Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-5-10Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 N A N T U C K Tr rdtJ CLERI' U11 1, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds Road 2010 JILL 13 PM 12: 44 y 1 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 c�9p�RAI �O\`o 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, May 10, 2018 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:15 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Leslie Snell, Deputy Director PLUS; Mike Bums, Traffic Specialist; Tucker Holland, Housing Specialist Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Absent: None Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: O'Mara & Mondani, 5:06 p.m.; Botticelli, 5:08 p.m. Town Counsel: Ilana Quirk, K&P A enda ado ted b unanimous consent b re ar members APPROVAL1. OF 1. April 12, 2018: Motion to Approve. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: O'Mara) Carried unanimously by regular members. 11. 1 BUSINESS 1. 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.A in order to alter the pre-existing nonconforming dwelling structure. Specifically, applicant proposes to renovate and build a 2 -story 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 will 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 County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). Voting Toole, Botticelh, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Thayer, Mondani Recused Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Matt Galvin, Woodmeister Master Builders Kristin Paton, owner Public None Discussion (1:17) Discussion about the changes to the plans meant to put this in compliance with ZBA concerns. They are scheduled to go before the Historic District Commission (HDC) on May 15. Toole — The ZBA wants the applicant to have the HDC approval for removal of the ell in hand before granting the relief. O'Mara — The ZBA had asked for approval in writing from the neighbor; reading the letter, he feels the neighbor doesn't realize that work would have to take place on his property. Galvin — Noted that with the project moved back, there will be no need to work on the neighbor's property. Motion Motion to Accept an extension to July 12, 2018. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 Motion Motion to Continue to June 14, 2018 at 4 Fairgrounds Road. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 2. 10-18 Steven L. Cohen, Trustee of Mak Daddy Trust 72 Monomoy Road Cohen Applicant seeks relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 and, to the extent necessary, Special Permit relief under 139-33.A, from the intensity regulations of 139-16.A and from the requirement to obtain such relief in advance under 139-33.A(4)(a), in order to validate the construction of the existing dwelling upon the locus. The Locus previously contained a dwelling which was pre- existing non -conforming as to allowable ground cover based on its grandfathered status and on prior zoning relief. The dwelling was demolished and rebuilt without the relief required to retain or alter the overage. The 34,007 sq. ft. lot allows a ground cover ratio ("GCR") of 7%. The prior dwelling had a GCR of 8.2% whereas the current 2,402 sq. ft. dwelling has a GCR 7.06%, for an overage of about 22 sq. ft. The Applicant seeks relief to alter or remove and reconstruct a pre-existing non -conforming structure in excess of the permitted ground cover ratio. Applicant further seeks such relief to amend or alter the prior relief. 72 Monomoy Road is an undersized Page 1 of 9 lot of rc unregist< County 1 zoned Li Voting Alternates Recused Documentati Representing Public Discussion (1 Motion Vote Motion Vote Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 is shown on Assessor's Map 43 as Parcel 115, as Lot 8 upon LCP 13219-B and Lot 12 upon LCP 13219-D and as nd upon Plan No. 2004-31. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 25986 at the Nantucket t of the Land Court and recorded in Book 1527, Page 220 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The lot is Use General 1 (LUG -1). Botticelli (acting chair), McCarthy, Koseatac Thayer, Mondani Poor O'Mara File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Andrew Kotchen, Workshop APD, architect Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. for the Igleharts at 74 Monomoy Cohen — Reviewed the request. They have eliminated the cottage and are asking for a smaller shed. Requesting a Variance from ground cover of 7% to validate 7.06% or in alternative Variance from requirement in by-law that we apply for Special Permit to retain and perhaps increase ground cover overage. Giving up the shed was hard for the owner as there is no storage space. This lot is subject to significant coastal and wetland issues that restrict the building envelope. He does not want to close the hearing today in order to allow time to come to a settlement with the neighbors. Explained the concerns of the neighbors. Botticelli — Would like evidence of how the overage occurred submitted into the file for review before the next hearing. Kotchen — Explained the complex foundation system under the house that precludes cutting the requisite 22 square feet SF) off the house. Botticelli — On December 7, 2015 the application for the house went in. There was a letter from Marcus Silverstein, the Toning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) on July 15, 2016 addressing the overage. Denial for the house was issued December 20, 2017. Cohen — Contends 7.06% is a nominal overage; he believes they could have gotten a special permit for the house .)ecause it was a net reduction in groundcover from the previous structure. Ager — Expressed frustration that the applicant is taking no responsibility for the errors which have a bad impact on her ,hent. Feels the board should make a decision. This started with a Notice of Intent at the Conservation Commission >ecause the buffer to a wetland, on her client's property, had been omitted from the initial application. Reviewed how the )roject has impacted her client, who, she contends, had no opportunity to have meaningful input. Read a letter, in the le, from Mr. Silverstein explaining why he would not forbid the shed at this time. There is a generator on the east >roperty line under her client's first floor; she contends a generator on a pad counts towards groundcover - cited the lefinition for a structure. If this is granted, asked for a condition to remove the shed, eliminate the generator, and to have no further construction without ZBA approval. 3otticelli — Asked why construction continued after they were informed about the overage four months ago. :ohen — They eliminated the cottage but didn't realize the house was also over until they were eight months into the milding process. Refuted some of Ms Alger's comment about not taking responsibility for their errors. 3otricelli —The decision to continue construction puts a burden on the ZBA. Chayer — Does not agree with Mr. Cohen that being seven months into the building process is the point of no return. lsked for the building permit showing when the inspections took place. 3otricelli — Agrees with Mr. Thayer about the building permit; would also like to see the building permit for the cottage nd shed. AcCarthy — She finds that applying for the zoning shed knowing there was overage issues is egregious. :ohen — In terms of the shed, they can figure out how to deal with it. He has offered to screen the generator without seating further ground cover issues and not run it when the abutter is in residence; he strongly disagrees with the llegation that a generator counts as groundcover. Reiterated the lack of storage space and thus the need for a shed. 'oor — Asked if the generator location and size were approved by the HDC. ;ohen — Yes. Pointed out that the generator can't be enclosed in a shed because it needs to ventilate. 3otricelli — Asked for inspection information on the building permit, original approved application and drawings for the .ouse, and application for the generator. McCarthy — Wants to see photos of the shed as well. Ager — The lack of storage is not a ZBA issue. The house has 2,000 SF groundcover but the total square footage of the ouse is much more. The applicant knew about the groundcover issue and moved forward in construction anyway and pplied for the shed. to Accept an extension to July 12, 2018. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Mondani) 5-0 to Continue to June 14, 2018 at 4 Fairgrounds Road. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Mondani) 5-0 Page 2 of 9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 3. 14-18 Paul M. Gaucher and Peter Niemitz 138 Miacomet Road Swain REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 14, 2018 Voting Botticelli (acting chair), McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Alternates Thayer Motion Motion to grant the request to Continue to June 14, 2018 at 4 Fairgrounds Road. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Poor) Vote Carried 5-0 4. 76-11 Sachem's Path Homeowners Association Trust Sachems Path 40B Discussion regarding various requests by homeowners to alter and expand parking/driveways and to make interior improvements, such as adding a bathroom, not prohibited by the Comprehensive Permit. The Sachems Path Homeowners Association, which supports these alterations on a case-by-case basis and where appropriate, has also requested guidance from the Board on this matter and enforcement of prohibition on rentals. Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Rachel Dixon, Sachem's Path Homeowners Association Trust Anton Dimov, 25 Wappossett Circle, Sachem's Path Homeowners Association Trust Tyler Herrick, 18 Nanina Drive, Sachem's Path Homeowners Association Trust Svetlomir Aleksiev, 21 Nanina Drive Public Gretchen Callahan Discussion (2:14) Antonietti — Explained how this request came to her from both Sachems Path residents and HDC staff. This discussion is to ascertain what changes in terms of parking / driveway configuration and interior alterations could be considered allowed by right as they do not violate the comprehensive permit. Increase parking spaces: Toole — Some owners want to their parking spaces to accommodate three vehicles with no change to the curbcut Dixon — For 40 houses there are only eight additional spots with no parking on the road; there is no place for guests to park. We support the ability to expand the parking spaces. Mondani — At this point, the owners have taken over the project so we should defer to the Homeowners Association and not police everything that happens there. Quirk — The ZBA has jurisdiction over the permit and has jurisdiction if a complaint of a violation of the permit is filed and an enforcement order issued and if an entity were to apply for a modification to the permit Should look at how detailed the comprehensive permit plan is in regards to what appears on the lot; if the plan details two parking spaces, the ZBA would have to rule whether going to three is substantial or insubstantial. Recommends the ZBA note on the plan what can and cannot be done in the future; there is a possible issue of drainage with the increase of impervious surface. Poor — He believes the decision was for a minimum of two parking spaces and that these are all pervious driveways. He has no issue with expanding the driveway. Dixon — Pointed out that it is part of the deed that there is no parking on grass. The driveways are gravel or shell. Thayer — He has no concerns as long as there is no change to the curb cut size and the material remains pervious. Quirk — Violations would come before the ZBA. If the ZBA wants to grant the Homeowners Association authority in the future, you can modify the permit. Toole — We need to read the Comprehensive Permit to ensure we didn't include a restriction on the amount of parking. Dixon — She read the permit; it dictates only the size of the apron; there are no requests to change that Quirk — If there is going to be an amendment to the permit, that will require a decision that the ZEO can refer to. Antonietti — She will draft and issue a letter signed by the Chairman of the Board explaining what is allowed without need to come before the Board. Interior improvements with no change to the footprint: Toole — The ZBA doesn't usually get involved in what goes on within the house as long as it doesn't violate the Comprehensive Permit. There was language about no bedrooms in the basement but nothing on bathrooms. Rental is not allowed. Botticelli — Development of the basement space usually is for a bedroom and could lead to density issues. Aleksiev — The majority of the homes are three bedrooms for a family of four and have only one full bath and one half bath. He's among those who want an additional bedroom and bath for a family member. The Homeowners Association has been working on a way to enforce the no -renting caveat. McCarthy — If there were a violation, as in renting, the ZBA would rule on it. We did not restrict finishing the basement; we restricted finishing the attic and no change to the footprint. She is okay with this. Mondani — Doesn't think we should micro -manage the subdivision now that the owners have possession. Dixon — She has spoken to the Health Department and the Building Department, we are trying to follow the Comprehensive Permit. Toole — Noted that there are no egress windows in the basements, that is in the Permit, so bedrooms can't be put there. Page 3 of 9 Motion Vote 5. 051-03 Applicant easement the foregc Beach Plu Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Discussion (5 Motion Vote 1. 20-18 The A by Ma family lots, 4 op( for the c municipal Appeals o 3, 5, 7 anc and 1 on is located Voting Alternates Recused Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 leksiev — Finishing the basement is for comfort; there is no space for guests. Doesn't see how an additional bathroom anslates to renting. oor — Cited Board of Health (BOH) regulations on bedrooms; pointed out that these houses are on sewer. uirk — Right now there is a discussion item before the ZBA and there is no request to change the Comprehensive mnit. Suggested keeping discussion along the lines of the question at hand. :)nsensus agrees the bathroom in the basement is allowable; there is nothing disallowing it. :)nsensus is to authorize Antonietti to draft and issue a letter signed by the ZBA Chairman explaining what is allowed ithout need to come before the Board, as noted above in case of parking. One letter will be addressed to HDC and the her to the ZEO. /A discussion item. /A egged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade yes to modify and clarify the Comprehensive Permit to update plans to the extent necessary to depict the garage use ,on Lot 24. To the extent necessary, Applicant requests modification of the Comprehensive Permit, so as to effectuate ief. Locus is shown on Assessor's Map 68 Parcel 823 situated at 12 Blazing Star Road within the Rugged Scott, a/k/a ge, 40B subdivision, and is shown on Plan No. 2006-19. pole, Botticelli, Koseatac Poor, Thayer, one Fara, McCarthy with associated plans, photos and required documentation ianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP ley — Suggested going to Surfside Crossing first. (Break 5:oi to 5:06) — Asked to continue to May 24 without opening so Ms Quirk can be in attendance. to Approve the continuance to May 24, 2018 at 4 Fairground Road at 4 p.m. (made by: Botticelli) �d by: Koseatac) 5-0 urfside Crossing, LLC Surfside Crossing 40B Freeman / Reade 3 seeking a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40B, pursuant to a project eligibility letter issued in order to allow a multi -family project consisting of 156 for -sale dwelling units comprised of 60 stand-alone single - on fee simple lots and 96 condominium units in 6 multi -family buildings, with 25% (39 units, 15 cottages and 24 nits) designated as affordable units, with a total of 389 bedrooms. The existing lots will be subdivided into 60 fee simple -e lots, and a 3.6 acre condominium lot. Off-street parking will consist of 2 spaces per cottage and 148 spaces designated iiniums. Infrastructure and amenities will be provided, however, the proposed project is proposed to connect to and sewer infrastructure. The application and supporting materials are available for public review at the Zoning Board of t 2 Fairgrounds Road between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Locus is situated at ith Shore Road and is shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcels 336, 336.9, 336.8, and 336.7 and is shown as Lots 4, 3, 2, Book 25, Page 50 as recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The total lot area of the combined parcels is 3.5 acres. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1612, Page 62 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The property Limited Use General 2 (LUG -2) and within the Public Wellhead Recharge District. Any person interested in the vho wishes to be heard should appear at the time and place of the public hearing. 'oole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Mondani 'oor, Thayer Documentatio le with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing rthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP arianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP 1e1att ter Freeman, Freeman & Freeman Law, P.C. on Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. MacEachern, Emeritus Development e Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent sh Posner, Proponent Public I iane Cabral, 8 South Shore Road icky Goss, 8 Blueberry Lane ormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council Ifary Beth Splaine, 11 South Shore Road ryan Jennings, 8 Nanina Drive Page 4of9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 Discussion (2:57) Toole — Wants to talk about whether or not any of the 7 safe harbor provisions exist, peer reviews, waivers, then have the applicant representatives give their presentation. There are certain rules and regulations that allow the ZBA to not hear the request if safe harbor criteria are met. Reviewed safe harbor criteria: 490 units needed to meet 10%; the Town is at 2.5%. Holland — There is a provision that if the Town develops 1.5% of land for affordable housing we have an exemption; we haven't met that. Toole — Another criteria is that affordable housing in a calendar year exceeds 1.3%; we don't come close. Affordable housing units meet 2% of housing stock, that would be 98 Safe Harbor Initiative (SHI) units. Holland — In the last year, one affordable unit qualified for inclusion on the SHI. Explained why the number is only one. McCarthy — Asked how Richmond Development figures into the calculation; the units haven't been constructed Quirk — Richmond Development used a local action initiative so the SHI units aren't counted until they are added into the system. They will count when the occupancy permits are issued. Holland — Richmond Development would add 225 rental units and 17 homeownership units when it is finished McCarthy — If Richmond Development had come in as a 40B and the Comprehensive Permit issued, asked if Nantucket would meet SHI at this time. Holland — Yes, the way the credit counts under 40B. Toole — The Housing Production Plan is approved but not certified. Holland — Explained the ramification of the certified versus approved housing production plan. The certification means there is an approved plan and 24 units were produced in one calendar year. We haven't met the 24 -unit requirement. McCarthy — Another criteria is a large scale project proposing more than 200 units; there are none in progress. Toole — The "Related Application" criteria allows for a 12 -month cooling off period, if a 40B application is related to an application for zoning, subdivision, or contruction approval on the same land made within the prior 12 months without at least 10% affordable units going toward SHI. Quirk — That 10% would have been within the application for a proposed project for this land. Toole — We have no such pending application. That is the extent of safe harbor. Cabral — Asked how Beach Plum Village fits in. Holland — The Beach Plum Comprehensive Permit was issued in 2006 for 10 units. Some fell off so a few will be added back in; when that happens, they will count against 2006. They will count toward the 490 total. Quirk — Suggested a motion for a finding. Reade —There was never an application for a subdivision, construction, or anything relating to this propem% There was a proposal before Town Meeting to change the zoning from LUG -2 to LUG -1 but it did not pass. Quirk — If the applicant says nothing went on but something did, this is the opportunity for the ZBA to have evidence to show whether or not there was an application within the prior 12 month period that meets with Safe Harbor exemption criteria; burden of proof falls on the ZBA. Agrees the zoning change does not constitute an application. Snell — She did not check the record but she does not recall any application for this property coming before the Planning Board. The only discussion was about changing the zoning. McCarthy —They applied for denser zoning; now they come forward with a 40B. Questions the spirit of that Reade — Specifically, the prior owners of the property submitted the warrant article two years ago. Subsequently there was another warrant to change the zoning that the property owner had nothing to do with. There have been no applications. Quirk — The warrant is a legislative action and does not constitute an application. Vicky Goss — Pointed out that last fall the property was taken out of the Country Overlay District and put into Town Overlay District. Toole — The Town led a legislative action. Motion Motion to Find that after reviewing all Safe Harbors, the board determines there is not a Safe Harbor available to the Board under 760 CMR 56.03. (made by: Mondani) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 Discussion (3:29) Toole — Confirmed the fees for peer review had been pre -paid. We will be hiring peer review consultants. Quirk — The board needs to determine what aspects of the application will be peer reviewed. Noted the aspects that usually go through third -party peer review. The applicant is responsible for up to $5,000 for peer review. The board might want to consider a civil engineering review and whether or not that can be done in-house; there is a traffic report. Toole — Asked if in the past the Civil Engineering peer review was done in-house. Snell — The Town has a contract with Ed Pesce, Pesce Engineering, for that. Quirk — Recommend being clear what specifically Mr. Pesce will review and that the application be compared for compliance against all local regulations and bylaws. Snell — Mr. Pesce would review aspects of the site plan, road construction, drainage, parking, landscaping. He does not review architecture. Quirk — Mr. Pesce has the ability to sub contract with a firm to do the traffic review. Toole — He's not 100% comfortable with Mr. Pesce handling the peer review; asked if there is a mechanism for more than one engineer to review the plans. Discussion about what would be involved in finding another firm to do the civil engineering peer review. Page 5 of 9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 oole — Table the notion of the civil engineering review. Traffic, we have no in-house person; the procedure is Staff ould make recommendations to the board about who to use. Could reconvene in a couple of weeks to pick the >nsultants to do the peer reviews. Parking, whether or not there is adequate parking. otticelli — Looking at the plan, there is not enough parking. oole — If they aren't seeking a waiver on parking, we can still peer review it luirk — The applicant requests the Board sit as water and sewer commission. The Board could send the application to lose commissions or hire a consultant. aell — Staff can get recommendations from David Gray and Mark Willett. onsensus wants a third -party peer review of water and sewer. oole — Back to parking, we'd like a parking consultant. Archeology, there has been talk of that and he doesn't know if tything has been done on this site. Asked how to move forward. eade — The issue of archeology comes up on the State permit and will require Massachusetts Historical Commission 411C) and Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review. The ZBA jurisdiction is on local permits and can't irogate the State authority. oseatac — Asked what happens if a backhoe hits a burial ground. teeman — Explained what the State procedure would be at that time. uirk — In the Project Eligibility Letter, the MHC requirements have to be met; that happens at the State level. In regards local issues, without that survey of local requirements, it's hard to say. Dole — We can ask other local boards and departments to weigh in on the permit Asked at what point Ed Marchant :)Wd enter into the process. uirk — Mr. Marchant would come into play when the applicant makes a presentation and the applicant and ZBA are ,ing back and forth about conditions. He would then do a proforma review. olland — Supports bringing Mr. Marchant in at this time; he's very helpful to the public in explaining the process. Seeman — It's possible to ask Massachusetts Housing Partnership (IIP) to pay for Mr. Marchant, rather than the ollier — There was a request to do an impact study for the school; suggested hiring an independent review to do that. sked that no further public money be used to support this application; the applicant should pay for it all. luirk — With respect to students, it's often the case to request a study on the impact on schools; however it would be aly for planning purposes and can't be used to deny the project. It could be beyond the scope of the ZBA. teeman — Referenced the Project Eligibility Letter from MHP, Tab 4 in the packet, about comments outside the :quirements of MHP. It is not within the ZBA purview to analyze student impact He doesn't think it's appropriate to ill on the applicant to do a full impact study. oole — To him, a school impact study seems like a reasonable request. IcCarthy — Agrees it would be helpful to have a student impact study for the purposes of planning and resources for hool-age students. !uirk — You could ask that of the applicants. In the event the ZBA wants a new study, the Town would have to pay for eade — They will consider doing the study. oole - Suggested meeting in two or three weeks, May 24 or May 29 to discuss which consultants to hire. Received :quests that the hearings on this be held in the evening, i.e. starting at 4 or 5 p.m. uirk — Recommends it be a short meeting to choose the consultants. That allows time for the applicant to vet the list 'r possible conflicts of interest. Can indicate today what the second date might be. iell — Other possible public hearing dates include June 7 and June 13. iscussion about possible next meeting dates and starting at 4 or 5. ecision made to meet May 24 at 4 p.m. to choose a consultant Maine — Confirmed a traffic peer review would be done. Dole — The procedural issue is the request for waivers by the applicant. Specifically, ZBA would like to have a readsheet-type format of the waiver requested, the Town regulation or requirement, and what specifically is being ked. Confirmed it can be submitted for the next hearing. We will ask other Town agencies to review the plan and bmit comments. One waiver is to not go before the HDC; in the past we have requested applicants do. 3tticelli — Noted that now in Sachem's Path everyone wants a fence; ZBA doesn't get into the level of detail but the DC does. That is something HDC would look at; she would like HDC to review the plans. uirk — The Board acts for HDC in the event the applicant asks for it. The Board has asked in the past they go to the DC; if the applicant doesn't agree then the ZBA needs to sit. They have also asked ZBA sit as sewer and water. You ay well want to get the consultant to review those aspects due to the technical aspects. )ole — Noted he thinks there should be a landscaping consultant; that shouldn't be left up to the civil engineer. >nfirmed whether or not there is a landscape plan at this time that could be peer reviewed. nnings — His house is 17 feet from this property line. He would appreciate the ZBA looking into landscaping ensuring )erimeter barrier. ;ade — In response to a question, stated the endangered species protection is a State issue. The only way that would me into play is if there are wetlands on the property. There are no wetlands on that property. Page 6 of 9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 Poor — Asked about a lighting plan. Toole — We will need a lighting plan and it will be peer reviewed by a lighting consultant. Collier — Subdivision Rules & Regulation Section 3.05 addresses showing respect for natural features. That would probably come up in the landscaping plan. Toole — At this point in the hearing, he will allow the applicant to provide a broad -stroke overview of the project Reade — Introduced the applicant's team. The traffic consultant, Bob Michaud, could not attend. Feeley — Read a statement in regards to the concept behind a year-round affordable home -owner project for mid -income year-round residents. Bracken — Reviewed the size and orientation of the property and components of the project: single-family dwellings and condominiums, road layout, amenities, and utilities. MacEachern — Presented a general review of the scale and architectural styles for the single-family dwellings and condominiums and the utility/maintenance building. Toole — Suggested that next time the applicant provide a Powerpoint® presentation for the audience. The intention next time is to get into the "nitty gritty" starting with the waivers. The peer reviews are very important in ensuring it complies with local regulations. The May 24 meeting will be solely to talk about and pick the consultants. Reiterated that he would like the waiver spreadsheet. Botticelli — She'd like to see where the existing trees are and any natural features. Cabral — Thanked the Board for their hard work and explaining this to the public. Reade — Asked for the list of consultants before the May 24 hearing. Quirk — Asked that Zone 2 be clearly indicated on the plan. Zone 2 means the property that is within 400 feet of a water supply. Bracken — Almost all of the site is within Zone 2 and drainage has been designed with that in mind. Motion Motion to Continue to May 24 at 4 p.m. 4airgrounds Road. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 2. 11-18 Mark A. O'Banion 29 Daffodil Lane Cohen Applicant is requesting relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 for a waiver from the definition of secondary dwelling in Section 139-2.A which requires that primary and secondary dwellings located on the same lot be held in common ownership. Specifically, applicant seeks approval to allow separate ownership of the primary dwelling and the secondary dwelling (garage apartment). The Locus is situated at 29 Daffodil Lane, is shown on Assessor's Map 68 as Parcel 745, and as Lot 634 upon Land Court Plan 16514- 40. 651440. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 19927 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court The site is zoned Residential 20 (R-20). Voting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Public None Discussion (5:08) Cohen — Explained what led to this situation and clarified the request. Explained the restraining order for transfer of marital assets doesn't impact this request. Snell — Stated Ms Antonietti spoke to Ms O'Banion's lawyer and confirmed this request could move forward. Toole — Wants that to be in the file; it should have been included in the file. Cohen — Disagrees that this information is relevant to the merit of this application. McCarthy — She agrees with Mr. Toole; she wants the information in writing in the file that this property is not a marital asset and not subject to a restraining order. Motion Motion to Continue to June 14,1 p.m. at 4 Fairground Road. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 3. 13-18 John J. Barry and Nancy J. Barry, Tr., FINAL ACKT I Realty Trust 4 Goose Cove Brescher REQUEST TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Voting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Discussion (2:56) None Motion Motion to Accept the withdrawal without prejudice. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 4. 15-18 Walter J. Glowacki 3 Waydale Wilson REQUEST TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Voting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Discussion (2:56) None Motion Motion to Accept the withdrawal without prejudice. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 5. 16-18 Edith Ann Ray and Seth H. Dillon, Tr., Sixty -Two Miacomet Avenue Nom. Tr. 2 Dillon Court Reade Applicants request relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the minimum lot area requirement and maximum allowable ground cover ratio under Section 139-16 (Intensity Regulations) in order for the premises to be used as a residential building Page 7 of 9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 lot with up to 1,500 sq. ft. of ground cover. Applicants request additional relief by Special Permit pursuant to Section 139-16.C(1) to reduce 1C fool side and rear setbacks to 5 feet. The Locus, an undersized lot, is situated at 2 Dillon Court, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 67 as Pa el 884, and as Lot 35 upon Land Court Plan No. 38026-J. Evidence of owner's title is registered at Certificate of Title 20158 on file a t the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential Twenty (R-20). 6. 17-18 Edith Ann Ray and Seth H. Dillon, Tr., Sixty -Two Miacomet Avenue Nom. Tr. 2 Dillon Court Reade Applicant req est relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the minimum lot area and frontage requirements under Section 39-16 (Intensity Regulations) in order validate the premises as a residential building lot The Locus, an undersized lot, is situated a 4 1 lillon Court, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 353, and as Lot 34 upon Land Court Plan No. 38026-J. Evidence f o er's title is registered at Certificate of Title 20158 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court The site is zoned Re `den Mal Twenty (R-20). Voting loole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Alternates one Recused one Documentatic n ile with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Public None Discussion (5:24) Reade — Asked for a continuance of 16-18 & 17-18 without opening due to the lack of a full board. Motion Motion to Continue without opening 16-18 and 17-18 to June 14, 1 p.m. at 4 Fairground Road. (made by: cCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote arried 5-0 7. 18-18 3ig Chicken Little, LLC 82 Easton Street Alger Applicant are 3eeking to modify prior Special Permit relief, as previously modified, to allow for conversion of an existing studio into either a garage Lpartment or primary dwelling unit. To the extent necessary, applicant seeks further Special Permit relief from the parking requirements der Section 139-18.B. As a result of a zoning change from Limited Commercial to Residential Old Historic (ROH) approved at th4 2015 Annual Town Meeting, the lot is pre-existing nonconforming as to use, with an office building upon the premises, and as to front ge. The Locus is situated at 82 Easton Street, is shown on Assessor's Map 42.4.2 as Parcel 5, and as Lot 4 on Plan Book 7, Page 40 Evi ence of owner's tide is recorded in Book 1363, Page 44 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. Voting roole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Alternates one Recused 14one , Documentatio ile with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing arch Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. Public one Discussion (5:2 fuger — Asked for a continuance for a full board. Motion � otion to Continue without opening to June 14, 1 p.m. at 4 Fairground Road. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Vote arried 5-0 8. 19-18 CK Crazy, LLC 9 West Chester Street Juraj Bencat Applicant is re esting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30.A and 139-33-A in order to alter the pre-existing nonconformingstructure by demolishing the rear wing of the dwelling unit, renovating and/or replacing the existing foundation as needed, and rec Dnstructing the wing in substantially the same footprint. The structure will be no closer to the westerly side yard lot line than the e: asttn 3, structure as a result of the proposed alterations, although there will be a vertical expansion within the setback. The Locus, an undei sized lot, is situated at 9 West Chester Street, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.3 as Parcel 12, and as Lot 1 on Plan Book 17, Page 48 and Lot 4 on Plan Book 20, Page 1. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1618, Page 205. The site is zoned Reside itial Old Historic (ROH). Voting oole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Alternates one Recused None Documentatio ile with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing None Public None Discussion (5:2E lFone Motion otion to Continue without opening to June 14, 1 p.m. at 4 Fairground Road. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Vote Carried 5-0 9. 21-18 1 isa Winston Callahan, Tr. Five Mulberry Street Nominee Trust 5 Mulberry Street REQUES r TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Voting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Discussion I Zone Motion otion to Accept the withdrawal without prejudice. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: _McCarthy) Vote(tarried 5-0 Page 8 of 9 Minutes for May 10, 2018, adopted July 12 OTHER 1. None ADJOURNMENTV. Motion to Adjourn at 5:30 p.m. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. None Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 9 of 9