Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-1-11Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 oU�'�F'�9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 'RAI 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 -r1 MINUTES Thursday, January 11, 2018 G Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —1:00 p.m. co C) C Called to order at 1:12 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker N Attending Members: Toole, Botticel i, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani ' Remote Participation: Per 940 CMR 29.10, O'Mara is participating remotely due to distance. �® Absent: None Late Arrivals: Koseatac, 1:31 p.m. Early Departures: O'Mara, 3:45 p.m.; Botticelli, 4:55 p.m. Town Counsel: Ilana Quirk, K&P by phone. Agenda adopted ty unanimous consent APPROVAL1. OF 1. November 09, 2017: Held by unanimous consent 2. December 14, 2017: Held by unanimous consent 11. OLD BUSINESS 1. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade 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 760 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 be 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). 2. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade NEW REQUEST submitted on 1/4/2018 The Applicant further seeks a determination that proposed modifications to the Comprehensive Permit, as amended, and the plans approved therewith, may be considered insubstantial pursuant to 760 CMR 56.05 (11)(a)(b), and as such, may be authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed modifications for which applicant seeks approval are: 1) Change the approved house model without a change in approved number of bedrooms (3) and installation of an exterior spa upon Market Rate Lot 34 (4 Cranberry Lane); 2) To the extent necessary, regarding Lot 16 (12 Wood Lily Road): a) Placement of a garage use easement upon Lot 16 for benefit of Lot 17 (10 Thistle Way); b) Modification of the Comprehensive Permit and consent to a Waiver of the setback restriction of 80 feet from Rugged Road in order to allow the placement of a dwelling to be sited no closer than 71 feet from Rugged Road. NEW MODIFICATION REQUEST received on 1/ 8 /2018: A remand is being sought in Kiag v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Land Court 2017 MISC 00573 -Long, to allow Rugged Scott to withdraw the request approved by the ZBA on September 14, 2017 to approve an extension to Scotch Broom Path as set forth in the proposed order of remand which is on file with the Board and that also requests the Board to approve a driveway location for Lot 3 off of Scotch Brook Path; and, the Board will attempt to act on this request if the Land Court issues the necessary remand order in time for the Board to act. Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani Alternates Poor Recused McCarthy Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 1 of 7 Representing Discussion Action Voice Vote Discussion Action Voice Vote Discussion Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Reached a settlement with the owners of Lots 20 and 24. Do not have an agreement on Lot 27. Have been in contact with the owner of Lot 14 but not discussed details. The easement on Lot 4, which is in litigation, reached a settlement and matter was remanded to ZBA by Land Court to eliminate the easement. Marianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Lot 34 model will be changed from Juniper to Cedar. Reviewed modifications for Lot 17 and 20 and request to modify the Comprehensive Permits in regards to the setback for placement of a garage on Lot 16. Josh Posner, Rugged Road, LLC LOT 4, LITIGATION: Toole — We need to make a motion per the Land Court ruling to clear this item up. Motion that ZBA vote under 760 CMR 56.05 (11)(C) to acknowledge and accept the withdrawal by Rugged Scott, LLC of the portion of its insubstantial modification request that the ZBA approved on 9/14/2017 which allowed the extension of Scotch Broom Path as shown on the February 27, 2017 plan titled "Common Access Easement Plan 1 Scotch Broom Path" with the result of this vote to be that the dimensions of Scotch Broom Path shall return to the dimensions shown on the plan sheet entitled "Layout Plan of Land to Site Development for Beach Plum Village as Rugged Road and Scotts Way" and that is recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds as Plan Nr. 2006-61. A copy of this vote shall be recorded against the subject property forthwith so that the record will be clear as to the plan that is in effect for the continued duration of Scotch Broom Path. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Mondani) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye LOT 3: Reade — There is a modification to the driveway for Lot 3. Quirk — The driveway change must be determined to be either substantial or insubstantial. Motion that ZBA vote under 760 CMR 56.05(11)(A) to determine that the Driveway configuration change for Lot 3, off of Scotch Broom Path, as shown on the sketch plan entitled "Proposed Housing for Rugged Road & Scott's Way Nantucket, MA" is not a substantial modification to the Comprehensive Plan; a copy of the plan and vote will be attached to the deed. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye SETTLEMENTS FOR LOTS 20 & 24: Richard Robinson, 10 Wood Lily Road, Lot 20 — Confirmed they came to an agreement. Reade — The Garage on Lot 20 is going to Lot 16. The easement on Lot 20 will be released. Toole — On lot 24, the garage is staying in place under a special agreement with the owner. Carlese Gumbs, 12 Blazing Star Road, Lot 24 — Confirmed the agreement. Toole — That settlement will be memorialized by the next meeting. LOT 27: Simons Zekas, 8 Blazing Star Road, Lot 27 — His lot is 4181 square feet (SF), the smallest in the subdivision, and a 976SF garage easement, for the benefit of a much larger, market -rate lot, was placed on it that takes up the entire backyard. They didn't agree with the easement but felt pressured to accept the property at the closing, which was rushed. Asked the ZBA to hold to the Comprehensive Permit. Asked the ZBA to rule on this at this hearing. Quirk — This can be separated from the other lots; the owner has asked for a continuance. Now you need to decide on the merits, whether or not the modification causes a local concern in reaching affordable housing. Toole — The owner and his representative have asked for a continuance but this has been going on for over a year. He doesn't think this Board would have approved this. Botticelli — The garage has not been built; we don't need to approve it. Reade — The easement is in place and held by the owner of Lot 28. We can't simply act unilaterally to eliminate the easement. Toole — If this is denied, it is incumbent upon the developer to deal with the Market -rate owner to resolve the issue. Thayer — Asked if the developer proposed moving the garage off Lot 27. Reade — We proposed a settlement that would grant an exclusive land -use agreement for Lot 27 equal to the area of the garage and increase the screening and move the easement area away from the Lot 27 house a little. They proposed to move the garage three feet and the easement five feet toward Lot 28. Toole — He wouldn't have voted for any easement for a garage on Lot 27. Posner — Clarified how the garage and easement line would be moved under the settlement proposal; it would end up straddling the lot line. Quirk — The garage would require a waiver from the setback requirement. The request isn't before the ZBA at this time. Botticelli — Asked if there is a reason the proposed move doesn't work for Mr. Zekas. Zekas —The location of the garage as proposed in the settlement is in the side yard abutting a driveway. It also means that he has no room for a tool shed. He feels this has been going on too long; there has been plenty of time for the developer to make this right. Reade — Asked for this be continued to next month. Page 2of7 Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Page 3 of 7 Toole — The easement is in place, even if we voted against it. Quirk — It's not shown on the Comprehensive Plan and it isn't an allowable use. The proper procedure would be to close the public hearing for this and then have 40 days to render a decision. The Board has a concern about the reduction of the lot by 25% and it is not appropriate to so reduce the affordable lot. The easement was included at the time of closing and has some legal affect; but the ZBA Comprehensive Permit Plan does not include a garage on an affordable lot to support a market -rate lot. If the Board believes there is some way to work this out, she would recommend keeping this open. Mondani — He thinks it should remain as it is shown on the Permit Plan. He won't change his mind in the next month. O'Mara — He wonders if there is a proposal the owner has that would resolve it. Quirk — That is not before the ZBA. The motion to close the hearing has to be specifically crafted. Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C., for Lot 28 — He doesn't know if closing is the most effective way. He feels his client has the right to work this out; the February meeting might not have a full board. Antonietti — Confirmed room availability at 40 days for February 22. Quirk — The Board could extend the 40 days at the applicant's request. Considering weather issues, 40 days might be tight. Continued discussion about whether or not to close the hearing and put the 40 -day deadline in motion. Quirk — Could also continue to February meeting with a denial to be crafted for review; the Board could close the public hearing at that meeting and vote on the denial. Consensus supports Ms Quirk's suggestion to continue with a draft denial to be prepared. LOT 14: Toole — There are special circumstances here as well. Read Michelle Johnson, Lot 14 owner, letter into the record. Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C., for Michelle Johnson — They have concerns but are speaking with Mr. Reade and Mr. Posner. Thayer — He thinks there are a lot of ways to clean this up. Toole — The building is there for the benefit of all homeowners and it was approved in the original Comprehensive Permit. It was clear at that time that this structure would go to the Association. Alger — She will be researching the original permit to see if the use easement went to the Association. Reade — Asked that this be continued. Quirk — She would have to look research the issues in regards to Lot 14. Action Motion to continue the Public Hearing for Lots 20, 24, 27, and 14 to February 1 at 10 a.m. 4 Fairgrounds Road. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: O'Mara) Voice Vote Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticel i -aye Discussion LOT 34: Toole — This is changing the model from Juniper to Cedar, no change in the number of bedrooms. Hanley —The alternate design opens up more of the back yard; the setbacks remain the same. Review of the proposal for the new design to determine compliance with setbacks. O'Mara — There is room to take it out of the setback. Toole — The air conditioning units (A/C) should not be in the setback tucked against the neighbor's lot line. Then there is the spa. Posner — They will find a different location for the A/C. Quirk — This is to determine if the change is substantial or insubstantial; the A/C and pool equipment are not part of this request. They could withdraw this then they would have to come back with a new request. Thayer — He'd like to see a plan that shows where the A/C and the pool equipment will go. Quirk — The applicant can ask to extend it an additional 30 days, then ZBA will vote on that extension. Action Motion to Accept the extension to February 15. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) Voice Vote Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye Discussion (3:01) LOT 16: Toole — This is to move a garage onto Lot 16 to benefit Lot 17; it is coming from Lot 20. We are discussing whether or not it is a substantial change to the Plan. Hanley — It would also move the house closer to Rugged Road. Clarified the proposed changes. Quirk — The Board can express concerns about the proposed modifications and work with the applicant for an extension of time, or the Board can rule it is substantial and requires a public hearing. The Board could also ask for a continuance so that this is considered with the main issue in regards to Lot 20. Reade — With regard to Lot 20, approval of this would result in the withdrawal of the modification to Lot 20 and enable a settlement for Lot 20. Toole — Asked Mr. Reade what the negative to continuing this would be. Reade — We don't want to withdraw the request for modification to Lot 20 until they know they can put the garage on Lot 16 for the benefit of Lot 17. Pointed out that for the garage to move to Lot 16 requires Historic District Commission approval. Toole — Asked if there was clear guidance for the Board as to whether this is substantial or insubstantial. Page 3 of 7 Action Voice Vote Discussion Action Voice Vote 3. 26-17 Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Discussion Action Voice Vote 4. 27-17 Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Discussion Motion Voice Vote 5. 34-17 Tax As of Title Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Hanley — One driving issue is that the garages were put on affordable lots as opposed to market -rate lots. Here, both lots are market -rate lots; the two owners are cooperating here. The garage is in the same place it was originally shown except turned. Toole — What happens if the settlement doesn't work out and Lot 17 still has rights to the easement on Lot 20. He would than have rights to both garages. Hanley — They wouldn't go through the machinations to put easements on both Lot 20 and Lot 16. Toole — Asked Ms Quirk for her recommendation. Quirk — Recommended taking a 20 -day extension and look at the whole picture at the same time so as not to end up pwith inconsistencies. The goal is to have a transparent plan as to what the ZBA approves. If they don't sign the continuance, the ZBA will require a public hearing. Hanley — Asked for the board to agree on waiving the setback in regards to the location of the house. Quirk — The house move could be parsed out. Motion to Accept the extension to February 15. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye Toole — This is to rule on whether or not moving the house on Lot 16 is substantial or not. Quirk — Any determination you make needs to be in writing and sent out within 20 days; the vote should be reduced in writing with the authorization of the chair to sign it on behalf of the board. Motion to Find the Request to shift the house 6 feet toward Rugged Road with the window wells to be no closer than 71 feet is insubstantial and to waive the restriction of 88 feet specifically to this house and authorize the chair to sign the written notice on behalf of the board. (made by: Thayer) (seconded by: Mondani) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye Scott B. Paton and Kristin S. Paton 33 Orange Street Brescher O CONTINUE TO 2/8/2018 Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Poor, Thayer, Mondani None File with associated plans, photos and required documentation John Breschet, Glidden & Glidden — The owner has finally chosen a contractor and there was an abutter in opposition. None None Motion to Continue to March 8. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye Douglas Lebrecht and Gina Lebrecht 4 Daffodil Lane Brescher O CONTINUE TO 2/8/2018 Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani None None File with associated plans, photos and required documentation John Brescher, Glidden & Glidden —just approved by the Plan Board on January 8. None None Motion to Continue to February 8. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Toole) Carried: unanimously Thayer -aye; Mondani-aye; Toole -aye; O'Mara -aye; McCarthy -aye Robin E. Halik and Clifford W. Halik 221 Madaket Road Alger seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-2 in order to install an in -ground nming pool. The proposal meets the criteria in Section 139-2A. The Locus is situated at 221 Madaket Road, is shown on Map 59 as Parcel 42, and as Lot 720 upon Land Court Plan 3092-75. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate 054 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Village Residential (VR). Botticelli (acting chair), Koseatac, O'Mara, Mondani, Poor None None File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. — Reviewed information requested at the last hearing. Conservation Commission approved plans, Affidavit of non-commercial use, and revised lighting plan. The pool meets all requirements; confirmed that the edge is measured from the water sheet. Would accept all the same restrictions this board placed on a previously approved pool in Madaket. Elizabeth O'Rourke, Jardin's International None Page 4of7 Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Discussion (3:24) Review and clarification of the additional information and the planting plan and the list of restrictions placed on the last Page 5 of 7 Madaket pool. Mondani — His concern about the conditions is that there's nothing to prevent the owner from exceeding Chapter 102; that should be included as a restriction. Poor — Chapter 102 does not address other lighting available to them. Botticelli — Will add to the restrictions that the equipment is in crawl space or under deck. Motion Motion to Approve with the noted restrictions. (made by: Mondani) (seconded by: Koseatac) Voice Vote Carried: unanimously Poor -aye; Mondani-aye; Koseatace-aye; O'Mara -aye; Botticelli-aye 4. 40-17 Steven L. Cohen, Trustee of Mak Shack Trust and Mak Daddy Trust 68 & 72 Monomoy Road Cohen REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO 3/8/2018 Voting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Alternates Poor Recused McCarthy Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Public None Discussion None Motion Motion to Continue to March 8. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried: unanimously 6. 48-17 Kristen Engle, Tr. Pocomo Point Realty Trust 90 Pocomo Road Reade Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A to allow an alteration which will increase the pre- existing, nonconforming height of the structure upon the pre-existing nonconforming locus. Specifically, applicant proposes to relocate and reconstruct the pre-existing, nonconforming dwelling away from an eroding coastal bank. The pre-existing, nonconforming ground cover will not change and no new nonconformities will be created. Locus is situated at 90 Pocomo Road, is shown on Assessor's Map 15 as Parcel 43. The premises is also shown as Lots A-11 and A-12 upon LCP 16220-H and Lots A-6 and A-7 upon LCP 16220-F. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Tide No. 24369 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court The site is zoned Limited Use General 3 (LUG -3). Voting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Alternates Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Explained this request is a result of erosion of the coastal bank requiring the house be moved 50 feet away from the top of the bank; the elevation would be no higher above sea level than the existing location. However due to the topography, it's height above grade would be non -conforming. At the Tuesday, January 9 meeting, the Historic District Commission (HDC) approved the move as applied for; submitted the HDC -approved plans at the table. This is currently pre-existing, non -conforming as to height. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — The elevation of the ridge does not change; the height from grade changes to 34 feet. Currently the ridge is 30.7 feet. Reviewed where the dwelling is moving from and where it is going. The height will not change; the current building plateau will be shifted to the new location. Public Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C., for abutter across the road — The issue is not the move but there's an opportunity to reduce the non -conforming height of an overly tall, visible structure. Would like the board to ask the applicant to find a lower location or find ways to lower the house. Second, this is going to be a massive project and asks that no work, interior or exterior, be done until after Labor Day. Discussion (3:48) Botticelli — Is concerned whether or not HDC has approved the steps. Thayer — There are 21 steps from the front door down to the existing grade. Poor — There is berming around the wall; it's sloped minimizing the amount of wall that will be visible. Reade — In regards to the timing of construction, can agree to no exterior work between Memorial Day and Labor Day to include landscaping. This board has never limited interior work. Doesn't think any of Mr. Cohen's suggestions will make a difference to the visibility of this structure and he discussed ways to lower the height with the architect, who said it wasn't possible. Poor — To drop this onto a mudsill, the framing of the first floor would have to be substantially changed. Toole — We would like the height lowered by three feet; the only way is to take it out of the plateau. Koseatac — Not all the options to bring the height down have been considered by the applicant. Botticelli — They need to make it clear that HDC has approved the retaining wall and the steps. It is currently 38 feet tall and is going to 38'6". Reade — This is a special permit application, not a variance. The question is whether or not the change would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He does not see that. Botticelli — It is the amount of retainage and steps and it depends on how visible it is. Motion Motion to Continue to March 8 for information relative to the amount of fill approved by the HDC. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Page 5 of 7 Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Vote Carried: unanimously 5. 49-17 Madaket Wheelhouse, LLC 13 Massachusetts Avenue Cohen Applicant previously received relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A (File No. 15-16) to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling and garage/cottage. Applicant proposes to amend the relief granted, within the previously approved setbacks ind conditions, to allow the alteration for the pre-existing nonconforming structures to be altered by renovation or by demolitioa an replacement, and also to make minor alterations to the design and height to comply with flood elevations and building code reqtiretnents. The Locus is situated at 13 Massachusetts Avenue, is shown on Assessor's Map 60 as Parcel 75, and as Lots 12-15, Block 29 upoa Land Court Plan 2408-Y and unregistered land lying north of said Lots. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of itle No. 25696 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court and in Book 1494, Page 39 on file at the,Registry of Deeds. Tke sit is zoned Village Residential (VR). Voting Toole, Botticel i, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Alternates None Recused McCarthy, Poor Documentati File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. — This already has relief to renovate; this is to build a new structure and the question came up why not move it out of the setback. His client wants to reuse the existing foundation; moving would require excavation in sensitive areas. The floor level is raising an average of two feet; HDC plans approve a 2 -foot height increase at the first -floor level. Public None Discussion (4: ) Toole — Wants to ensure this will end up at the basic minimum required to be flood -zone compliant. Thayer — The finished floor is going to elevation 11.6. The entire argument is to reuse the foundation and not disturb any sensitive areas. Toole — We would require a foundation inspection or a certified as -built. Cohen — The owner's intent is to reuse a substantial amount of the foundation; there might be some repair required. They'll accept a condition requiring reusing the existing foundation in its current location. They do have a Conservation Commission permit for work. Toole — Doesn't see why the slab foundation can't be moved to be in compliance then the structure rebuilt. The house is also getting taller. Thayer — He'd like it conditioned to certify the location of the foundation before framing starts and the proposed height won't be exceeded. Discussion about moving it five feet to the side to reduce the setback nonconformity. Toole — Can't put any A/C in the setback. Discussion about how and by whom the final ridge height is certified at 17 feet and that it must be certified that the entire foundation is reused. Toole — This should not come back; this is an all new building and can be made compliant. Motion Motion to Grant the relief conditioned upon the following: cottage will have 5 foot side yard setback on east side; west side setback distance shall be no closer than existing; no AC units sited in the setbacks; re -used foundation location shall be certified before framing; first -floor elevation of the house not to exceed 11.6 and the first -floor elevation of the cottage not to exceed 10.6; ridge height of cottage not to exceed 17 feet; and project shall be in substantial conformity with approved HDC plans. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote I Carried: unanimously 1. 41-17 Susan J. McMaster (Owner) and Shannon & Pamela Bass (Applicants) 34 Western Avenue Cohen RE UEST TO CONTINUE TO 2/8/2018 Voting Toole, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Alternates None Recused McCarthy Documentati File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. — Asked this be continued without opening. Shannon Bass Public None Discussion (41 5) None Motion Motion to Continue without opening to Feb 8. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried: unanimously 2. 01-18 Trillium 88, LLC 5 Nantucket Avenue Cohen Applicant sees relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A to relocate, renovate, alter, and extend the pre- existing, on nforming structures within the side yard setback and to allow expansion which will increase the pre-existing nonconfo tniin g ground cover. The Locus is situated at 5 Nantucket Avenue and is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 30 as Parcel 252 and on Plan File 43-0, Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1405, Page 289 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Resid ntial One (R-1). 11 Page 6 of 7 Minutes for January 11, 2018, adopted Feb. 8 Voting Toole, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. — The request is in order to maintain the abutter's view corridor, explained how that would be accomplished. Groundcover would to 37.5%. They just have to justify it isn't a substantial detriment to the neighborhood; he does not think it will be a greater detriment. Public Annette Hoadley, 3 Nantucket Avenue — Don't oppose the application; been collaborating with the applicant. The design is very pretty and in keeping with the neighborhood. Jocelyn Sandor Urban, 51 Cliff Road — Agrees with what's been said. The house at 5 Nantucket now is very unimposing. She doesn't think adding 1 -story extensions will be visible due to the hedges. Most houses here are nonconforming. Discussion (4:57) Toole — The 104SF for the zoning shed could go into the house. Might see his way to the extra land but not the extra 226 SF in groundcover. Thayer — Asked why not eliminate the side -yard setback; it could be moved to the five-foot setback. It would fit within the setback. Cohen — The house design is to keep the two-story piece in its existing location. This is a conceptual plan without HDC approval; it is the desired design. There is a private agreement to maintain the view corridors. Toole — Our purview is zoning, not view corridors. We've turned down similar requests. We don't grant relief on a hypothetical basis. Allowing those over ground cover to exceed groundcover further makes no sense to him. He's willing to continue and do a site visit. Poor — He'd be more amenable if it did conform, but not in its present fashion. This is an over -sized lot so he could see his way to granting the increase. Mondani — Agrees with Mr. Poor. Discussion about the character of houses in the neighborhood and how this proposed structure relates to them. Toole — He'd prefer to see a zoning change in this area rather than allow continued increases in groundcover. He wants to see HDC plans before going any further. Thayer — The view easement should run with the property deed. That's the whole premise for their coming to us. Cohen — He believes the Board could condition the approval on there being no further 2°d -story construction. Motion Motion to Continue to March 8. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried: unanimously 3. 02-18 Paul J. Cronin and Megan B. Cronin 89 Somerset Road Beaudette REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO 2/8/2018 Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing None Public None Discussion None Motion Motion to Continue to February 8. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried: unanimously I. None Motion to Adjourn: 5:26 p.m. Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. None Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 7 of 7