The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-8-13 ZBA Minutes for August 13,2020,adopted Oct. 15 ,;�at1TUCl�T ., r� ArlTUCKE .,�,, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS •'''� 9N 2 Fairounds Road TOWN CLERt Sid, • t,• • y Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 °9 www.nantucket-ma.gov 2020 OCT 16 AM 9* 4? Commissioners:Susan McCarthy(Chair),Lisa Botticelli(Vice chair),Ed Toole(Clerk),Michael J.O'Mara,Kerim Koseatac Alternates:Mark Poor,Geoff Thayer,Jim Mondani -- MINUTES — Thursday,August 13,2020 This meeting was held via remote participation using ZOOM and YouTube, Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Regarding Open Meeting Law Called to order at 1:05 p.m.and announcements made by Ms.McCarthy. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti,Zoning Administrator Attending Members: McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac,Poor,Thayer,Mondani Absent: Botticelli,Toole Motion to Approve the Agenda. (made by:O'Mara) (seconded) Carried 5-0//O'Mara,Koseatac,Tha er,Poor,and Mondani-a e I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 9,2020 Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by:Thayer) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried 5-0//O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,Poor,and Mondani-aye I I. OLD BUSINESS 1. 066-00 Sara Anne Brookes&Justin Robert Brooks 6 Kinikinnik Way • Swain The Applicants seek a determination that a proposed modification to the Comprehensive Permit,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 modification for which applicants seek approval consists of relocating a driveway.The Locus is situated in the Abrem Quary 40B, is known as 6 Kinikinnik Way,is shown on Assessor's Map 80 as Parcel 420,and as Lot 10 upon Plan No 2006-90.Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1122,Page 151 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds.The site is located in the Limited Use General One(LUG-1) zone. Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac Alternates Poor,Thayer, Mondani Recused None Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation Representing Brian Swain,Atty for owner Justin Roberts Brookes,owner Public None Discussion(1:14) Swain – This is a request for a determination that the proposed driveway alteration and relocation of parking is an insubstantial modification to the Comprehensive Permit. Defined a substantial change and insubstantial change per CMR.Cited the precedents supporting this ruling. Antonietti–Pointed out that with Mr.Swain's submission on page 25 of the packet,of the four cited modifications,one was denied. McCarthy– Confirmed the proposed location isn't directly across the from the abutters. It seems to her that this is an insubstantial change. Discussion about the waiver for the width of the driveway. Mondani–It seems the Homeowner's Association (HOA) has the power to grant all this in the declaration as noted in the Comprehensive Permit;asked if the ZBA actually has to make the determination. Antonietti–Yes,the ZBA does have to make the ruling, the Comprehensive Permit is approved in concert with a site plan showing all the driveway and parking configurations.We need to do this properly because she's already hearing from others in that development who want to do something similar. Swain–There are two governing documents: the Comprehensive Permit,which is solely modified by the ZBA,and the HOA.We seek ZBA approval first then seek any HOA waivers necessary. Motion Motion to determine the modifications are insubstantial as presented in the application and authorize the Chair to sign the letter memorializing the decision. (made by:Mondani) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried 5-0//McCarthy,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and Mondani-aye Page 1 of 5 ZBA Minutes for August 13,2020,adopted Oct. 15 Documentation File with associated plans,photos,correspondence,and required documentation Representing Kevin Dale,Vaughan,Dale,Hunter,and Beaudette P.C. Public None Discussion(1:44) Dale—Reviewed situation leading to the request;if the sauna is put below grade,the shed will exceed by 37 sq.ft.,which is de minimis. His clients would waive their right to put a 200 sq.ft. zoning shed,which is exempt from groundcover,on the property.In the alternative,his client is asking for a variance.Explained removing the overage from shed would cause a hardship since it is essentially a demolition.His client wanted more space for their growing family so merged the lots to create a compound.He doesn't know the details concerning construction of the shed. McCarthy—Confirmed the existing work is a renovation.Asked about the below-grade sauna. Dale—The spa would be substantially below ground so there would be a step down. Antonietti—She included a chart that iterates the various building permits in the merged building department file.They demolished a shed on 31 North Pasture Lane along with a few non-groundcover elements such as pergola and decks. The shed they want to keep is very well-appointed,as Attorney Dale indicated. Mondani—He would like to know with certainty that the sauna would meet the requirements for no-groundcover. Antonietti—That would be a determination to be made by the ZEO or Building Inspector. McCarthy—In October 2019,it looks like the owner pulled a permit for a pool house with bar and toilets along with the demolition of another shed and pergola;there has been plenty of opportunity to clean up the groundcover issue. Dale—Suggested including a condition to the decision that the spa must be substantially below grade. He doesn't think the bylaw distinguishes which structures can or cannot be below grade. Antonietti—It says finished or unfinished space may be below grade;a sauna would be a finished space. Mondani — If we could determine it isn't part of groundcover, he'd be okay with the overage. However, it sounds subjective. McCarthy — The condition couldbe that the sauna shall be either substantially below ground per the zoning enforcement officer or be removed.She's not comfortable approving a variance. Dale—Asked to grant the special permit allowing the 37 sq.ft.extra groundcover. Antonietti—For 31 North Pasture Lane,there is a Building Permit 71817 dated April 2017 to replace a window with a door, add a deck, a new pergola, and outdoor fireplace; there is a note on that permit that the groundcover had been exceeded. There wouldn't have been a Certificate Occupancy for that type of work. That note related to 31 North Pasture Lane only,not the merged lots.Clarified that it will be an overage of 237 sq.ft. Dale—They didn't know they were over groundcover until after they purchased 33 North Pasture Lane last year,it came to light in January when they sat down with their architect and engineer.This type of relief has been granted in the past and no one oppose the application. The Town policy is to exempt a 200 sq.ft. shed which doesn't count toward groundcover;argued that cognitively,the Board is looking at an overage of only 37 sq.ft. Koseatac—It seems like there was a lapse of due diligence and now they are trying to clean it up while doing a lot on these properties.Granting this could set a precedent for the future. Mondani — This isn't a shed issue. They were in compliance until they built a 900 sq.ft. pool house; that created the overage. McCarthy—Agrees with Mr.Mondani;this is a numbers issue. O'Mara—Regarding the sauna,it needs walls, roof, and floor, doesn't know how that would be below grade. A spa is different. Further discussion about the relevance of the pool house to this application. McCarthy—Feels the conversation has been exhausted on this.She is not inclined to approve the relief as requested. Dale—Insisted that every member voting must state reasons why they voted for or against. Antonietti—Those reasons are fleshed out in the final decision. McCarthy—There is a sauna and a spa on the plan, asked what is being done with the spa. We've stated the reasons throughout the hearing and those reasons will be called out in the minutes. She's hearing that the property was over ground cover;a permit was pulled in 2019 to build a 950 sq.ft. structure,which could have been reduced to meet ground cover; the timing between when the applicant became aware of the overage and the things done to limit ground cover, there is a reason for maximum ground cover; and there is a difference between this and the 200 sq.ft. zoning shed; ground cover requirements could have been met. Dale—Feels Ms.McCarthy's comments are not relevant to burden of proof his client is required to meet. Motion Motion to Grant the Special Permit relief as requested. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Not Carried 0-5//McCarthy-nay;O'Mara-nay;Koseatac-nay;Thayer-nay;and Mondani-nay Motion Motion to approve the variance relief as requested. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Not Carried 0-5//McCarthy-nay;O'Mara-nay;Koseatac-nay;Thayer-nay;and Mondani-nay Page 3 of 5 ZBA Minutes for August 13,2020,adopted Oct. 15 Motion Motion to Approve as requested with the aforementioned conditions.(made by:O'Mara) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried 5-0//McCarthy,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and Mondani-aye IV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. None V. AD OU RNMENT Motion to Adjourn at 3:07 p.m. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded) Carried 5-0//McCarthy,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and Poor-aye • Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. Draft Minutes July 9,2020 Submitted by:' Terry L.Norton • Page 5 of 5