Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout013-73 - 020-73 '.- '1-' , " ~ ~ , 1/ II II II II I I I Ii Ii II !/ 'I II ;1 I I II '/ II I I I I I I ~'-~':""C I) ,~ 'il_-~~"""i''-K':'' ~_ "~.' ~ o I 3 TtJR..U OdO - 78 COMMONWEhLTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals II These minutes of the meeting of the Board of Appeals held on June 19, 1973, at the Town Building, Nantucket, Mass. '. IN RE: On the petition of John Pitman 013-73. Appearing for Mr. Pi tma'1 was Attornye Michael Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll explained that a small addition to a dwelling unit owned by Mr. Pitman was started on or about June 19/2 and progressed sporadically until March, 1973. when a stop work notice was placed on the premises by the Building Inspector. The new building is now 80% complete. In addition, the land on which the building is situated is subject to a title dispute with Mr. Pitman alleging adverse possession ownership. The title dispute is to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals, prior to the issuance of any permit or variance. Mr. Driscoll stated that since the wory on the addition started prior to the enactment of the zoning-by-law and the building code, the building should be exempt. Mr. Driscoll stated tr~t no building permit had been applied for. A serious financial hardship will result from the necessity to teali down the structure or to move the structure. After due deliberation, the Board found that no derogation of the by- law would result if this variance were granted and it was moved by Robert Taylor and seconded by Harding Greene that a variance be tP-ven to Mr. Pitman to construct or complete the construction of the addition subject to the following conditions: That a buillding permit be obtained by Mr. Pitman before proceeding and that evidence of title transfer or control over the disputed portion of the la~d be submitted to the Board Drior to July 1, 1973. I ~. I I II " I I I :1 I 'I 1 I' ,I I' , ~ II L I, I, ('J :! II r:t' 1. i: I, " d I' II II I' I II iI II II I! I II I I I I I The motion was unanimously voted and a conditional variance is GRANTED. ~M\~ Wayne F. Holmes ~~ ~ ~ .----: I I I , " /lddd ;( czf;~ Robert L. Taylor ' In the matter of the petition of Joacquin Ramos 014-73 Appearing for th8 petitioner was Mr. Joacquin Ramos. Mr. Ramos explained that he purchased a five acre farm with several I. buildings prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law and intended to use the buildings for storage and for the conduct of his plumbing business. The land area has since been zoned residential and the intended use is not allowed. Under the permitted ~ses, Mr. Ramos may have one single family dwelling on the premises. The area now has several commercial enterprises and is bounded on one side by a cemetery. Mr. Ramos stated that the six buildings on the property are useless for residential purposes and a subdivision is not economically feasible. He desiras to use certain of the buildings for interior storage of plumbin5' carpenter and electrical material and to use one building for the conduct of a furniture refinishing business and a carpenter shop. Failing a variance or special permit, the buildings will fall into dis- repair and will result in a financial loss to Mr. Ramos. Mr. Reginald Reed spoke on behalf of the petitioner and stated he was an abutting owner and did not object to the intended use. Mr. Michael Driscoll spoke on behalf of the petitioner and recommen- ded approval. In opposition appea~ed Mrs. B. Ray Wren, an abutter. Mrs. Wren outlined the serious traffic problem that will result at the intersection of Upper Vestal and Willii streets. Mr. Thomas Richards also spoke against the petitioner's lana. He stated that he did not oppose the use requested ~\ '~ I. t - ._, $: I' I II 11 so long as there was no outside storage but he was concerned about the Ii !I I, II I: :, I, II traffice situation. Mr. Ramos spoke in rebuttal and stated there would be no outside storage of any kind. i The Chairman read a letter from the Planning Board favoring the petition.! " After due deliveration: the Board found that the intended use was in conformity with oth3r usss in the area and would not deteriorate the intent of the by-law and it wa3 moved by Harding Greene and seconded by Robert Taylor that a special pe~mit be given to Mr. Ramos allowing the use of the land and building a~ea as and for the storage of plumbing, electrical and c~rpenter material and to use one building as a furniture refinishing shop . and a carpentry shop. Fur::'her, the said uses are to be subject to the following conditions: using the drive leading into Winn street extension and thence proceeding to Y.adaket Road. The motion was unanimcusly voted and a conditional special permit is GRANTED. ~~;~~ ~!u1r~ . ROb~~t ,7f/~ I' II I I In the matter of the petition of Island Excavating Co., Inc. 016-73 Appearing for Island Excavating co., Inc., was Attorney Robert Campbell. I I , I 'I II II 'I II I II Mr. Campbell stated that Island Excavating L'" now operated a well- driving and excavation business on Old South Road. The company had purchased a seven acre tract several years ago intending to move the business to an area away from residential areas. The parcel purchased is at Somerset Road .~~: j~ j '!': I \'\ II I' ~"""r~~;A<<:--r~h' 1/ I I I .;X .~ - ;':'>""~:"':In.?,l:..:,(-I',--;','~::;"4i'<.\ ""H' <';";';':>':t'.~";" ,~:",,;'," ,,' ';l ,,",{,:,-. and Marble Way~- (Esau Farm). Mr. Campbell stated the area is now zoned residential and a variance is required to permit the stnrage of screening, gravel and miscellaneous equipment. There will be no manufacturing conducted on the premises. It may require the moving of a maintenance shed to the premises at a later Ii I, date. " , I I II ,I II II 11 II 11 II II II il !I Ii 'I Ii 'I I , , " L , I In the event the variance is granted, the existing non-conforming use on Old South Road would be abandoned., Mr. Campbell stated the parcel under consideration was not suitable for residential use. The tract has a severe depression in the middle and would require substantial grading. The plan of use is to permit a one (1) acre parcel in the middle of the tract to be used as the storage area. Surrounding the storage area will be a greenbelt of at least 200' of-dense pine woods. Mr. Campbell submitted a sketch of the area showing the greenbelt, etc. Also speaking in favor of the petition were: Byron Snow who stated he was an abutting owner and had no objection to the proposed use, and John Meilbye stating he was a re~ident in the area of the existing Island Excavating operation 0n Old South Road. He stated the operation exceeds the Jimi ts of the company location on Old South R'oad and the I I II I neighborhood favors the removal of the operation. Mr. Visco spoke on behalf of the company statins he was a principal of the company. He reviewed his growth as a company and stated he has outgrown his present area and must move. The new tract under consider- ation is primarily a wooded u~developed area with six or seven houses within a ~ mile radius. He stated that he would use only one drive (access-egress) on Somerset ROdd and truck traffic delivering gravel and supplies would be limited to weekly trips. In opposition appeared: Mrs. Susan Hostetler who objected to the proposed use stating they and several others purchased their homes relying on the residential zoning 'of the area. She further stated that the commercial traffic would cause a I.. t ~ ... v - ..;,....-,.-,...............,-, ;~ E ,', ~evere hardship since the ~oau was narrow and unpaved. Mrs. Hostetler stated that several of the abutters were away on vacation but that in conversations with them, she knew they were opposed. Also, opposing the petition was Mrs. Elizabeth Harley, who advised the Board that she was an abutter and objected to the use. She indicated to the Board that the propcsed use was unsuitable in its present location. Mrs. Harley stated the land area of the site under consideration was the same as the general heighborhood and is suitable for dwelling units. Mr. Ralph Marble spoke and requested information concerning the I truck traff:'_c. He indicated that he did not favor the use of Bartlett II I Farm Road as an approach road. Mr. Visco replied to Mr. Marble and stated he would use Somerset Road unless it proved too burdernsome and then he would have to use Bartlett Farm Road to Somerset Road. Mrs. Marie Giffin spoke and expressed concern about the use of I II II Somerset Road. Mr. Visco and Mr. Campbell then replied and stated Bartlett Farm II II !I 'I II Ii i' I I, !, I I II I I Road would be used. The Chairman read the ~ollowing letters: From David Allan in favor of the petition; from the Nantucket Planning Board, in favor of the petition, and from Frances and Peter Purcell opposing the petition. After due deliberation it was determined that ho hardship had been established on behalf of the Petitioners and that substantial derogation of the by-law woUld oocur if the petition is granted. Mr. Greene mov~d that the petition be denied. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted that the petition of Island Exca- vating Co., Inc. be DENIE~. II I \N~",^, Wayne F: Holmes Ha~ee~ /fdtl/ / ~L- ~obert L. Taylor' .- ---- I b ~-:.-l.t:'1't:'~~~~,-ij'.'~~3--7"l1 .J: ' II II ' ;1'(, .~ ',' ":,':"I':"'.'._I.~<?:.:\..;,, -i,'if:""- ,.'.'/:.......,.., I I I In the matter of the petition of Louis Thompson for a special permit. 015-13 Appearing for Mrs. Thomp2on was Mr. Gleed Thomp~Gn who stated this I The petitioner I petition applied to a pre-existing lot of record at Wauwinet. desires to cOD8truct a single family dwelling unit of 1194 sq. ft. on a lot that does not meet the eXisting required area under the zoning by- law.' There was no opposition. The Chairman read a letter from the Planning Board favoring the petition. After due delibera tio n, ib was de termined that a special permit could issue with derogating_the inte'1t of the by-law and that no harm to the general area or neighborhood would result. Mr. Greene moved that the special permit be granted and Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted that the petition for a special permit be GRANTED. I I, Ii II I I II I ~yn~~~ I:b/;-J~I R~~;C 7jY~L- In the matter of the petition of Girard Trust Bank Executor of the Estate of Hanna Monoghan. 017-73 Appearing for thA petitioner was Attorney Michael DriscolL II II :1 II I. II I I I i 1 Ii ;1 I I , " II 1\ Mr. Driscoll stated that Mrs. Monaghan diedpCEseESed of a tract of land at Howard street and a W2Y, which parcel was improved with two dwelling units, The tract contains 9054 sq. ft. and does not meet re- quirements for subdivision jnto two lots of 5000 sq. ft. each minimum. Mr. Driscoll stated that the will of Mrs. M?noghan,drawn prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law bequeathed the larger dwelling (Greater Light) to the Nantucket Historical Trust or a similar non-profit organization. The terms of the will cannot be met unless a variance <' II ,I ii II I[ I, II Ii i is granted per~tting a subdivision of the tract into two lots being one of 5875 sq. ft. and one of 3179 sq. ft. The house has great hist,orical value and should be preserved and managed by an organization such as the Nantucket Historical Association. Also speaking in favor of the petition were: Ma~llnRounsville stating he was an abutter and favored the petition and believed all other abutters favored the petition; Mrs. Salina Johnson, who stated she was familiar with the wishes of Mrs. Monoghan and that she believed the petition should be allowed; Mr. Leroy True, Director of the Nantucket Historical Association, who stated the Association would accept the house, Greater Light, if the variance, Here granted. There was no opposition. The Chairman read the following letters: From the ~lanning Board favoring the petition; from Daniel C. DeMenocal favoring the petition. After due deliberation, it was determined that substantial hardship would occur to the ?roperty and the Town of Nantucket if the variance is not granted. The Bo~rd found the granting of such a variance to be in accord with the intent of the by-law. Upon motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Greene, it was unanimously voted that the variance b~ GRANTED. ~~~~Q~ iklH~/ Rff:!!{:;{ ~ 7 Ii I I II Ii \1 1\ ... ? 1~"--' I .;,r.o ~ c.': ,,? ",!j...," 'r,',' ,",. 'r:' In the matter of the petition of Richard Corkish, Jr., for a variance to permit the construction 0:;0 five (5) single family dwelling units on a tract of 40 acres more or less on Polpis Road. 018-73 Appearing for the Petitioner was Attorney Robert Campbell who stated that Mr. Corkish desired to build five additional single family dwelling units on a parcel of 46.R acres owned by Mr. Corkish and located at Polpis. Mr. Campbell stated that the owner faced a substantial financial burden if subdivision requirements had to be met and that Mr. Corkish will not sell any portion of the land area. The dwellings are intended for the use I of the owner and his family'- Mr. Campbell stated 'Skit the owner was vitally concerned with conser- I- vation and wanted minimal use of his acreage. Mr. Corkish spoke stat~ng he has no plans to develop the remainder of the land and would agree to limit his development to the requested five Sin51e family dwelling units. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Ccrkish stated that a greenbelt area would be dedicated along the frontage of the tract on Polpis Road and that the area would extend to a depth of 200' along all the frontage. In opposi4ion appearei Attorney James Glidden stating he represented Mrs. Rosemary Hall Evans and the Nantucket Ornithological Association who ~re opposed to the petition. In rebuttal, Mr. Can~bell stated that the proposed zoning amendment now before the Attorney General permits more than one single family dwelling on a large tract and is designed for instances such as this. The Chairman read a ~etter from the Nantucket Planning Board recommend- ing the petition. After due deliberation, the Board determined that the petitioner was faced with a financial hardship in bein6 required to subdivide without intending to sell any of the tract and that the retention by a single owner would benefit the ge~eral area and not be in derogation of the by- law. The construction of five single family dwelling units on this parcel meets the general intent of the by-law and the Board is cognizant of the pending amendment. --- ~ Mr. Taylor moved that a conditional variance be granted and that the conditions be as follows: 1. That the owner be allowed to construct five single familv dwellin~ units on the 40.8 acre tract. 2. That the densit'r of development be not less than one sin31e family dwelling unit per five acres of land area. 3. The the owner Zive serious consideration to the dedication of a i':l'eenbelt area to cover the entire frontage of the owner's property on Polpis RGad and extend back from PoJ.pis Road a distance of 200' . Mr. Greene seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously voted and the conditional variance is GRANTED. \)j~,^,,- WaIne F. 'Holmes I ,') '/ ~ .~ / ' I / rTt'C{.l / . :.-/ \." LL~ Harding U. G eeny' ./ ,,,.,..---' ,7f:,jIJI ;(7J~L- Robert L. TaIlor. ;/ i-" , ----- In the matter of the petition of Laird V. Williams to be allowed to construct a garage on ?remises at Chicken Hill, Nantucket. 019-73 Attorney James Glidden appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Glidden stated t"e present owner, Mr. Williams, purchased the property with the garage 50% completed. Mr. Glidden stated he believed the batter boards for this garage were placed in the summer of 1972, prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law. ~he buildin~ progressed without a building permit until it was stopped by the Building Inspector in late 1972. Mr. Glidden stated it would represent a severe financial loss to the petitioner if the garage could not be completed. "liio \\) Mr. Glidden read a letter from former owner Robert Elwell, Jr. stating an agreement between Elwell and abutter Homan concerning the garage location and indicating Homan's consent. In opposition appeared; ~ttorney Michael Driscoll who presented photographs to the Board " showing the garage and the remainder of the petitioner's property. Mr. Driscoll stated he appeared for abutter Homan. Tracing the progress of construction, Mr. Driscoll stated the garage foundation was probably put , in during July or August of 1972 and thereafter no work was done for I;' several months. Mr. Driscoll stated the ground cover with the garage was in the vicinity of 80% and was clearly a violation; or the zoning by-law and building code. Also appeared Dominick Homan stating he was an abutter and knew the foundation to have been installed in August 1972. Speaking against the petition were Mrs. Eleanor 0' Leary. Mrs. VanArsdale Ruth Ferris, Edward Stojak, Shirley Stojak,Dr. James Kennedy, all abutters. Mr. Ernest Whelden spoke in opposition stating the issue was not the garage building but rather;~oncerned:,t:-:e'matter of observing the by-law. He stated this work was knowingly commenced in violation of our zoning and building codes and should not be allowed. II I I II Ii JI I I I I' I Mr. Gardner of the Planning Board, stated that his Board had denied permission for the construction of this garage and the prior owner was aware of the denial. In rebuttal, Mr. Glidden stated he would determine the date work began. The Board agreed to allow Mr. Glidden to submit a letter after the close of the hearing (Mr. Glidden brought a letter to the Chairman on June 21, 1973, reading as follows: "To whom it may concern: The footings for the garage foundation built for Robert Elwell were dug on July 20, 1972, and poured on July 24, 1972. s/Charles Duce Duce Brothersll ~ 'i , I I II The Chairman read a letter from the Planning Board opposing the petition. ":';j >.. '/, , . II ! . . \l After due deliberation, the Board found that the batter boards and the foundation for the garage may have been installed prior to the effective date of the zoning by-law but thereafter the work did not proceed in a continuous and reasonable manner. The resumption of work some months late~ was subject to then existing by-laws and codes. Upon motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Greene, it was unanimously voted that ,the petition be DENIED. ~~~ Wayne F.\Holmes HVl Roc:1ft~( :f/(YL- In the matter of the petition of Joseph V. Arno for a variance. 020-73. The petitioner appeared and stated he operated a restaurant at steam- boat Wharf and desired to obtain a v~riance from the parking requirements of the zoning by-law. The by-law requires one on premises parting space for every three seats of occupancy. Mr. Arno stated his patronage is almost exclusively walk-in and there is little need for parking. Further, the Town of Nantucket, because of its densely built up character offers no opportunity for off-street parking 'I areas. Such parking as "may be needed will be afforded by the permitted use of the Steamship Aut,hority premise~. Mr. Arno offered a letter granting approval to Arno by the Authority to use Authority premises. I I I , I , ,I I ~:;::( and Mr. Rogaveen, Chairman Jf the Steamship Authority, spoke in favor of the petition statinf the restaurant operation would benefit the Authori ty. I Mr. Rogaveen confirmed the parking consent given to the petitioner. There was no oppositicn. The Chairman read a letter from the Planning Board favoring the petition a letter from J. Rictlard Judson opposing the petition. I II After due delf?~ration the Board found a hardship to exist in that the general area of the ~e3t&Urant does not allow the opportunity to construct I ~~ ~:. - ,. \ 'q.. . . "':~"'l~~,~L"'.~-<;.,. II I ; ';'i__;!<A-.:.<~;,;)~~~;tff';::: ,,(~t~\';.ic~ I . -::~~;,.':~-:1.i,!,;" ":'t,,,~, ,f,,-<- ~," ,,-,~,:,", I II a parking lot and the Board also found that the establishment of off-street parking lots in the Town of Nantucket would derogate from the intent of the by-law to preserve our historical appearance. Upon motion by Mr. Greene, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it was unanimously voted that the petition be GRANTED. '. ~~~~ Jkr~Q Harding U. Gr i ?'7J~ 7' ~ .A--r- I Robert L. Taylor "/ ' I I I I June 26, 1973 .;; 'f: I~'