Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes, November 18, 2010_201402050842183301 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 Minutes Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:00 PM 2 Fairgrounds Road Board Members in attendance: Michael O’Mara (left at 2:40), Ed Toole, Kerim Koseatac, Lisa Botticelli, Mark Poor, Susan McCarthy, Michael Angelastro Board Members absent: Dale Waine Staff: John Brescher and Venessa Moore I. Call to Order: Chairman Toole called the meeting to order at 1:06 PM. II. Approval of the Agenda: A motion was made (O’Mara) and duly seconded to approve the agenda as written. The vote was 5-0 in favor. III. Approval of the Minutes: A motion was made (Koseatac) and duly seconded to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2010 ZBA meeting. The vote was 5-0 in favor. IV. Other Business: There was no other business at the hearing. V. Old Business  085-06 Reis 80 Miacomet Avenue Reade C Action Deadline, April 26, 2011. Continued to April 14, 2011 VI. New Business  058-10 DeMarco 9 India Street DeMarco Action Deadline February 16, 2011. Don DeMarco represented himself at the hearing. Mr. DeMarco explained to the Board that he is requesting to modify his existing ZBA decision to allow for an outdoor service station and outdoor seating, as well as to waive any additional parking that will be required pursuant to this request. 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile Attorney Keith Yankow, representing the Masters, who abut the property, stated that the proposal should not be allowed as this will increase the noise and impact the peace and well-being of his clients. David Masters, an abutter, spoke against the application as well. Cielo Masters, an abutter, spoke against the application by stating that her bedroom window faces the proposed seating area and the increased noise will negatively impact her. Andrew Willauer, an abutter at 2 India Street, stated that he too was against the Application because of the amount of noise the proposed seating would generate. Mr. DeMarco countered these arguments by explaining the nature of his business and the clientele he attracts. A motion was made (O’Mara) and duly seconded to continue the application to the December 9th hearing in order for the Board to visit the location of the proposed seats. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Donald DeMarco  Letter submitted by Attorney Keith Yankow  Various letters of support submitted by Donald DeMarco  059-10 Rushmore 27 Walsh Street Maury Action Deadline February 16, 2011. Beth Maury represented the Applicant. Ms. Maury explained that the Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief in order to alter the existing dwelling. There was a discrepancy on the site plan so the Board requested that the matter be suspended in order for the Applicant to provide the Board with a larger site plan. Upon receiving the larger site plan, the Board noted that one of the measurements was not listed on the plan; but, it was ascertained the structure was far enough outside the setback that the distance would not be germane to the Board’s analysis. A motion was made (Angelastro) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Beth Maury  Site plan submitted by Beth Maury, prepared by Blackwell and Associates, Inc., dated October 16, 2009  060-10 Walker 104 Baxter Road Glidden Action Deadline February 2, 2011. 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile Attorney Richard Glidden represented the Applicant. Attorney Glidden stated that the Applicant would like Variance relief in order to further go over the allowable ground cover on the Locus. Attorney Whit Gifford, representing Paul Judy, stated that he and his clients did not believe there was a basis for Variance relief as the property is not immediately threatened by any coastal erosion. A motion was made (O’Mara) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 1-4 in favor (O’Mara, Koseatac, Botticelli, and Toole opposed). Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Richard Glidden  063-10 Georgantas 9 Howard Street Glidden Action Deadline February 16, 2011. Attorney Richard Glidden represented the Applicant. Attorney Glidden stated that the Applicant is requesting the Board validate the existence of the steps leading from the front door that were created when the Applicant renovated the dwelling. Christopher Sekhel, the contractor from the project, explained how the steps came to be sited in the front yard setback. Mark Poor asked if the Applicants had any pictures showing the grade and the location of the steps. Attorney Glidden provided the Board with said pictures. Marianne Hanley, representing the contract purchasers, explained that during the HDC process, the HDC wanted to see a front door and the building code requires steps leading from the front door. A motion was made (McCarthy) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 3-2 (Poor and Toole opposed). Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Richard Glidden  Pictures of Locus submitted by Richard Glidden  061-10 Quinn 15 New Lane Stetina Action Deadline February 16, 2011. Attorney Jeff Stetina represented the Applicant. Attorney Stetina explained to the Board that the relief requested is due to an unintentional setback intrusion that was perpetrated by the Surveyor at the time. A motion was made (Poor) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Jeff Stetina  Site Plan submitted by Jeff Stetina, prepared by Bracken Engineering, dated September 13, 2010  062-10 Holly Farm Realty Trust 290 Polpis Road Stetina Action Deadline February 16, 2011 Attorney Jeff Stetina represented the Applicant. Attorney Stetina explained to the Board that the relief requested to the preexisting nonconforming structure would not be any more nonconforming than what exists. A motion was made (Angelastro) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Documents referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Jeff Stetina  Site Plan submitted by Jeff Stetina, prepared by Bracken Engineering, dated October 13, 2010  064-10 Weld 16 Gardner Road D’Elia Action Deadline February 16, 2011 Attorney Lori D’Elia represented the Applicant. Attorney D’Elia explained to the Board that the relief requested to the preexisting nonconforming structure would not be any more nonconforming than what exists. A motion was made (Angelastro) and duly seconded to approve the requested relief. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Documents Referenced:  ZBA Application submitted by Lori D’Elia  Site Plan submitted by Lori D’Elia, prepared by Earle & Sullivan, Inc., dated September 21, 2010 VII. Adjournment A motion was made (Botticelli) and duly seconded to adjourn the hearing at 3:00 and enter executive session. The vote was 6-0 in favor.