Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-5-24 (2)Minutes for May 24, 2018, adopted July 12 f4 A IN T U C K E 3 Uc�F, t+ G W fol C L E R 4s 3 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' 2 Fairgrounds Road 2010 JUL 13 P� 12; 44 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 RAI EOwww.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 24, 2018 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —4:00 p.m. Called to order at 4:06 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Absent: None Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: O'Mara, 4:36 p.m. Town Counsel: Ilana Quirk, K&P P.C. (by phone 4:27 pm.) Acrenda adopted bv unanimous consent 1. OLD BUSINESS 1. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade Applicant proposes to modify and clarify the Comprehensive Permit to update plans to the extent necessary to depict the garage use easement area upon Lot 24. To the extent necessary, Applicant requests modification of the Comprehensive Permit, so as to effectuate the foregoing relief: Locus is shown on Assessor's Map 68 Parcel 823 situated at 12 Blazing Star Road within the Rugged Scott, a/k/a Beach Plum Village, 40B subdivision, and is shown on Plan No. 2006-19. Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani Alternates Poor Recused McCarthy Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Marianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Public None Discussion (4:07) Hanley — Read a statement that is a follow up on two points raised at the last meeting. the project being rendered uneconomical should the garage not be permitted and proposed improvements on the Lot 24 structure as part of a settlement. Toole — If the Board is in agreement, we need to vote to close the public hearing; if we do, a decision must be rendered within a certain number of days. O'Mara — He's not clear on whether or not the buyer of Lot 24 knew of the easement prior to the purchase of the property. Hanley — The Purchase and Sales Agreement stated there was an easement on Lot 24. We were never informed that it was an issue until this application was filed. Botticelli — Asked if there are actual numbers showing that the project would be rendered economically unviable. Toole — Agrees that actual numbers would be helpful. Explained how those numbers could be calculated using the projection in the Comprehensive Permit. Not providing the numbers is the client's prerogative; but it is erroneous for the applicant to assert that this Board knows the project would not be viable. This board has no idea if the statement the project would be rendered unviable is factual. He's ready to close the public hearing on the modification request. Antonietti — Once the hearing is closed, the Board has 40 days to render a decision. Discussion about whether or not to close the public hearing with a "generic" motion. Quirk — Suggested using language similar to that to close the public hearing on Lot 27. She will provide a finding. Might want to authorize counsel to write choices of decisions in the positive and negative. Antonietti — Read the motion to close the hearing for Lot 27. Motion Motion to Close the portion of the hearing regarding Developer Rugged Scott LLC's modification request to amend the comprehensive permit decision and approved plan of record to allow a garage to be erected and maintained on Lot 24, an affordable parcel, and to be used for the benefit of Lot 23, a market rate parcel and regarding the related easements that have been requested. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani,- Vote ondani;Vote Carried 5-0 Motion Motion to Authorize Town Counsel to prepare two alternative decisions. (made by: Botticelh) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried 5-0 Page 1 of 3 Minutes for May 24, 2018, adopted July 12 2. 20-18 Surfside Crossing, LLC Surfside Crossing 40B Freeman/Reade The Applican is seeking a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40B, pursuant to a project eligibility letter issued by Mass Hou ing, in order to allow a multi-family project consisting of 156 for-sale dwelling units comprised of 60 stand-alone single - family cottagc s on fee simple lots and 96 condominium units in 6 multi-family buildings, with 25% (39 units, 15 cottages and 24 condominium units) designated as affordable units, with a total of 389 bedrooms. The existing lots will be subdivided into 60 fee simple lots, 4 opens ace lots, and a 3.6 acre condominium lot. Off-street parking will consist of 2 spaces per cottage and 148 spaces designated for the condominiums. Infrastructure and amenities will be provided, however, the proposed project is proposed to connect to municipal wat r and sewer infrastructure. The application and supporting materials are available for public review at the Zoning Board of Appeals offict at 2 Fairgrounds Road between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Locus is situated at 3, 5, 7 and 9 uth 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, and 1 or. Plan Book 25, Page 50 as recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The total lot area of the combined parcels is approxirr. ately 13.5 acres. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1612, Page 62 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The property is locatedl in t Limited Use General 2 (LUG-2) and within the Public Wellhead Recharge District. Any person interested in the proceedit gs o who wishes to be heard should appear at the time and place of the public hearing. Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Mondani Alternates Poor, Thayer Recused O'Mara Documentati n File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Marianne Hanley, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent Public Diane Cabral, 8 South Shore Road Discussion (4:55) Hanley — Attorney Freeman sent objections to two of the names on the list. The first objection is to Horsley-Witten Group, Inc., which represents Nantucket Land Council (NLC) and currently works with Peter Freeman on other 40B projects off Island. Quirk — Horsley-Witten working with Mr. Freeman doesn't sound like a problem to her, it's up to the Board. Antonietti — She sent a letter to all potential consultants and they all responded that they have no conflicts of interest The LLC documents are clear about who the principals and the team are. Hanley — The conflict is with the applicant, and NLC has sent a letter of objection to this project. Toole — There are others on the list this Board could choose. If this Board votes to hire Horsley-Witten, the applicant can appeal to the Select Board, which stalls the process. Hanley — The other objection is Chessia Consultant Services, LLC; they feels there is a lack of information on Chessia's resume in regards to whether or not he's done work on the Cape & Islands. The other candidates on the list have all dealt with seaside communities with similar concerns that effect this Island; some of the consultants have worked or are working on the Island. Quirk — There are particular minimal requirements; whether or not there is a familiarity with the environment is not an appealable issue. Pointed out the Chessia is an expert in soils and she has worked with him. Toole — Read the names of other potential consultants. Thayer — He's inclined to use people who are already working with the Town; in the case of sewer and water, their prior knowledge would be a plus. tonietti — Pointed out it is an option to hire a firm and allow them to subcontract out to experts in the area. The oard can hire specific experts to review specific aspects of the project. Mondani — His view of Horsley-Witten is they worked on Sachem's Path and that has gone well. Review of which firms to do the peer reviews on which aspects: traffic study by Tetra Tech, sewer by Weston and Sampson, water by Haley and Ward, Inc., environmental-site design-lay out-stormwater-overall regulatory review by Chessia Consulting Services, LLC. abral — Thinks it's wise to break up the reviews among the consultants. Discussion on the pros and cons of Beta Group, Inc. versus Chessia for the environmental-site design-lay out- tormwater-overall regulatory review and the applicant's concerns about Chessia; consensus wants Chessia. uirk — Anytime she hires an expert she considers their ability to testify before a board or a court One thing discussed at e last meeting was that there be a review for overall code compliance as it pertains to the waivers. oole — We did ask for the waiver to be fleshed out and hopefully put onto a spreadsheet. The peer review will be ooking at everything. In regards to an architectural review, asked if the Board wants a consultant for the architectural eview, we've used the Historic District Commission (HDC) as a consultant in the past so don't have to hire an outside onsultant. uirk — They have asked the ZBA to sit as the HDC, water commission, and sewer commission; they have the right to o that. Noted that an expert peer review can be requested at any point during the hearing. tonietti — Noted that for the Surfside 40B that fell through, an architectural consultant was hired. oor — The applicant has hired an Island architect who has gone before the HDC for years. He doesn't feel a need to hire consultant. Page 2 of 3 Minutes for May 24, 2018, adopted July 12 Quirk — Suggested a specifically worded letter to the HDC to invite them to a joint meeting to review the plan or provide a detailed report. Toole — Landscape is not yet ready; we might want that reviewed at some future date. We have no consultant choices for lighting, but we don't have that plan yet either. Feeley — He has started the process to produce a landscape plan and a lighting plan. Antonietti — She will draft memos to go out to the various Town boards requesting they review the application within their own jurisdiction and provide detailed comments; she usually gives those boards 30 days for them to respond. Motion Motion to Approve the consultants review services as follows: Chessia consulting Services, LLC. for environmental/site design and layout/stormwater management and drainage design/zoning compliance and regulatory review/code compliance; Weston and Sampson for wastewater and sewer; Haley and Ward for water; Tetra Tech for traffic/parking/transportation; and Ed Marchand for 40B Consultant. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 5-0 Motion Motion to Continue the public hearing to June 13, 4:30 p.m. in the Community Room. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried 5-0 (Poor, McCarthy, Botticelli, Toole, & Koseatac) OTHER11. 1. None ADJOURNMENT111. Motion to Adjourn at 5:43 p.m. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) 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 3 of 3 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 2 Fairgrounds Road y 1� Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 c�9pQRAIO`w 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, June 14, 2018 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Training 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: McCarthy, 1:17 p.m. Early Departures: Botticelli, 4:28 p.m.; Thayer, 4:58 p.m. A enda ado ted b unanimous consent APPROVAL1. 1. May 10, 2018, Held by unanimous consent. 2. May 24, 2018, Held by unanimous consent. 1. 051-03 Rugged Scott, LLC Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Hanley/Reade The Board will have deliberations regarding the request to amend the comprehensive permit decision and approved plan of record to allow a garage on Lot 24, an affordable parcel, to be used for the benefit of Lot 23, a market rate parcel and regarding the related "Garage Access and Use Easement." Locus is situated at 12 Blazing Star, within the Rugged Scott, a/k/a Beach Plum Village, 40B subdivision, is shown upon Plan No. 2006-19, and as Assessors Map 67 Parcel 823. Votes are expected. Voting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani Alternates Poor Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Public None Discussion (1:09) Toole — The public hearing has been closed regarding this application. This is to discuss how the board Wants to vote. He doesn't think the ZBA would have approved this even if the applicant had come to them. Thayer — His vote is to deny the request; it's inappropriate to take land from the affordable lot for use by market -rate lots. Mondani — He would also vote to deny. His concern is how the taking was done. Poor — There is nothing in the zoning bylaw to support this request. O'Mara — He too would vote to deny; the applicant should have sought approval first. Toole — Read through the list of findings to support a denial. This garage does show on the original plan so not being on the original plan is not a valid finding. Antonietti — The 2006 plan is the date of the original plan and shows a garage on Lot 24; but no easement is shown. Toole —The Finding should be that there is no indication on the original Comprehensive Permit plans that the garage was not for the use of Lot 24. Botticelli — The building permit states the garage on Lot 24 is `deeded' to Lot 23, but you can see that the permit application was later modified to show the garage on 12 Blazing Star, not 14 Blazing Star. O'Mara — The Findings state they were asked multiple times about providing evidence that the project would be rendered uneconomical; they did supply a memo stating as much. Toole — That memo had no evidence supporting the claim; it simply stated the board "should know" the project would be rendered uneconomical. He's leaving the Finding as is. Discussion on the motion. Toole — Asked that the motion be modified to include language for the Findings. Motion Motion to Deny the relief as requested with the noted Findings. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried 5-0 Motion Motion to Authorize Mr. Toole to sign on behalf of the board. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried 5-0 Page 1of8 2. 26-17 Applicants a: to alter the 1 basement on be no closer record, is site Evidence of Residential C Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Discussion (1:. Motion Vote 3. 10-18 Applicant 33.A,fror. to validat( and rebuff] prior dwe Applicant ratio. Avtr 2004-31. recorded Voting Alternates Recused Representing Public Discussion (1 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 Scott B. Paton and Kristin S. Paton 33 Orange Street Paton seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-30 from the provisions of Section 139-33A in order :-existing nonconforming dwelling structure. Specifically, applicant proposes to renovate and build a 2 -story addition and ie south and west elevations. A portion of the work will take place within the northerly side yard setback The dwelling will the northerly side yard lot line than the existing structure as a result of the proposed work The Locus, an undersized lot of :ed 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. wner's title recorded in Book 1570, Page 270 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned I Historic (ROH). Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, McCarthy, Thayer Mondani Poor File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Scott Paton, owner None Paton — Reviewed the background; they now have HDC approval that reduces the mass on the troubling side by one foot and clarifies that the rear ell will be "razed." Toole — Woodmeister made the intimation that it would not have a full foundation under the addition. Paton — That is correct. Toole — Asked if there are any conditions to be placed on this. Botticelli — This should have the exterior construction restriction from June through Labor Day weekend. Toole — It would also be part of the decision that the foundation under the addition will be a crawl space; the plans will be added as Exhibit A. All materials are to be contained within the confines of the property; no on -street parking without a permit. Motion to Grant the relief as requested with no exterior construction Memorial Day weekend and from June 1 through Labor Day weekend and the rear ell foundation to be a crawl space. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: -arried 5-0 ;teven L. Cohen, Trustee of Mak Daddy Trust 72 Monomoy Road Cohen relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 and, to the extent necessary, Special Permit relief under 139- ntensity regulations of 139-16.A and from the requirement to obtain such relief in advance under 139-33A(4)(a), in order :onstruction of the existing dwelling upon the locus. The Locus previously contained a dwelling which was pre-existing as to allowable ground cover based on its grandfathered status and on prior zoning relief. The dwelling was demolished out the relief required to retain or alter the overage. The 34,007 sq. ft. lot allows a ground cover ratio ("GCR') of 7%. The .ad 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 relief to alter or remove and reconstruct a pre-existing non -conforming structure in excess of the permitted ground cover further seeks such relief to amend or alter the prior relief. 72 Monomoy Road is an undersized lot of record, is shown on 43 as Parcel 115, as Lot 8 upon LCP 13219-B and Lot 12 upon LCP 13219-D and as unregistered land upon Plan No. Lce of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 25986 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court and k 1527, Page 220 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The lot is zoned Limited Use General l (LUG -1). lotticelli (acting chair), McCarthy, Poor, Thayer, Mondani Jone le, O'Mara with associated plans, photos and required documentation en Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. one ohen — Reviewed the situation. Reduced the 300 square feet (SF) garage to a 200 SF zoning shed and reduced the oundcover of the main dwelling, asking to be allowed the 22 -SF overage. Reviewed the timeline leading to the need for is request. Pointed out that if this had been done correctly, they would have been able to have a cottage and another 10 SF of ground cover. Will accept the restriction that there will be no additions or new construction for a period of 10 ars. His client is looking to acquire a paper road that would make this a conforming lot. micelli — We have never put a sunset date on construction moratoriums; we have just stated any further construction )uld have to come back to the ZBA. )hen — His client is agreeing to no new construction for 10 years under agreement with the abutters; they will come back r any work. His client has agreed not to install a permanent generator, it would be portable and stored at the contractor's op and brought in for storm events then removed. The trashcan will be moved to the south side of the shed. The shed )uld be restricted under the zoning definition of a shed. In the original architectural plans, the lot was proposed at 8% )undcover, the architect thought this was grandfathered. cCarthy — In July 2017, they discovered the groundcover was incorrect; the shed application was January 2018. One ndition we impose is, no further construction without permit, which would have precluded the zoning shed. She doesn't this as permissible. Page 2of8 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 Botticelli — They should have stopped construction in July 2018 and come for relief at that time. She's upset that they didn't bother to seek relief when they should have, then they built a shed. She understands the Building Department's error but has no sympathy for the apparent disregard for the process. McCarthy — She's inclined to allow the relief but with removal of the zoning shed. They proceeded at their own peril after July 2017. Thayer — He's not inclined to grant the relief because they knew this was an issue for a long time. Poor — He feels the Building Department and Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) made errors; the file should have been red -flagged and the shed permit denied. We can't discount the Town's involvement in creating this problem. If we give them the variance, it should be under a hardship. Doesn't think it could be granted on merits because there are none. They should never have demolished the house without coming to ZBA to build up to 8.2%; it's a smaller stricture now that's on the lot so he has no real issues with the 22 SF. Antonietti — Noted that the 10 -year no -build restriction is enforceable by the ZEO if it is a condition in a ZBA decision. Botticelli — She agrees with Mr. Poor in a lot of ways. McCarthy — She would like the decision constructed to reference the hardship was created because of the mistake by the Building Department. Further discussion about the awareness that the main structure was non-compliant with the zoning shed added to that. Botticelli — She is angered by the idea that they continued to build even after they knew they were over groundcover. Antonietti — There is no guarantee they will obtain the paper road. Mondani — The neighbors are the ones most impacted and they seem to be satisfied. McCarthy — She would prefer the shed be reduced or removed. Poor — There are ways to reduce the shed. The application materials show calculations by the ZEO that indicate the house to be larger than allowed and the permit was still issued. Mondani — He'd supports a condition that there be no further construction in perpetuity. Discussion about hardship: irregularities in calculations; carving 22 SF out of a finished house; and an error on the part of the Town and architect. Motion Motion to Grant the variance as requested in order to validate the surveyor error and with the conditions: a 20 - year construction moratorium and must come to the ZBA for any additional work and any further work would require the lot be brought into conformity (i.e. if current owner sells and a new owner wants to demolish the DU, the new/replacement structure must be built in compliance with 7% GCR). (made by: _Mondani) (seconded by: Poor) Vote Carried 4-1//Thayer opposed 4. 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. 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, Botticelli, McCarthy, 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 (2:38) Cohen — His client did not take advantage of a zoning freeze, which expired several years ago; the zoning change caused this lot to be an anomaly. No other neighborhood had this type of zoning freeze, and it can't be recreated elsewhere. The relief would cause the lot to conform with the rest of the neighborhood; asked the relief be granted. Discussion about whether or not the ZBA should seek legal counsel. McCarthy — Thinks not allowing this would be a hardship on the owner, considering the cost of home ownership on Nantucket. Given the zoning in this area and that it was the last area to allow separate ownership, it is a unique situation. Thayer — He has no concerns. Poor — There is no substantial detriment to the neighborhood by allowing this because all other lots are co-opted or condos. He thinks the relief could be granted because of that. Motion Motion to Grant variance as requested because the ZBA finds not granting it would cause a hardship and that the change is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood due to the shape of the lot and structures and the form of ownership of the surrounding structures/lots. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried 4-1//Toole opposed Page 3 of 8 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 5. 14-18 Paul M. Gaucher and Peter Niemitz 138 Miacomet Road Swain REQUEST oNnTHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Alternates Poor, Thayer, Mondani Motion Motion to Approve the withdrawal without prejudice. (made by. Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried 5-0 1. 22-18 James C. Herbert and Kathleen H. Herbert 70 Lovers Lane Guay Applicant sees relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A(2) to alter and expand the pre-existing nonconfc rmin g dwelling unit. Specifically, applicant proposes to build two additions which will increase the pre-existing nonconforming ground diver ratio upon the premises. In the alternative and to the extent necessary, Applicant requests relief by Variance to allow a roughly 150 sq. ft. increase to the pre-existing nonconforming ground cover. The Locus, a pre-existing nonconforming undersized lot of record, is situa ed at 70 Lovers Lane, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 79 as Parcel 22, upon Land Court Plan 36819-A and as Parcel A on Plan No. 201 107. Evidence of owner's tide is registered at Certificate of Title 24345 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Cot xt an i recorded in Book 1618, Page 205 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Twenty (R-20). Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Mondani Alternates Poor, Thayer Recused None Documentatic n File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Joseph Guay Kathleen Herbert, co-owner Public None Discussion (2: 8) Guay — The dwelling complies with the rear and side setback; it does not comply with front setback and groundcover. Purchase of a parcel through the Nantucket yard sale increased the lot size and made the property less non -conforming as far as area and setback. The front setback requirement is 30 -feet and the structure is at 29.5 feet from the front yard lot line. They have HDC approval; the addition will not impact the setbacks; it increases the groundcover from 14.5% to 15.2%. The increase in groundcover won't be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The plot plan showing e addition of the parcel is now ready to be recorded with the Registry of Deeds. The structure and lot pre -date zoning. construction is within the existing footprint. The shed serves as a shelter for the mechanics for the irrigation and well s 7X7X4. Toole — Asked if they are willing to give up the chance to have a zoning shed. Herbert — Yes. tonietti —The abutter's concern was that the garage was going to two stories; and it is not. Toole — There should be some threshold to prevent coming back repeatedly for additional square feet. This should be ontinued to get information on the groundcover of the surrounding properties so we can make an appropriate Finding s to whether or not the increased ground cover would be consistent with the character of the surrounding eighborhood. Need to know lot sizes and percentages to compare. Motion Aotion to Continue to July 12. (made by: Botticel i) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote larried 5-0 2. 16-18 dith Ann Ray and Seth H. Dillon, Tr., Sixty -Two Miacomet Avenue Nom. Tr. 2 Dillon Court Reade Applicants reqi. est relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the minimum lot area requirement and maximum allowable grour, d cover ratio under Section 139-16 (Intensity Regulations) in order for the premises to be used as a residential building lot with up to 1,50 sq. ft. of ground cover. Applicants request additional relief by Special Permit pursuant to Section 139-16.C(1) to reduce 10 foot side anc I 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 Parcel 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 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential Twenty (R-20). 3. 17-18 Edith Ann Ray and Seth H. Dillon, Tr., Sixty -Two Miacomet Avenue Nom. Tr. 4 Dillon Court Reade Applicants request relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 from the minimum lot area and frontage requirements under Section 139-16 (Intensity Regulations) in order validate the premises as a residential building lot. The Locus, an undersized lot, is situated at 4 Di on Court, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 353, and as Lot 34 upon Land Court Plan No. 38026-J. Evidence is of owner's title registered at Certificate of Tide 20158 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential Twe ity (R-20). Voting oole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Poor Alternates Thayer, Mondani Recused one Documentatior File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing i Lrthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP 'chard Ray Public nne Page 4of8 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 Discussion (3:13) Reade — Travis Ray and Adam Ray wish to buy out Mr. Dillon in order to live on the property, which is shown as subdivided on Town maps. The problem arose because the zoning freeze expired in 2017. His client is asking the board to determine each lot as a valid building lot; 4 Dillon has a house on it and 2 Dillon is currently empty. His client is willing to give up secondary dwellings and zoning sheds for both lots. Toole — Asked for clarification on the zoning freeze issue; it was legally subdivided and doesn't see why they aren't valid lots. Reade — Upon the expiration of the freeze they were retroactively merged; they had not been in separate ownership. Antonietti — Between 2008 & 2010 there was the Permit Extension Act which was renewed in 2012. She and Mr. Vorce determined that the Permit Extension Act does not apply here. Discussion about whether or not the zoning freeze has actually expired by virtue of the Permit Extension Act. Toole — Asked Mr. Reade to double check on the status of the zoning freeze. Ray — They are pressed for time in order to take advantage to low mortgage rates. His main concern is Travis being able to get a loan to buy the house. McCarthy — Read the Permit Extension Act. Toole — There are other aspects of the application that need to be discussed; continuing for a month won't stop them from getting the relief. Granting the relief could be unnecessary. Under the zoning freeze, these are RC -2 with 10-5 setbacks; after the freeze they are R-20, they are 30-10. Reade — We have no alternative but to continue for a month to clarify the zoning freeze and Permit Extension Act issue. Motion Motion to Continue to July 12. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried 5-0 4. 19-18 ACK Crazy, LLC 9 West Chester Street Juraj Bencat Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30-A and 139-33.A in order to alter the pre-existing nonconforming structure by demolishing the rear wing of the dwelling unit, renovating and/or replacing the existing foundation as needed, and reconstructing the wing in substantially the same footprint. The structure will be no closer to the westerly side yard lot line than the existing structure as a result of the proposed alterations, although there will be a vertical expansion within the setback. The Locus, an undersized 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 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 Steve Jemison, owner Public None Discussion (3:38) Jemison — The house is circa 1795 with an attached studio circa 1971, which pre -dates zoning. He is seeking to keep the existing foundation of the studio and raise the roof ridge six feet to match the existing house. Toole — This has a HDC Certificate of Appropriateness but there are no plans included. Would like to see the HDC approved plans and photos showing the context. McCarthy — Noted that the ZEO brought up the point that the lot merged with the back lot. Toole — The ZEO raised the point but that doesn't preclude us from acting on the rest of the application. Jemison — The lot was separate when he purchased it. Motion Motion to Continue to July 12 with the guidance to provide HDC approved plans, context photos, and confirmation whether or not there was a merger. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried 5-0 5. 23-18 Adam Ross and Emma Ross 50 Okorwaw Avenue Beaudette Applicants are seeking to vacate and rescind prior relief by Variance granted pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32 in order to validate the lot as a nonconforming lot of record and a residential building lot. At the time the relief was granted, the 44,813 sq. ft. lot was undersized for the LUG -2 zoning district in which it was situated. When the zoning was changed to LUG -1 in 2017, the lot became conforming in all respects, rendering the need for relief obsolete. The Locus is situated at 50 Okorwaw Avenue, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 79 as Parcel 63, and as Lot 1 upon Plan No. 2012-82. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1375, Page 117 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Limited Use One (LUG -1). Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Mondani Alternates Poor, Thayer Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Rick Beaudette, Vaughan, Dale, Hunter and Beaudette P.C. Public Ann Phaneuf, 25 Monohansett Rd David MacKay, 25 Monohansett Rd Page 5 of 8 Discussion Motion Vote 6. 18-18 ApplicantE are either a ga rage requiremeis i approvedI.nt tth and as to Page 40. E vide Voting Alternates Recused Documentatio Representing Public Discussion (4:2 Motion Vote Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 Beaudette — His client is asking to rescind a 2012 variance. One condition of that variance was to have a certain portion of the property subject to a no -build restriction held by the Town. In 2017, the zoning changed to LUG -1 making the variance moot. The Select Board still has to release the no -build deed restriction. Toole — Asked about a neighbor's appeal of the 2012 variance. Beaudette — He was told by Mr. Vorce that the abutter dropped the appeal Phaneuf — There was a concern about increased density in the area and the zoning change was voted in. Their concern is the loss of the deed restriction, which is to preserve a 100 -foot green space buffer on the northeast comer. The Rosses purchased the property knowing there was a no -build deed restriction. McCarthy — They have to go to the Select Board to get the deed restriction removed. The ZBA can't remove that O'Mara — There is room outside the restricted area to build an addition. It is appropriate for this board to do away with the variance. Toole — If the variance is not rescinded, the deed restriction becomes a moot point They have plenty of area to build. Beaudette — His client wants to build a shed in the restricted area. All that is left is this "punishment" on a lot that is now conforming. Feels the variance isn't worth anything any longer. He intends to go to the Select Board to ask that the deed restriction be removed. McCarthy — Feels the owners have benefitted for years from the existence of the variance. Botticelli — The deed restriction is beyond the condition of the variance. Sees no reason to release the variance. Toole — The owner has about 30,000 unencumbered square feet on which to build without the buffer. He doesn't want to repeal a vote from years ago. MacKay — They are welcome to build a second structure just not in the buffer. McCarthy — Read the decision that reflects a discussion about the deed restriction. She doesn't have a problem with rescinding the variance based upon the zoning. However, the Town requested the deed restriction and feels that be left up to the Town. Beaudette — Equated the Ross bid on and winning the property to the purchase of an affordable house. Toole — He doesn't see that equation. If the selectmen remove the restriction, they would still have to come back to the ZBA to remove the variance. Discussion about whether or not to rescind the variance before the Select Board rules on the deed restriction and who ,vould vote in favor of rescinding the variance. Botticelli — If forced to vote now, she would not support rescinding the variance; it is in Mr. Beaudette's best interest to ;o to the Select Board first. She would want to see some of the buffer remain; she'd also like more information on what he owner would like to build there. Phaneuf — It's sobering that people buy a property and agree to a deed then want to build something in a restricted area. They knew the restriction was there when they purchased the property. Uotion to Continue to July 12 at 1 p.m. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Mondani) tarried 5-0 Sig Chicken Little, LLC 82 Easton Street Alger seeking to modify prior Special Permit relief, as previously modified, to allow for conversion of an existing studio into partment or primary dwelling unit. To the extent necessary, applicant seeks further Special Permit relief from the parking ider Section 139-18.B. As a result of a zoning change from Limited Commercial to Residential Old Historic (Rol -1) 2015 Annual Town Meeting, the lot is pre-existing nonconforming as to use, with an office building upon the premises, ,e. 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, ce of owner's title is recorded in Book 1363, Page 44 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. 'oole, McCarthy, Poor, Thayer, Mondani lone one le with associated plans, photos and required documentation srah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. :nny Dey, principal one ,er — Reviewed the restrictions on the property from the prior relief The current plan is interior work only: garage to ho; parking increases to five spaces. Zoning is now ROH. There can be only one business on the property. ale — When the special permit was granted, it was for a business and a studio; it would now be a business and dential unit. In essence, a kitchen is being added. tion to Approve the relief as requested with other restriction to remain in effect. (made by: Thayer) (seconded Poor) tied 5-0 Page 6 of 8 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 7. 24-18 Gerald R. Pfund and Rebecca Pfund 3 Hiller's Lane Cohen Applicant is requesting relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A to amend a prior Variance in order to validate the existing construction (a 20 sq. ft. bump out and a shower/shed), and also seeks a finding that, due to their age, no relief is needed for existing setback encroachments where the dwelling is as close as 4.76 feet to the eastern lot line, the shed/shower is as close as 0.1 feet to the eastern lot line, and an air conditioning unit is within the eastern side yard setback. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 3 Hiller's Lane, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 42.3.2 as Parcel 164, and as Lot 2 upon Plan Book 19, Page 133. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 520, Page 349 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). Voting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Thayer, Mondani Alternates Poor Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Gerald Pfund, co-owner Public None Discussion (4:41) Cohen — Explained the situation that created this pre-existing non -conforming lot and structure. They want permission to exceed the groundcover ratio that existed and to get reaffirm the grandfather status of the shed in the setback. House is circa 1979 and shed predates his client's ownership, at least 20 years. Toole — Brook Meerbergen's design shows the shed complying with the side setback. There is plenty of groundcover. Cohen — Two neighbors wrote letters of support to granting the release. The ZEO said he found a restriction and flagged the permit. Toole — He's more concerned by the shed and the air-conditioning unit being in the setback. Pfund — The shed was there when he bought the property 20 years ago. The A/C is new. Mondani — He doesn't like the A/C in the current location. Asked if the ZBA just takes a client's word for something being at least 10 years old or will we require proof; also asked if the ZBA has to support the 10 -year grandfathering. He would want the condenser moved. Toole — If they are making the assertion something has existed for 10 years, we should have evidence supporting that claim. We're okay with the bumpout but would like the A/C moved; won't act on the shed. O'Mara — The decision should reflect there are letters stating the shed was in place for at least 20 years. Motion Motion to Grant the relief releasing the groundcover restriction, the A/C moved to be conforming, and taking no position on the shed. (made by: Mondani) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried 5-0 8. 25-18 Steven L. Cohen, Tr., Safe Harbor Realty Trust 2 Harborview Way Cohen Applicant is requesting relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-17(c)(7) to renovate a structure and place it on a new foundation in conformance with applicable building codes and FEMA regulations. The proposed height is approximately elevation 35 on the national geodetic vertical datum of 1988. The Locus is situated at 2 Harborview Way, is shown on Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.1 as Parcel 31, and as Lot 8 on Plan Book 8, Page 13. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1597, Page 162 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). Voting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Poor, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Public None Discussion (4:58) Cohen — This is a historic structure being renovated and to meet flood code has to come up 8 feet; to do that they need relief from the 30 -foot height restriction. There are no changes other than the height. Toole — The A/C is shown as on the lot line; asked if the setback is zero. Antonietti —The front is zero and the sides are 5. Poor — A horrific mini -split system was put in this house; hoping that is being remedied with the renovation. Cohen — The condensers are good; there is a 5 -foot setback on that side. There is no change in the roof. Toole —The height is measured from the first floor elevation, not the ground. The house will remain 30 feet tall plus the FEMA requirement. McCarthy — This is not a safe location for a house to sit on cribbing for three months; it should be set on the foundation; she's also concerned about having an open construction site throughout the summer. Suggested limiting the work to putting the building on the foundation and securing it with no further exterior work until after Labor Day. Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested based upon the Exhibit on Page 171 of the packet and a certificate of the final ridge height is to be provided upon completion with the no -exterior -work restriction as stated. (made by: Poor) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried 5-0 Page 7 of 8 Minutes for June 14, 2018, adopted July 12 Motion to jo rn at 5:10 p.m. (made by: Mondani) (seconded by: O'Mara) Carried unanimously Sources us4, d g the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. 1 No e Submitted Terry L. N Page 8 of 8