 27 Milk Street, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map
42.3.3 as Parcel 90,and upon Plan Book 22,Page 2.Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1433,Page 237 on file at the Nantucket
County Registry of Deeds.The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH).
Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara,Mondani
Alternates Poor, Thayer
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing John Brescher, Glidden & Glidden, P.C. — Explained the reasons for the request. Current groundcover ratio is 35'o.
Structure is circa pre-1932.There is no change to the footprint or groundcover but height will increase 32 inches.
David Bossi,owner
Public None
Discussion (3:15) O'Mara—Any over-dig of the excavation could extend into the street and the abutters property; there is no way to do it
without shoring. He has no concerns about it going on a new foundation;but the property line must be protected.
Page 4 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Toole—We need to see the engineering report on procedure and protocol.
Bossi—The house is approved to go up 32 inches,which matches the neighboring houses;it's also why they don't have to
dig down so far.Delaying another month would be problematic as everything is lined up to start work.
O'Mara—If this is approved today,the applicant must provide an engineer's letter with stamp explaining the procedure.
Toole—The application is incomplete;we need more information: plans of the adjacent area and the engineer plan. This
be should continued for the Board to review those.
Thayer—This needs a shoring system plan.
Antonietti—In regards to the front steps,this has zero front-yard setback.
Botticelli—She'd like to see the HDC approved plans and a proposed plot plan.
Motion Motion to Continue to October 12 meeting. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote Carried 5-0
4. 29-17 19-21 Starbuck Road,LLC 19&21 Starbuck Road Brescher
Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-2 in order to install an in-ground residential
swimming pool. The proposal meets the criteria in Section 139-2.A. The Locus is situated at 19 & 21 Starbuck Road, is shown on Tax
Assessor's Map 60 as Parcels 109 & 108, and as Lots 274 & 275 Land Court Plan 3092-19. Evidence of owner's title is registered as
Certificates of Title No.26361 and 26362 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Village Residential(VR).
Voting Toole,Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Mondani
Alternates None
Recused Mark Poor,Permits Plus Thayer
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing John Brescher,Glidden&Glidden,P.C.—Explained the reason for the request.The pool has HDC approval; pool and
equipment will be outside the 25-foot setback.
Public Bob Kucharavy,23 South Cambridge Street
Mark Palmer,308 Madaket Road
Leslie Forbes, 19 Long Pond Drive
Discussion(3:31) Botticelli—There are some significant retaining walls going in. Feels like this is a lot of development in a rural area; this
could open the door for that type of development.
Antonietti—Noted that the purpose of the by-law was to allow the public to be made aware of a pool going in.
Kucharavy — He sponsored the warrant; Madaket residents feel the area should be kept rural according to the master
plan. He is opposed the pool due to wanting to maintain the rural atmosphere of Madaket and proximity to the beach.
Toole—Read a letter of objection from Mr.Palmer,308 Madaket Road.
Palmer— Madaket is not a place for in-ground pools, A/C units, light pollution, and traffic noise. There is a material
impact from the noise associated with a pool on those who get rental income from Madaket properties. He would he
looking directly at the pool.
Forbes — This is the first to come to the ZBA since the passing of the article. The Madaket Area Plan (MAP) is the
document that maintains the rural atmosphere the Madaket area. This need to apply for a special permit allows the ZBA
to hear from neighbors about the negative impact of a pool.
Toole—Asked if MAP calls out the notion of no pools.
Forbes—Referred to the MAP,citing the goal is to maintain the country feel and low density of Madaket.
O'Mara — The GIS indicates this property is surrounded by conservation land. No one here to speak against it is an
abutter within 300 feet.
McCarthy—Would like to hear from the Planning Board staff about the intent of the article.
Motion Motion to Continue to October 12. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by:McCarthy)
Vote Carried 5-0
5. 30-17 23 Commercial Wharf JA,LLC 23 Commercial Wharf Dale
Applicant is requesting modification of prior Special Permit relief granted in File No. 39-16 pursuant Zoning By-law Sections 139-33.A
and 139-12.I to alter, expand, and relocate a pre-existing nonconforming cottage. Specifically, applicant proposes to amend the decision
by adding three conditions which will 1) restrict the locus to private residential use; 2) deny public access to the locus, and; 3) restrict the
installation of the floating dock from Memorial Day to Labor Day.The Locus is situated at 23 Commercial Wharf,is shown on Assessor's
Map 42.2.4 as Parcel 5, and as Lot 1 upon Land Court Plan 10726-A. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No.
24768 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The property is located in the Residential Commercial(RC) zoning district and
in the Harbor Overlay District.
Voting Toole,Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara,Thayer
Alternates Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Kevin Dale, Vaughn, Dale, Hunter and Beaudette P.C. — Explained the reasons for the request. John Giorgio, Town
Counsel,has accepted the language for the three conditions to be added to the special permit.
Public Marianne Hanley,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP
Page 5 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Discussion(3:51) Botticelli—Noted that the staff report says removal no later than Labor Day,not Columbus Da-.
Hanley—Agrees to the language change including Columbus Day.
Motion Motion to Grant the amendment as requested with the remainder of the prior special permit relief to remain in
full force. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by:Botticelli)
Vote Carried 5-0
6. 31-17 Allan D. McKelvie and Darina C.McKelvie 6 Candle House Lane T/B/D
Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-33.A in order to alter and extend the pre-
existing nonconforming garage by adding a second story to be used as a studio. Other than a vertical expansion within the side yard
setback, the existing footprint within the setback will remain unchanged. Other proposed changes will be sited outside of all setbacks.
Therefore, the altered and expanded garage will be no closer to the easterly side Yard lot line than the existing structure. The Locus is
situated at 6 Candle House Lane, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 55.4.4 as Parcel 52.1, and as Lot 1 upon Plan Book 20, Page 10-.
Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1352, Page 235 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned
Residential Old Historic (ROH).
Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Poor, Mondani
Alternates Thayer
Recused McCarthy
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Marianne Hanley,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP—Explained the reasons for the request.
Public None
Discussion(3:58) Poor—The dormer is too close to the abutter to have any windows;it will be denied by the Building Department Can't
use fire glass because this is in the old historic district and HDC requires single-pane true-divided-light windows.
Toole—Our concern is going up in the setback.
Botticelli— Could condition the approval that only the raising and renovation is being approved, not any work on the
foundation.
Poor—Nothing in the notice says anything about demolition or a new foundation.
Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested with the understanding there is only vertical expansion and no
excavation. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by:Poor)
Vote Carried 5-0
7. 32-17 David C.Kaytes and Barbara B.Kaytes 14 Bassett Road Dale
Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A(4) in order to reconstruct the nonconforming
buildings upon the premises which have a total ground cover in excess of the maximum allowed. Specifically, applicants propose to
downsize and convert the existing secondary dwelling into a studio structure and to construct a new secondary dwelling. The proposed
work will result in a ground cover reduction by about 40 square feet for a total ground cover ratio of 4.42% where 3% is maximum
allowed. The Locus, an undersized lot of record,is situated at 14 Bassett Road,is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 26 as Parcel 41, and as
Lot 2 upon Plan File 39 J. Evidence of owner's title recorded in Book 430,Page 231 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds.
The site is zoned Limited Use General Three (LUG-3).
Voting Botticelli, O'Mara (acting chair), Poor, Thayer, Mondani
Alternates None
Recused Toole, McCarthy
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Kevin Dale, Vaughn, Dale, Hunter and Beaudette P.C. — Explained reasons for the requests. He will supply a revised
plan showing the existing cottage as a studio not for habitation.
Public
Discussion(4:10) Botticelli—On the site plan,the studio is still marked as a cottage.
Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested with the submission of a corrected site plan. (made by: Botticelli)
(seconded by:Mondani)
Vote Carried 5-0
8. 33-17 Polpis Harbor,LLC 248 and 250 Polpis Road Dale
Applicant is requesting modification of prior Special Permit relief granted in File No. 34-16 pursuant to By-law Section 139-33.A to allow
the alteration and change of use of a pre-existing nonconforming garage structure to a pool house/cabana. Specifically, applicant seeks
approval to reassemble the razed garage in its prior location within the front yard setback and to convert said structure into a
pool/cabana. In the alternative and to the extent necessary, Applicant seeks Variance relief pursuant to Section 139-32 to allow the
reassembling and conversion as proposed.The Locus is situated at 248 and 250 Polpis Road,is shown on Assessor's Map 26 as Parcel 2-,
as Lot A-7 upon Land Court Plan 13443-E and as Lot A-3 upon Land Court Plan 13443-D. Evidence of owner's title is registered on
Certificate of Title No. 25343 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Limited Use General 3 (LU G-3;.
Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy,Thayer, Mondani
Alternates Poor
Recused O'Mara
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Page 6 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Representing Kevin Dale,Vaughn,Dale,Hunter and Beaudette P.C.—Explained the reasons for the requests. The HDC Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) described it as a new structure, not an existing structure; the garage was disassembled and the
pool house was built. Was told that conversion didn't include disassembly. Wants to build what this Board approved
under 36-16. The original garage was circa 1950s; proof of the garage's age is in the files. Explained why :t can't be
relocated outside the front yard setback.
Stephen Cheney, Cheney Bros. Construction — The massing of the garage doesn't change but a bumpout has been
removed. Explained why the garage was dismantled. The special permit approved a steel frame floor with pool
equipment below.
Public None
Discussion(4:16) Botticelli—She doesn't recall the special permit allowing the new floor,foundation,and basement.
McCarthy—Wants to know what else is changing besides this building.What the HDC approved has to he built.
Antonietti—Read the HDC COA from April 17 for a pool house.
Toole—He would like to be able to impose a fine for the dismantling of the structure,but it is tiny.
Thayer—He wants to know that the floor level and ridge height will be at the same level as the dismantled garage.
Nlotion Motion to Modify the existing special permit to allow for the ex post facto disassembly of the garage and
rebuilding of a pool house as approved by the HDC and with the condition that a plan be included showing the
existing and proposed 15t-floor elevation. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by:Thayer)
Vote Carried 5-0
9. 34-17 Robin E. Halik and Clifford W. Halik 221 Madaket Road Alger
Applicants are seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-2 in order to install an in-ground
residential swimming pool. The proposal meets the criteria in Section 139-2.A. The Locus is situated at 221 Madaket Road, is shown on
lax Assessor's Map 59 as Parcel 42, and as Lot 720 upon Land Court Plan 3092-75. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate
of Title No. 15054 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Village Residential (VR).
Voting Botticelli (acting chair), McCarthy, O'Mara, Poor, Mondani
Alternates
Recused Toole,Thayer
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger, P.C. — Explained the reasons for the requests. Presented the Conservation Commission
approved site plan at the table. This has HDC approved. Explained the Conservation Commission conditions in regards
to draining the pool and use of chemicals.
Public Marianne Haigley,229 Madaket Road
Leslie Forbes, 19 Long Pond Drive
Discussion (4:4e) McCarthy—Noted that in regards to the other pool, the board wanted to review the i L\P and learn about the intent of
the by-law.
Haigley — She's opposed because of the need to protect the MAP and Village Residential, low-density, country
atmosphere of Madaket.She has concerns about noise and lighting especially in the evening.This is the antithesis of what
she believes the isL*P is trying to protect.
Forbes — There are a couple of other VRs. These are pork-chop lots; it meets the minimum but the shape means the
affect is different. Under a Special Permit,the board can put additional restrictions (apologized for her mistake on the lot
shape).
Alger—This is a rectangle lot,not pork-chop.Willing to have reasonable restriction put on this.
Botticelli—The direct abutter wrote a letter.
McCarthy—Asked this be continued for the same reason as 29-17.
Motion Motion to Continue to October 12 meeting. (made by:McCarthy) (seconded by:Mondani)
Vote Carried 5-0
10. 35-17 115 Washington Street Extension,LLC 115 Washington Street Alger
Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-33.A in order to alter and extend the pre-
existing nonconforming structures and their use upon the pre-existing nonconforming lot. The Locus is nonconforming as to frontage,
setbacks, parking, and use. There are currently 6 structures, 4 of which are dwellings, sited within the setbacks. Specifically, applicant
proposes to demolish and replace the structures with 4 new cottages to be converted into a condominium. While the proposed cottages
will be dimensionally compliant and 4 conforming on-site parking spaces will be installed, the use as four separate dwelling units will
remain nonconforming.To the extent necessary,applicant requests further relief from the parking requirements pursuant to Section 139-
18. The Locus is situated at 115 Washington Street and is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 55.1.4 as Parcel 39. Evidence of owner's title
recorded in Book 1572,Page 326 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds.The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH).
Voting Toole, McCarthy,Poor, Thayer, Mondani
.Alternates None
Recused Botticelli
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Page 7 of 8
Minutes for September 14,2017,adopted Nov. 9
Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger, P.C. — Explained the reasons for the request. Not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than what currently exists.The removal of the existing and the new structures have HDC approval.
Terry Sanford,owner
Public Tom Kershaw, 121 Washington Street
Discussion(5:04) Poor—Asked the current bedroom count versus the proposed. His concern is the parking limitations with that number
of bedrooms.
Sanford—12 bedrooms are proposed;8 or 9 currently exist.
Toole—Noted that the current structures are all one story and some of them are merely shacks.
Thayer—It looks like the current groundcover is about 3200 square feet(SF) and the proposed is about 3800 SF.
Antonietti—In R-1 a duplex must have a single owner;condos are allowable if they are pre-existing.
Sanford—Explained the concept behind the proposed parking.
Kershaw—All but one of the existing structures is one level;one was a workshop and owned by one family.When this is
completed, there will be four families and feels it will not be in harmony with the neighborhood. The new residents will
total 13 bedrooms on stilts and exceed the 30-foot height limit for that area. Asked the ZBA to do a viewing. Feels they
will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Four parking spaces for 13 bedrooms will he inadequate. Feels the project
should be scaled back.
Consensus agrees to a viewing.
Sanford—Before he closed on this property,he approached Mr. Kershaw about the project last November. It has been
through the HDC and the Conservation Commission and this is the first objection. Pointed out fallacies to some of Mr.
Kershaw's comments. The height was heavily scrutinized by HDC; the buildings are raised because of the FEMA flood-
plain requirements.Reiterated the bedroom count is 12.
Toole—Asked that the applicant bring full-sized plans to the next meeting.
Kershaw—He met with the owners when they purchased the property but haven't contacted him since. He got the set
of plans through his architect.
Motion Motion to Continue to October 12 meeting with board members to view individually or in pairs. (made by:
McCarthy) (seconded by:Poor)
Vote Carried 5-0
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
1. None
V. AD OURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn:5:35 p.m.
Source materials referred to during the meeting but not found in the files or on the Town website:
1. None
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 8 of 8