Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout001-73 - 005-73 ~ ", '~~~!I!':.4.t,l..... ....'. ."",n~~~~~,~1t~I"~.~~~~~~",,,~.ltl~',~,l!~~!'r-1"""'~' ( oC) 1- 73 ODd. ", c::xJ? Q:)Y- t:r:JS ~.\ " '-. COJVIMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Town nf Nantucket ZONINC BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Appeals, February 20, 1973, at the Town Build~ng of tne Town of Nantucket. IN RE: On the petition nf Southeast Quarter Corporation 001-73 for re- lief from ground cover ratio, Section V of the Zoning By-Law as the same applies to IJot 658, L.e. Plan 5004-30, Tom Nevers area. " , Mr. Robert Reed spoke for the petitioner and requested the petitioner be allowed to construct a dwelling unit of 760 square feet ground cover. Mr. Reed stated Section V presently restricted his lot to a maximum ground cover of 440 square feet. Mr. Reed presented a brief to the Board and spoke to the Board stating he purchased the property ~n Ceptember, 1971, and has buD t homes on Lots 659" 660, and 661. He stated that since he began this subdivision prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-Law, his tract was not subject to the By-Law. Mr. Reed cited Chapter 40A, Section 5A of the M.G.L.A. and stated his tract had a five year exemption. Mr. Reed stated the peti ti'Jner was the owner of lands contiguous to Lot 658, but he could not increasp the size of VJt 658 because of a mortgage to Bass River Saving" Banle and the neceE>E3i ty to make a large principal payment to obtain release of contiguous lands. Mr. Reed stated a willingness to set aside additional green area lands from other contiguous areas, but the petitioner could not specify those other areas at this time. Mr. Reed stated he was net a speculator but was interested in cooperating , with the zoning regulations for the mutual interests of the Town and the petitioner. Mr. Holme5 ask~d Mr. Reed if the petitioner was, in fact, the owner of Lots 657, 659 and 675 bejng parcels contiguous to Lot 658. Mr. Reed replied that the petitioner was the owner of these other lots. Mr. Greene reported that he visited the site prior to the hearing and noted three houses in the vicinity. Mr. Holmes read a letter from the Planning Board recommending the exception be denied. DECISION: After due consideration and upon motion of Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was unan~mously voted to deny the petition. ~0///73 ~ .~~ :f ~ ::;., ~ ._._,:~~'::.'=::;"":~i~:':~!ti~;O;~~':::~.~~::~'.' ~~~1:!"'S'~~?':~~~(!~j%i)'~~~\1~"i'r"fC )L~.,,:~ " ''';'\'7'' ~'j,:,,"::J~t7,~~,H~ ::r~:' ,,~, J.L .' The Board found that the petitioner was the owner of land area contiguous to the subject parcel ancl could enlarge the lot size without hardship. Further, the small lot size was not a special condition affecting a par- ticular parcel but rather is common to a~l lots of this subdivision. Further, the granting of this exception would be detrimental to the public good and would be in derogation of the ground cover provisions of the zoninG by-law. Therefore, the petition of Southeast Quarter Corpora don is DENIED. By the Board of Appeals W~~~~ Wayne F. Holmes ,j. /1, Y /J?l.-'( tL'A~J'-/'.XL-L-t-<-,,--<--- Hardil'ig u/,Greene ~ l~l~ '~(:\t~Vs. Harriet Backus IN RE: On the petition of David Walker, 002-73, requesting a variance to be permitted to construct a dwelling unit of more than 50% ground cover ratio on Lot 2, L.C. Plan l0726-A, Commercial Wharf. Attorney Michael Driscoll appeared for and spoke on behalf of the petitioner.. Mr. Driscoll explained that Lot 2 is a water lot off the edge of Commercial Wharf and is approximately 1,200 square feet in total area. The present zoning is residential-Gomm8rcial and has a 50% ground cover ratio. In the event an increase in the ratio is not granted, the petitioner would be re- quired to erect a multi-fleor unit to achieve a satisfactory floor area. Mr. Driscoll stated tte petitioner would like to receive a 100% ratio but would accept a lesser amount. Hr. Driscoll pointed out an error in the advertisement stating the Lot was now zoned Residential - Old Historic, but the error was not fatal to the proceedings. OPPOSITION: In opposition appeared: Attorney Robert F. Mooney stated he was representing Mr. and Mrs. T. W. Barnes, Mrs. Henry Gibbs, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Pritchard, Mrs. Mary Pew, and Miss Elizabeth Saltonstall, all being abutters or immediate neighbors. Mr. Mooney pr'3sented .q brief to the Board and stated an objection to the proceedings because the advertisement erred in stating the present zoning classification and the Land Court map reference was in error. Mr. Mooney stated the lot size was approximately 675 square feet and was entirely submerged at hign tide. Further, the lot has no access to a public way and has no seHer disposal facilities or utility services. Further, the granting of 4:his variance would be a precedent for other "water lots II in the harbor area and would seriously affect the use and enjoyment of properties of abutter's. I! I !." << "0 "~J'''''''F~fr.Jif~~''~~.~''~'~t~,''~'''I'',l,',''_~r~~l'~,~~~~~~I.\~1!~~~~+>~~'~~""~~'~"~'~' ,~ ...~~~!J~.J,(~~~ ~~~M'"!L,l.ILJ.J. ,~. '". In rebuttal, MI'. Driscoll reported that suitable arrangements for sewer, water and u~ility services has been worked out. Mr. Greene asked whether if a house was constructed on this lot, it would not interfere with the view now enjoyed by several area owners. Mr. Driscoll replied that if the ground cover ratio were increased, a low profile house, would be constructed and the interference would then be lessened. Mr. Holmes read letters and uJlegrams opposing the petition received from T. W. Barnes, Charles a.nd Carol Pritch'3.rd, Elizabeth Saltonstall, Mrs. Henry Gibbs, and Marjorie H. Swain. DECISION: After due consideration and upon motion of Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was unanimously voted to deny the request for a variance. The Board fuund the increased ground cover ratio would be detrimental to the neighboring areas. In addition, the Board found no hardship presented by the petitioner in the allegation that a multi-story dwelling unit would be required to adequately utilize this parcel. There, the petition of David Walker is DENIED. \I,) ~ "",'1 ~ """'- Wayne F. Holmes f , .~! () I /' \:/ " ~I {vI lG1/'_'J -"-'" /l-L~ Hardin U./Greene ...",' / t' /1 ---- ~ IN RE: On the petition of Sidney Goldman, 003-73, for a variance to exceed the ground cover ratio as set out in Section V of the zoning by-law as the same applied to Lot h L.C. Plan 3386l-C, Millbrook Road. Mr. Richal.'d Bellevue appeared for the petitioner and stated the dwelling unit being constructed by the petitioner has been approved by the Historic Districts Commission with tlle attached garage, but that the garage area increased the ground cover area over the allowed 1,200 square feet. In the event the increased area was not allowed, the Historic Districts Commission approval would be revoked and the petitioner would not be. allowed to continue construction. There was no opposition. DECISION: After due consjderation, and upon motion of Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Greene, it was unanimously voted to grant the variance. The Board found the conditions impofed by the Historic Districts Commission to be a substantial hardship requiring relief and further, the variance to be in accord with the intent of a~tractive housing and off-street car storage. ,I :1.' .1 ~:~;'.!'''trl'J.~~'''''''1'~-"flr"''~'~~~-fl*~.~~t~~'!''!"1'1!.4~~~~I?~~~~~~~~,.....;,,"'t:< ":"l'~~'-":'~""l,~'t::l~~~~l.~!):~\,~,,~.~,""T'",. ;- ~ ,...v: - - ----- _.._.~~-----~-_..._._...__.__. '- "'''~~~"''._''''-':',.~'~'.~~.]~~~_'::~.._.__..'_..' -.....__'__:'.'.:_:.~~:.~ ';::':~~~~.:.i:~~~":':~:~'_~::.:;~ ",;' ' , '," ", "'-, :" ,', No derogatory influences will result from the granting of the variance. Therefore, the variance is GRANTED. Wcu'\\V\. ~ayne ./ ,1/ I' 1 ( ") ...:.. n~:v1 tt~-"\ /v~ Hardi.!n~~ne ~/ ~1..~~~Ct<.\,)~ , Harriet Backus I~ -17 o DV\~ IN RE: On the petition of Pamela Davidson for a special permit to allow an excepted use of a tract of land located on Cliff ROpd and identified as Lot 10, L.C. Plan 9455-G. Mrs. Davidson appeared fo~ the petitioner and stated she requested the speciat exception to permit the operation of an open air theatre for the production . of live p:j.ays in and around a natural "bowl" located on her property. Mrs. Davidson stated she planned to produce low-level plays requiring a minimum of staging and ligt1ting and intended to rely on the natural background. She stated that details concerning parking and traffic control have yet to be worked out, but she is aware of the necessity to solve these problems in order to insure the success of her theatre. Mrs. Davidson stated she would encourage busing for patro~s and would discourage automobile use. In explaining the proposed operation of her theatre, Mrs. Davidson stated there would be no permanent structural improvements and no seats or benches would be installed. Mr. Greene sta ted ~ha t he and Mr. Holmes has -visited the si te and inspected the "bowl" area. OPPOSITION: In opposition appeared: , Attorney Michael Driscoll who spoke of the hazards of attracting traffic to the area. Mr. Holmes read letterso~posing the petition received from Mrs. B. Panka, Dr. and Mrs. Vernon Thornton, R. C. Butman, Wm. B. Coolidge, Sallie Tuppancy, Lorin Lee Cary, Dr. and }t.s. Edward Rotan, and Ruth Cary. DECISION: After due deliberation and upon motion of Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was unanimously voted to grant the peti~on for the ex- cepted use subje~t. to "c.h~ following conditions: The use is to be permitted for a period of two years ending February 26, 1975, and is to be revie"Ted by the Board at that time. In the event the Board finds the use to be not detrimental to the area, the intent of the Board is to renew the use. No food or beverages for off-premises consumption are to be sold. l i: l! , :~ :., 0,ri? 00 The petitioner must submit an acceptable program of lighting and traffic control to tho Board on or before May 1, 1973. No permanent structures or improvements are to be erected on th~ premises. Therefore, the petition J.S GRANTED subject to the foregoing conditions. W"M~ . ~ Wayne F,. Holmes I r 0 () K./"Z'L-l {( L '-~. '. ~'L//y? '-L~ HardJg 1Y." Greene "- - 5-f ~~~~t ~~~V~ IN RE: On the petition ofVirglnia Rock for reconsideration of a petition for a variance to permit the construction of three single family dwelling units on Lot D, L.C. Plan 14343, Macy Lane. Attorney Robert F. Mooney appeared for the petitioner and stated this was a petition for reconsideration of a variance request previously denied. Mr. Mooney presented a planning and environmental design study by H. Hidell Associated, Inc. Mr. Mooney stated the subject parcel was zoned Limited Use- Gen2:Lal permit tinl~ one d."elling 'Llit per SO, 000 square feet lot. Mr. Mooney reviewed the construction plans of the Rocks' and stated the petitioner had begun construction of the project without a legal subdivision based on an approval given by the Planning Board. At such time as the zoning by-law was enacted, the Planning Board approval was found to be v.oid. The proposed constr~ction was halted after the purchase of substantial quantities of building materials by the petitioner which material is pre- sently stored on the premises. Mr. Mooney stated that the petitioner's situation was unique since the subject parcel was surro~nded by areas zoned for residential use permitting one dwelling unit per 5,000 ~quare feet. Mr. Michael Driscoll and Mr. Robert Reed spoke on beqalf of the petition. There was no oppositicn. Mr. John McLaughlin spoke 0n the matter stating he was neutral in the matter but that he believed rezoning should by done by Town Meeting only. DECISION: After due consideration and upon motion by Mr. Greene, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was unaD~mously voted to grant the requested variance subject to the following condition: family \fW s1,1bj ect ' ~\t..~\~G U C;~~~'"" Harding U. Greene \~~ ~~~VI Harriet Backus I I :1 ~ I -',!;; ,.q~f\l'~;i~,~i-~~~{~\(~ 1 ~~~~~~~_~-~\'If~'~F~~ I~'T~.<J'M"~.","". .-.., '''~;-'~7~'~;:~~~1:~f':\~,;~,,;'~'~~~\~>:~~>''"';'~'' ~ . '"', -rt,~!l'~.":"'.:r;:,(j~'~\~f~r~ ~,. _ ------.-------rr- _____~___.:._~_.~_.__..~.~,~_~..::.~...:..:~~-....:_._ .-.--.-- -- -. -',.;:_:.::..:_.:li:~i~~_~.. .,y-~) In other matters, the Board voted to increase the filing fee to $50 effective! immediately and voted to adopt a standard form of application to the Board. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned. /'/7<.-'1. ({L<-<--j I l.\-J (,'"-.../ \ ./C I) J) .'- ./ ~<..~- ~9t-ih._~)se cre tary '---.. H__' I' -if' .~- .~. , .~ ,'(