HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-15 ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
NANTUCK
of pNruc, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : W N CLE R
� 4
.1 2 Fairgrounds Road
1 Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 2020 NOV 13 AM 9: 57
www.nantucket-ma.gov
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,October 15,2020
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 1:12 p.m.and Announcements made by Ms.McCarthy
Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator, Marcus Silverstein, Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO); Paul
Murphy,Building Inspector;Amy Baxter,Licensing Administrator
Attending Members: McCarthy,Botticelli,Toole,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,Mondani
Absent: Poor
Late Arrivals: Toole,2:45 p.m.
Early Departures: O'Mara,(before 4:39 p.m.)
Town Counsel: Alex Weisheit,K&P Law P.C.
Adoption of the Agenda
Motion Motion to Approve the agenda. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Tha er,and McCarth -a e
I. 11)PRO1' ES
1. August 13,2020
Motion Motion to Approve August 13,2020(made by:Koseatac) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and McCarthy-aye
2. September 10,2020 McCarthy—Page 2of3 18-20:replace"she can't think of..."to"there might be unintended consequences."
Motion Motion to Approve September 10,2020 as amended.(made by:Botticelli) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticel i,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and McCarthy-aye
II. MA)
1. 076-11 Peter Ahem&Jesse Rae Gauvin 17 Wappossett Circle Swain
The Applicant seeks a determination that a proposed modification to the Comprehensive Permit, as amended, and the plans approved
therewith,may be considered insubstantial pursuant to 760 CMR 56.05(1.1)(a)(b),and as such,may be authorized by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.The proposed modifications for which applicant seeks approval consist of siting and installation of a 12'x 28'private residential
swimming pool with related hardscaping and pool equipment storage shed. The Locus is situated in the Sachems Path 40B,is known as
17 Wappossett Circle,is shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 573, and as Lot 21 upon Plan No 2014-68. Evidence of owner's title is
recorded in Book 1614,Page 306 on file at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds.The site is located in the Limited Use General Two(LUG-2)
zone.
Voting Botticelli (acting chair), O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,Mondani
Alternates None
Recused McCarthy
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Bryan Swain
Peter Ahern,co-owner
Jessie Rae Gauvin,co-owner
Public None
Discussion(1:18) Swain — This is a request, for determination the proposed installation, storage shed, and hardscaping, is insubstantial
modification to the Sachem's Path Comprehensive Permit. They have the Homeowners' Association (HOA) approvaL
Reviewed what constitutes a substantial modification.Not yet been to the Historic District Commission(HDC).
Koseatac—Given we did one of these,he has no issue.
O'Mara—Asked if contiguous abutters have no concerns. Without any letters of concerns, he assumes the neighbors
have no concerns.
Antonietti—This is not noticed.
Ahern—We talked to the neighbors but have no letters;they said there was no issue.
Mondani—He's satisfied with the HOA approval.
Motion Motion to confirm that this is insubstantial and authorizing Ms. Botticelli to sign the memorandum
memorializing the decision. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Thayer,Mondani,Koseatac,O'Mara,and Botticelli-aye
Page 1 of 7
ZDA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
2. 11-20 Peter J.Mackay&Alison Mackay and David P.Mackay&Anne M.Phaneuf,Tr.,Mackay/Phaneuf Family Trust
21 &25 Monohansett Road Alger
CONTINUED to December 10,2020
Ill. Nl?\V BUSINESS
1. 21-20 Vandelay Realty LLC(Owner)&Lawrence M.Maury(Applicant) 84 Polpis Road Maroney
Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-33.A(4) to remove and reconstruct any or
all of the pre-existing nonconforming dwelling or any portion thereof in excess of the permitted 3% ground cover ratio. Specifically,
Applicant proposes to demolish all or portions of the existing structure to allow for new construction with the ability to retain the pre-
existing nonconforming ground cover ratio of up to 5.97%. As a result of a zoning change from LUG-1 to LUG-3,the Locus became
pre-existing nonconforming as to lot area and groundcover.The new construction will be conforming as to all setback requirements for
a pre-existing nonconforming lot of record.Locus is situated at 84 Polpis Road, shown on Assessor's Map 44 as Parcel 25.5,and as Lot
11 upon Plan Book 19,Page 77.Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1594,Page 86 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of
Deeds.The site is zoned Limited Use General 3 (LUG-3).
Voting McCarthy,Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer
Alternates Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Jay Maroney,Cohen&Cohen Law P.C.
Public None
Discussion(1:27) Maroney — Looking to preserve the groundcover ratio for a new structure; this would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
McCarthy—Looking at the conditions,it seems those conditions are met.
Botticelli—Asked whether or not it includes the shed.
Maroney—Yes it does,though there is a slight reduction in the groundcover of 88 sq. ft HDC proposal is smaller than
this as originally filed;since we don't have HDC final approval,the number so are asking for 5.97 or less ground cover.
Thayer—We've granted this type of relief before.
Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested allowing them to retain current groundcover of 5.97%or less. (made by:
O'Mara) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and McCarthy-aye
2. 22-20 22 Starbuck Road LLC 22 Starbuck Road Maroney
Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 139-2 in order to install an in-ground
residential swimming pool. The proposal meets the criteria in Section 139-2.A. Locus is situated at 22 Starbuck Road, shown on
Assessor's Map 60 as Parcel 118,as Lot 300 upon Land Court Plan 3092-19.Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title
• No.22275 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Village Residential(VR).
Voting McCarthy,Botticelli, O'Mara,Koseatac
Alternates Thayer,Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos,correspondence,and required documentation
Representing Jay Maroney,Cohen&Cohen Law P.C.
Elisabeth O'Rourke,Jardin International
Public None
Discussion(1:34) Maroney—This is for a pool in the Madaket VR district;willing to comply with traditional restrictions.
Botticelli — Asked what was updated on the site plan that arrived in today's staff report. Agrees on listing out the
conditions we normally put in.
Antonietti—Asked them to add the pool.
McCarthy —That plan confirms pool equip is outside the 20-foot setback. The letter from Bruce Mandell hit on the
highlights of our restrictions on pools.
Antonietti—The outside edge of the coping is pointed out regarding its intrusion into the setback
O'Mara—Confirmed there were no other letters.
Koseatac—The letter indicates equipment should be enclosed in a sound-proof structure.
O'Rourke—The 20-foot requirement was met,and pool equipment is enclosed in a fence.
Antonietti—It is on page 23 of the packet.
McCarthy—Soundproofing sounds familiar like we've required it before. Reviewed the conditions concerning the pool
equipment.Condition 1 about removal is consistent with what we've done in the past
Antonietti—No public comments.
McCarthy—Asked if visibility from neighbor houses is mitigated as per Mr.Mandell's comments.
Maroney—One neighbor has a pool and it is screened from the other neighbor.
McCarthy—Outdoor lighting and noise must comply with local ordinances.
Motion Motion to Grant as requested with the conditions consistent with prior decisions. (made by:Koseatac)(seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and McCarthy-aye
Page 2 of 7
ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
3. 23-20 Jeffrey R.Sayle And Katherine R.Sayle,Trustees,Tigertail Realty Trust 2 Thirty Acres Lane Sayle
Appellants bring an appeal, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A, Sections 8 & 15 and Zoning By-law Sections 139-29.E and 139-31, of notice
alleging zoning violations issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer ("ZEO") on August 20,2020.Appellant requests that the Zoning
Board of Appeals overturn the finding of the ZEO and render a decision that the Appellant's use of the property is in compliance with
the Zoning By-law and consistent with the prior Special Permit relief issued in various decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals.Locus
is situated at 2 Thirty Acres Lane, shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 115, and as Lot 12 upon Plan No. 2002-08. Evidence of
owner's title is recorded in Book 809, Page 172 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Commercial
Neighborhood(CN).
Voting Botticelli (acting chair),O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,Mondani
Alternates None
Recused McCarthy&Poor
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Kate Sayle,owner
Public None
Discussion(1:48) Sayle—Explained why,as appellant,she doesn't agree with the ZEO's violations.The special permit allows for the type
of work performed in the garage bays. You might want to think about the definition of "storage"; vehicles on the
property now are actively waiting to be worked on.Willing to increase screening but there is screening in place;can email
a recent photo of the screen.
Silverstein—Agrees the special permit does not say they have to use the bays;however, a bay is now being used for a
possible home occupation as a physical fitness operation.There is an impasse on parking by the fence which was installed
without permit. He doesn't believe the special permit allows them to work outside the building. Storage of vehicles,
doesn't think in 1995-1996 the ZBA thought this would be for vehicle storage; therefore, vehicles should be cycled
through the property quickly.The front and elsewhere is not screened.
Botticelli—Asked how many vehicles are"stored"on the site.
Silverstein—He didn't count them;guesses 8 or 9.
Mondani— In the past when it was boat repair, boats were outside all the time. Asked Mr. Silver if that violated the
special permit.
Silverstein—Yes, boat storage was a violation of the conditions. This was picked up from a complaint regarding work
taking place under tents;that's where the bench-press is located.
Botticelli—Reading the special permit,it feels like use was meant to be interior.
O'Mara—About 30 to 35 years ago, this was a night club.Asked if the main problem is an unreasonable use—i.e. the
number of vehicles on the property.
Silverstein—No, simply an alteration of the special permit without relief.The original complaint was work outside the
building.
Koseatac—Parking and vehicles being worked on outside;some of the pictures are disturbing.
Thayer—Asked if all the vehicles are being worked on.
Sayle — It has taken us a year to work out with the current business owner about cars being dropped off without
appointment and vehicles being worked on. She told hem he's not allowed to have more than 10 or 12 cars;our lease
limited it to 9 vehicles. Concerns in the past was about cleanup of oil spills; that is covered by Massachusetts State law.
One tenant operates a physical fitness business out of one of the garage bays; a landscaping business is using the third
bay for storage and repair of equipment. The fitness guy sees one person at a time by appointment. We added a larger
parking area to the right of the building.These businesses do not have a lot of people traffic.
Silverstein—Any use other than vehicle garage requires a request for permit;one bay changed use to a gym.Landscaper
requires modification of the special permit; he is running his business out of an office there. If the physical fitness
constitutes a home business,arguably it should have come in for modification simply to record it.
O'Mara—He would like to view the property;the photos are telling,but he wants to make sure of what he is looking at,
count vehicles,see how it work,see where customers park.
Botticelli—She'd like to see an updated surveyed site plan showing where parking,functions,etc.is located.
Thayer—He would also like a site visit;seems there's a lot going on there.
Mondani — He doesn't think this is much different from the boat repair business; if that were okay, this wouldn't be
much different. If the boat business was in violation, then this is also. Fitness and office could be rectified.They could
use more screening;there is probably not enough.
Botticelli—Asked if the fitness bay would have to come in separately.
Silverstein — Thinks it could all be wrapped together. This is a situation with an old special permit that should be
brought up to date.
1 Antonietti—No public comments.
Koseatac—He would also like to see an updated site plan showing drainage.
Botticelli—Would also like proposed screening included in the site plan.
Antonietti—Parking can be left up to the surveyor.
Motion Motion to Continue to November 12,1:00 p.m. (made by:Koseatac) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Mondani,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and Botticelli-aye
Page 3 of 7
ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
4. 24-20 Linda A.Yates 21 Derrymore Road Hanley-
Applicant
anleyApplicant is requesting Modification of prior relief by Variance granted in File No. 04-19 pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32.
Specifically,Applicant requests that a Condition stipulating that the setback nonconformity must be cured by virtue of the acquisition
and merger of a paper street parcel, as part of the Yard Sale program, before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ("CO') be
eliminated or modified as reasonably necessary to allow for issuance of a CO prior to completion of the long-delayed Yard Sale transfer.
The property is
located at 21 Derrymore Road,shown on Assessor's Map 41 as Parcel 117 and as Lot 51 upon Land Court Plan 13199-V. Evidence of
owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 22854 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court The site is zoned
Residential-1 (R-1).
Voting McCarthy,Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac
Alternates Thayer, Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Marianne Hanley,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP
Public None
Discussion(2:21) Hanley—This is for modification of an existing variance because waiting for finalizing of a yard sale;started in 2017.Ms.
Yates got a variance in 2019 and been working on the house;unfortunately,can't get a CO because of this condition and
can't get the mortgage released. The court was shut down for anything that is an emergency. Asked to eliminate the
condition holding the CO until the yard sale is complete;once she has this lot,the property will no longer need a variance
as it will be in compliance.
Murphy—He can close out a building permit and hold off the CO until matters are resolved
McCarthy — She feels for Ms. Yates; however, the no CO was a condition we felt strongly about and there was no
guarantee at that point whether or not the land court would approve the title.She was reluctant to grant a relief and this
condition helped her to support the request.About the pool mentioned in the Staff Report,asked where it is going and if
construction has to wait until she owns the property.
Hanley—The pool is under construction and has nothing to do with this.This is the structure's side-yard setback to the
paper street;once she gets that paper street,setback will be over 17 feet where 5 feet is required.
Antonietti—At the hearing three were three hearings to give her time to ask Town Counsel to expedite the situation.She
was told by Town Counsel, who is told by Land Court, that if it is an emergency it can be expedited. Something like
financing could be considered an emergency so she can reach out to Town Counsel about initiating that.
Mondani—He took the hardline approach requiring the CO;since then,it has become an unreasonable amount of time.
If he were to vote on this,it would be to remove the CO requirement given all the circumstances that occurred.
Thayer—It is an unreasonable amount time, but Ms. Yates could have design the house to fit within the setback_ He'd
prefer the hardship route be pursued.
O'Mara—Wonders why can accommodate the applicant and with some certainty have the property owner buy the land
when it is available.
Discussion about the Yard Sale process also about whether or not a Purchase and Sale agreement rises to the level of an
emergency
O'Mara—Asked if Town Counsel has any suggestions that would accommodate both parties.
Weisheit—He will work with the Real Estate department to negotiate a settlement.
McCarthy—Mr.O'Mara's suggestion is a good one about guaranteeing Ms.Yates must purchase the lot.We should look
to continue this.A letter of intent solidifying she will purchase the property would help.
Hanley—She will work with Town Counsel and Land Court regarding this be a case for emergency. Doesn't think this
would set a precedent.
Antonietti—No public comments.
Motion Motion to Continue to November 12,1:00 p.m. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer,and McCarthy-aye
•
Page 4 of 7
ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
5. 20-20 Drew&Jessica Guff,DJG Associated LLC,Edward&Marilyn Gregory,et al(Appellants)
1 &3 Reeds Way Bailey
Appellants bring an appeal, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A, Sections 8 & 15 and Zoning By-law Sections 139-29.E and 139-31, of a
determination by the Building Commissioner that weddings and other commercial events upon the Locus are accessory residential uses
permissible in LUG-3. Appellant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals reverse the Commissioner's determination and find that
rental of 40 rooms to unrelated parties and the holding of weddings and other events are not uses permissible under the Zoning By-law.
Locus is situated at 1 &3 Reeds Way, shown on Assessor's Map 92.4 as Parcels 319&319.1,as Lots 902&903 upon Land Court Plan
5004-61.Evidence of title to Albion Ridge LLC and Albion Ridge Two LLC,respectively,is registered on Certificates of Title No.26134
and 26258 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Limited Use General Three(LUG-3).Requests zoning
relief to site a shed no closer to the front yard lot line than the existing structure.
Voting McCarthy,Botticelli,Toole, O'Mara,Koseatac
Alternates Poor,Thayer, Mondani
Recused None
Documentation File with associated plans,photos,required documentation,Tom Nevers Area Plan,correspondence
Representing Dan Bailey,Pierce Attwood,L.P.
appellants Danielle deBenedictis,deBenedictis,Miller,&Blum,P.A.
Drew Guff,co-appellant
Edward Gregory,co-appellant
Representing Peter Kyburg,Kyburg Law Offices
Whales Watch Michael Reed,owner
Public Linda Williams
John Flannery
Randy Ringer,President Tom Nevers Civic Association
Terri Eichler,11 Old Westmoor Farm Road
Discussion(2:45) Toole—Disclosed that his parents owned the property across the street,but he has no interest in the property today.
deBenedictis—This decision has been decided by the Massachusetts Superior Court in the case Stevens versus Zoning
Board of Appeal of Bourne;reviewed the decision and how it applies to Whales Watch,which advertises as a"wedding
venue." This cannot be allowed as determined by the Superior Court. Another situation is over at Westmoor Farms,
which is almost identical,where the Building Inspector issued a Cease and Desist saying the activity was commercial in a
residential area; doesn't understand why a Cease and Desist was not issued for Whales Watch. The ZBA should order
Whales Watch to Cease and Desist because the State will.Under Nantucket Zoning laws,this is not an accessory use to a
residential property.
Bailey — Addressed how accessory use is treated under Nantucket bylaw; read the definition for "accessory use" and
"Commercial use."Explained how the owner of Whales Watch,Mr.Murphy,justified wedding venue as an accessory use.
Accessory use must not be commercial. The size and scope of Whales Watch operations is considerable; can't see how
that could be considered subordinate to a single-family unit.Weddings do occur at residents,but they happen for family
or friends;this is a site for hire,which turns it from a potential accessory use to a commercial use.Read an advertisement
by Whales Watch,which in his opinion confirms this is a commercial venture. Urged the ZBA to reverse the Building
Inspector's decision and find this is not accessory but in fact commercial.
deBenedictis—Argues Mr.Kyburg's argument is specious.
McCarthy—That is a point for a court of law,not the ZBA.
Kyburg —This is a case of precedent; 21 years ago, the same claims were made against Mr. Reece's predecessor. The
houses that he rents have not changed in any way.The Building Inspector at that time issued a written decision that these
were accessory and occurs frequently Nantucket;that decision was appealed to Nantucket Superior Court,and the court
adopted the Building Inspector's finding. Since that time, the bylaws changed. An agreement was signed by Ms.
• deBenedictis'client allowing four weddings per year;that agreement is still on file;weddings occur four times a year.The
current Building Inspector has made the same decision in the face of this exact same complaint. Precedent is only as
powerful as back pattern. Argues that what is happening now is no different than what has happened in the past.
Westmoor is a different situation which holds events on a daily basis. Ms. deBenedictis' client purchased their property
know this long-standing agreement was in place.
O'Mara—Regarding the number of people attending the wedding, catering,bands,lighting, etc. He thought Mr. Bailey
said the owner of the house wouldn't be allowed to hold a wedding of that size and scope.
Bailey—It would be an interesting and open question.He feels when you get to 300 people with everything,that is not a
subordinate use.
McCarthy — You also said that being on Nantucket people rent their homes and do have weddings at their houses.
Weddings aren't small affairs and people having weddings at their homes will have all the"bells and whistles." She can't
agree with Mr.Bailey's argument that a wedding at home is not an incidental use.How they advertise on line doesn't have
any importance for her.Asked how this is differentiated from Westmoor Farms.
Murphy—This differs because in the aggregate,this property owner rents this less than 10 weeks a year;he feels that is
subordinate enough to not make the connection as a commercial venture based upon the definition of the bylaw.
Properties are sold due to the rental potential.
Toole—He doesn't understand the difference;asked what the private property at Westmoor Form was doing differently.
Page 5 of 7
ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
Murphy—He made the determination that was the primary use of the property due to the number of Milts held there.
He doesn't know how many weddings they were doing per year, but based upon his investigation, the primary use was
• commercial.Mr.Reed represented he is there 40 weeks a year;Westmoor Farm is advertised as a venue all year.
Silverstein—Westmoor events are very frequent through the summer and into the fall;they don't need to use tents and
aren't restricted as Whales Watch. It is intensity and use. Whales Watch is restricted by the agreement Mr. Kvburg
mentioned;Westmoor has no such restriction. As far as he's concerned,Whales Watch has been adhering to 4 events a
year.
O'Mara—It is important to mention the agreement is with the neighbors,not the ZBA.
Weisheit—Regarding Stevens vs Bourne,the appeals referenced that the owner of the property did not reside there. \1r.
Reed does reside here
Toole—Asked if that is Mr.Reed's primary residents.
Weisheit—He lives there or rents it as a residence a large majority of the year.
McCarthy—Feels that is an important distinction.
Reed—He resides there many months out of the year,it is his personal use a vast majority of the time and every major
holiday. It was famous as a venue when he purchased the property. If he isn't using the property, he will rent it; the
people who rent the property re always families. He has never rented the property for an event; there were a couple of
small events. He can have a tent for 9 out of 365 days a year, he has never violated that covenant If he violated that
covenant,Mr. Guff can take him back to court as allowed by the agreement.A local couple rented the property for one
week the 1' week in October for their wedding.How could 9 days,2%of the year,be a hardship for his neighbor.
Toole—Asked if the agreement is for weddings or tented events. You can have an event any time,but you can have a
tent event only 9 days.The difference is intensity;if you can have a wedding without a tent on any one of these days and
you're advertising as a Wedding Venue,he thinks that's important. If there is no wedding,asked what happens on the 10
years Mr.Reed says he rents this—are those events with a caterer.
McCarthy — The agreement says no more than 4 tent permits, no more than 4 weddings involving tents. This is an
agreement between private parties and doesn't confine the Town. It is more restrictive than zoning bylaws. Mr. Reed is
not doing that.
Kyburg—In one letter from Mr.Howie,he says over the last 18 years,he saw 56 weddings;that's less than four a year.
Reed — There are families with children; he has never rented during FIGAWX'', Wine Festival, etc. It's families with
children and grandchildren. He looks into the renters personally. The wedding parties come for a week;his lease restricts
amplified music and how long the tent can be there. He has never allowed a back-yard wedding in July and August;
weddings are always in the shoulder season.Further defended his stance.
Bailey—There are a number of clients and neighbors who can speak to what is going on there right now.
Williams — Believes Mr. Reed votes on Nantucket. She has a lot of contacts with this property and was on the Board
when the original owner applied. She has been to Whale Watch and Westmoor Farms;the difference is Westmoor Farm
was an event location and rented for one or two days.Whale Watch is primarily a residence.Two-week rentals have been
going on the Island since the end whaling;this activity goes on all the time.
Gregory—Wanoma way is normally a quiet,remote place;the notion it is anything but commercial is comicaL Suggested
that anyone come by when Mr. Reed is renting his property. He has room for 40 people and events seem to go on for
days at a time.Listening to him talk it is evident that he views it as a commercial venture.He has had a conversation with
him and asked to mitigate the number of wedding and top stop running a hoteL The alleged families are 20-somethings
with lights and music all night. The whole feel is like a hoteL The 21-year-old agreement between the former owners of
this and abutting properties,he was told nothing about it. Cited other activities that go on there and suggest the property
is commercially rented out.This is a hotel disguised as a residence.The tents have ruined many a summer afternoon and
weekend at his residence.
Flannery—Abuts Mr. Gregory and lived in his home for 10 years. There is a spirit that we all bought into a residential
neighborhood; this is antithetical to living respectfully with your neighbors. We are arguing about a commercial entity
working in our neighborhood. People refer to this as a"wedding house"and commercial entity in a residential area This
notation that 2 or 3 parties agreed to 20 years ago and he's obligated to live by that when it was never disclosed to him,he
doesn't see how that would bind him.The reality is we are living with party after party after party all summer.
Guff— The question is - is a commercial venture running in a residential zone. Even during COVID the week of
September 17, there were six events with no COVID restrictions, loud music, and a tent for each event. LCG3 is the
most restrictive residential zone;go to Google Map and there is a hotel icon on Whale Watch.The Bourne decision was a
commercial activity with 24 events in 16 years; here you can have 24 in one year. There are 50 licensed venues on the
Island.Contends Whale Watch is"flying under the radar"as a hotel.The 20-year agreement is not the law of the land;the
Bourne decision is the law of the land. He and Mr. Gregory bought land which Mr. Reed wanted to buy to prevent an
expansion of the business.
Ringer—In 2008,the Civic Association developed an area plan based upon: 76.3%of respondents indicated the number
1 factor residents liked best was the peace,quiet,and privacy;98.4%"loved the Tom Nevers area as it exists today";there
was general support for small home-based businesses as long as they are not disruptive and if they grow should move
outside the area.Whale Watch does not respect the overall desires of the area residents.
Baxter—She was asked to take a look at this situation;wants to be clear she operates under MGL 138 Chapter 250 and
ABC and Select Board. This has been reviewed with the State;the rental of the home alone makes it subject to licensing
and liquor laws.A licensed facility can be brought up on charges for advertising alone;we've worked hard to bring a lot of
Page 6 of 7
ZBA Minutes for October 15,2020,adopted Nov.12
this into compliance. Whale Watch must follow the liquor laws. In consultation with the director of the State Liquor
Agency,rental of the home as a venue triggers the liquor laws whether or not is a commercial venue or private home.We
will be in contact with Mr.Reed and other properties as well.
Murphy — The property meets the definition of owner occupied. He did a searched of police calls to Reeds Way;
reviewed the calls.
Toole—Asked what constitutes proof of residence.
Murphy—Someone's testimony.
McCarthy—That has been the policy of the Board to take what people say at face value.
Eichler—Described conditions at the Westmoor Farm site.Whether or not there are tents and they are family or guests,
people make noise and change the safety of the neighborhood. The similarities between Whale Watch and Westmoor
Farm are almost identical.
Kyburg—There are all kinds of weddings that happen in LUG-1,-2,&-3 zones.
Bailey—Reviewed a letter about how Westmoor Farms and Whale Watch are different.Looking at the records,there was
no ZBA final judgement in the case regarding this property.
McCarthy—The ZBA did support the decision but a constructive grant was issued since the ruling wasn't filed in time.
Mondani—We don't have a copy of the ZBA written decision.
McCarthy—We have to wrap up, but she doesn't want to make a hasty decision contradicting the Building Inspector.
Mr.Reed now understands there is licenses and permits he has to pursue.Weddings are allowed at residences;but saying
that this is a commercial use goes against the Building Inspector. We will probably have to address this later on for
rentals.Nantucket has a long history of allowing people to rent their homes on a weekly or weekend basis.
Antonietti-You either uphold or deny the appeal.
McCarthy — A positive vote would uphold the appeal and declare this a commercial use and overrule the Building
Inspector's decision.An alternative is to continue to November 12th.
Consensus wants to discuss this more in depth.
Motion Motion to Continue to November 12th. (made by:Toole) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,Toole,Koseatac,Mondani,and McCarthy-aye
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
1. None
V. ADJOURNMENT
Motion Motion to Adjourn at 4:40 p.m. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded)
Roll-call vote Carried 5-0//Botticelli,Toole,Koseatac,Thayer,and Mondani-aye
Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website:
1. None
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 7 of 7