HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-13
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 13,2007
~
::0
Location:
Call to Order:
Members Present:
Alternates Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Department Staff:
Conference Room, 2 Fairgrounds Road, Nantuck~A s=
1 : 1 0 PM ::z: :::.' C"':)
Nancy Sevrens, Dale Waine, Kerim Koseatac (aIT~dat 1 :Os:nM)
Burr Tupper (arrived at 1:10 PM) ~l':-o
Michael O'Mara, Edward Toole, David Wiley ~~, \..oJ
Linda Williams, Administrator ~
~
None
Note: This meeting was originally noticed for 1 :00 PM, Friday, February 9, 2007. It was
cancelled and moved to this date and time due to the lack of a quorum on the original
date, with O'Mara, Toole, Koseatac and Wiley being offIsland.
OLD BUSINESS APPLICATIONS:
1. OFFSHORE BEACHSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (087-06),30
NORTH BEACH STREET:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: NA
Public Comment: NA
Representing: Attorney Marianne Hanley for the Applicant
Discussion: Hanley explained that the Applicant had received a prior grant of Special
Permit relief in December 2005 in BOA File No. 091-05 to covert a portion of an existing
ancillary maintenance building on the south side of the property to use as a dwelling unit
that would house hotel employees. One of the conditions in that Decision was that the
maximum number of bedrooms was to be seven, with a maximum occupancy of 14. Code
compliance issues were raised by the Building Commissioner and the Applicant sought
and received a grant of a modification in the Decision in BOA File No. 087-06 to
construct a new separate residential structure that would abide by all of the previously
required conditions. Unbeknownst to the Applicant's representatives at the time, there
were eight bedrooms shown on the HDC approved plans that were referenced in the most
recent Decision rather than seven. Applicant asked to clarify the condition in the Decision
to allow eight bedrooms to be consistent with the other condition related to HDC
compliance. Hanley stated that no other changes were sought and the maximum number
of occupants would remain 14.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
CLARIFICATION OF THE DECISION IN BOA FILE NO. 087-06, TO ALLOW A
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OF EIGHT AS PROPOSED,
(W aine/Koseatac).
Conditions: NA
2. MONCURE CHATFIELD-TAYLOR, (079-06), 91 WASHINGTON
STREET EXTENSION:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac (sitting solely for the purpose of continuing the
matter), Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made a negative recommendation as there
were issues of planning concern.
Public Comment: None at this meeting. There had been substantial comment at the first
hearing.
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicants
Discussion: This matter had been continued without further discussion from
September, October, November and December 2006 and January 2007 and now to this
meeting. Glidden had sent an email asking that it be continued again without discussion
to the March 16, 2007 meeting.
Action/Vote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION TO MARCH 16,2007 MEETING. BY THE
SAME VOTE, AN EXTENTION FOR ACTION WAS GRANTED TO APRIL 27,
2007, (Waine/Toole).
Conditions: NA
3. PRICILLA L. REIS, (085-06), 80 MIACOMET AVENUE:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation as there were no
issues of planning concern.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorneys Arthur Reade and Steven Cohen for the Applicant
Discussion: The matter had been continued without opening from the October,
November and December 2006 and January 2007 meetings and then to this meeting.
There were ongoing discussions taking place with the ZEO that may resolve the issue.
Cohen had sent an email asking that the matter be continued without opening to the
March 16, 2007 meeting.
Action/Vote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT OPENING TO MARCH 16,2007 MEETING. BY THE SAME VOTE,
AN EXTENTION FOR ACTION WAS GRANTED TO APRIL 27, 2007,
(Koseatac/Tupper) .
Conditions: NA
4. OLD NORTH WHARF COOPERATIVE, INC., (003-07), 29A, 29B AND
29C OLD NORTH WHARF:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the Christmas holiday.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorney Arthur Reade and Attorney Whitney Gifford for the Applicant
Discussion: The matter had been continued without opening from the January 2007
meeting. Reade had sent an email asking for the matter to be continued without opening
to the March meeting.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT OPENING TO MARCH 16,2007 MEETING. BY THE SAME VOTE,
AN EXTENTION FOR ACTION WAS GRANTED TO APRIL 27, 2007,
(Waine/Koseatac).
Conditions: NA
NEW BUSINESS:
5. DORIS J. LENNON, TRUSTEE, LIVING TRUST OF JOSEPH P LENNON
AND DORIS J. LENNON, (009-07), 2 W A YDALE ROAD:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorney Julie Fitzgerald for the Applicant
Discussion: Fitzgerald had sent an email asking for the matter to be continued without
opening to the March meeting.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT OPENING TO MARCH 16,2007, (WainelKoseatac).
Conditions: NA
The meeting was adjourned at 1 :20 PM (WainelKoseatac)
Respectfully submitted by Linda Williams, recording staff.
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 5, 2007
Location:
Call to Order:
Members Present:
Conference Room, 2 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucke~~
1 :08 PM 0 ):' c:::J
Nancy Sevrens (arrived at I :08), Dale Waine, Midle:1 O'Marcft;)
Edward Toole, Kerim Koseatac c') ( :::j
David Wiley, Burr Tupper ~\:.
~
Alternates Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Department Staff:
Linda Williams, Administrator
Marcus Silverstein, Zoning Enforcement
-I....,
......,~.
V":~,'"
-0
\..oJ
~
...
OLD BUSINESS APPLICATIONS:
1. MONCURE CHA TFIELD- TAYLOR, (079-06), 91 WASHINGTON
STREET EXTENSION:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, O'Mara, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made a negative recommendation as there
were issues of planning concern.
Public Comment: None at this meeting. There had been substantial comment at the first
hearing.
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicants
Discussion: This matter had been continued without further discussion from
September, October, November and December 2006 and now to this meeting. Glidden
asked that it be continued again without discussion to the February 9, 2007 meeting.
Action/Vote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
TO FEBRUARY 9, 2007 MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION,
AFTER OPENING AT SEPTEMBER MEETING. THERE WAS ALREADY AN
EXTENTION FOR ACTION ON RECORD UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 2007,
(Waine/Toole).
Conditions: NA
2. PRICILLA L. REIS, (085-06), 80 MIACOMET AVENUE:
Sitting: Sevrens, O'Mara, Toole, Wiley, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation as there were no
issues of planning concern.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorneys Arthur Reade and Steven Cohen for the Applicant
Discussion: The matter had been continued without opening from the October,
November and December 2006 meetings and then to this meeting. There were ongoing
discussions taking place with the ZEO that may resolve the issue. Cohen again asked that
the matter be continued without opening to the February 9, 2007 meeting.
Action/Vote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT OPENING TO FEBRUARY 9,2007 MEETING. THERE WAS
ALREADY AN EXTENTION FOR ACTION ON RECORD UNTIL FEBRUARY
23,2007, (O'Mara/Toole).
Conditions: NA
3. GEORGE H. DAVIS AND EMILY SNOW DAVIS, TRUSTEES OF
JEFFERSON A VENUE REALTY TRUST AND THOMAS G. SNOW AND
VALERIE G. SNOW, TRUSEES OF BUG LIGHT REALTY TRUST, OWNERS;
AND FOR CAMILLA W ARRENDER, CONTRACT PURCHASER, (093-06), 7
AND 9 JEFFERSON A VENUE:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Koseatac, Wiley, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation as there were no
issues of planning concern.
Public Comment: Attorney Sarah Alger stated that her client was opposed to the
variance relief and saw no reason to grant it as the Applicant could design a house that
would be conforming as to setback requirements.
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicant (Warrender), Attorney
Arthur Reade for the Applicant (Davis), Attorney Sarah Alger represented abutter Peter
McCausland on Lincoln Circle, in opposition.
Discussion: Glidden gave a synopsis of the previous hearing. He reiterated that due to
the presence of substantial wetlands on the property, the building envelope for the
proposed house was very small and needed to be partially located within the required
front yard setback area. Applicant was asking to be able to site the house as close as
about 2.3 feet from the front yard lot line along Jefferson A venue rather than the ten feet
required. Glidden stated that the Con Com had required that the Applicants come before
the ZBA before granting any approvals putting the Applicant in a difficult position
between the two boards. Glidden did state that it was possible to build a small house
outside of the required setback areas but given the value of the real estate it was
impractical and there were sufficient grounds to grant variance relief due to the wetlands
affecting the property. They had made an attempt to move the house back a foot to over
three feet, but about 320 square feet of structure was still sited within the front yard
setback area. Reade stated that there were grounds for a grant of variance relief and that
the Applicant was squeezed between zoning requirements and wetlands requirements. It
was not a large house and would be well under the allowable ground cover. Alger argued
that it was a vacant lot. It would have been different had there been a house on the lot
already. Sevrens stated that a house could be designed that met the setbacks as it was a
vacant lot and saw no reason for relief as there was no an inherent right to build that sized
house. Wiley agreed with Sevrens and stated that the lot was a blank slate. There was an
alternative to relief and to grant relief for an owner created hardship would not be
appropriate in this case despite the wetlands issues. Waine stated that he understood the
problem and felt that a compromise might be possible.
ActionNote: UPON AN INITIAL MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED TO
GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION
139-16A, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET, THERE
WAS ONE VOTE IN FAVOR (WAINE) AND FOUR OPPOSED (SEVRENS,
KOSEATAC, WILEY, TUPPER). A SECOND MOTION WAS MADE AND
SECONDED TO GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED WITH A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF ABOUT 2'3", AND THERE WERE NO VOTES IN FAVOR AND
FIVE OPPOSED. THEREFORE RELIEF WAS DENIED, (WainelKoseatac).
Conditions: NA
NEW BUSINESS:
4. JENNIFER M. ERICHSEN (001-07),34 RHODE ISLAND A VENUE:
Sitting: Waine (acting chairman), O'Mara, Toole, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holidays.
Public Comment: There was a letter in favor on file from the closest abutter, who also
stated that the cottages had been there since prior to 1972.
Representing: Tom and Jennifer Erichsen, for themselves as Applicants
Discussion: Tom Erichsen made the presentation. The lot was located in an area
immediately adjacent to the beach in the south shore area of Madaket that had suffered
from severe erosion. Since last fall the southernmost cottage, one of two on the lot, had
become undermined by the erosion from storm action and it was moved under an
emergency permit from the building department to a site on blocks next to the
northernmost cottage. The two cottages were of identical footprint. The cottage on the
road was going to be moved to another lot the Applicants owned closer to town and the
endangered cottage was going to be moved onto the vacated location. The deck would be
replaced as well in the front yard setback area in substantially the same location as the
current deck and the pump house would remain unchanged. Erichsen asked to be able to
move the existing separate storage shed to the southerly side of the house or attach it to
the house without having to come back to the Board at some point in the future. The
structures were built in their current locations in the 1960's and would come no closer to
the front yard lot line than presently existing. The lot was in compliance with ground
cover requirements.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
SPECIAL PERMIT RELIEF UNDER SECTION 139-33A, TO THE EXTENT
NECESSARY AND BY VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 139-16A, TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED BY MOVING THE COTTAGE
INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, (O'Mara/Toole).
Conditions: Exhibit A; HDC; Exterior work prohibited between July 1 and September
1 of any given year; allowed to relocate the existing shed to a site that would be closer to
the relocated dwelling on the southwesterly side of said dwelling, including attaching it to
the structure itself, so long as the shed was conforming to the side yard setback
requirements, without further relieffrom this Board.
5. GILDA C. POLLARD, (002-07), 45 EASTON STREET:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, O'Mara, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Jamie Cabral, nephew of the Applicant, represented the Applicant
Discussion: Cabral stated that his aunt and uncle had owned the property since the
1950's. They started out living in the existing small cottage to the rear of the property.
They built the primary dwelling in 1985. The siting of the foundation had been done by
the builder and not by a surveyor. It was common for people to set their own batter
boards or have their builders do it back then. There was no requirement for an as-built at
that time from the Building Department. They never got a CO and after her husband died
last year the Applicant started to clean up the outstanding permits. It was at that time an
as-built surveyed plot plan was done that indicated that the front steps were sited within
the required ten-foot front yard setback area. The side deck was there before the double
frontage requirement for lots in the R-l district was passed at town meeting and was thus
grandfathered. There was no plan to alter the house at this time. Sevrens questioned the
existence of a residency covenant from the 1980's and whether it was in full force and
effect. The ZEO stated on the record it should have no affect and his office regularly
released such covenants as there is no building cap on record at the moment.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
SPECIAL PERMIT RELIEF UNDER SECTION 139-16C(2) TO VALIDATE THE
CURRENT SITING OF THE FRONT STOOP/STEPS, (WainelKoseatac).
Conditions: Exhibit A; no further building or expansion of the stoop and stairs within
the required ten-foot front yard setback area.
6. OLD NORTH WHARF COOPERATIVE, INC., (003-07), 29A, 29B AND
29C OLD NORTH WHARF:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, O'Mara, Koseatac, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorney Arthur Reade and Attorney Whitney Gifford for the Applicant
Discussion: Reade asked that the matter be continued without opening to the February
9, 2007 meeting.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
WITHOUT OPENING TO FEBRUARY 9, 2007, (O'MaralKoseatac).
Conditions: NA
7. 8 WINDY WAY LLC, (004-07), 8 WINDY WAY:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, O'Mara, Toole, Koseatac
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: There were three letters in favor from the direct abutters on file.
Representing: Attorney Steven Cohen for the Applicant
Discussion: Cohen made a lengthy presentation about the history of the property and
the confusion related to past Decisions and which property the relief actually applied to.
This lot had been part of a larger lot that had been subdivided, creating this property and
the immediately abutting commercial property, both of which took advantage of the relief
previously granted to the larger lot and both structures had been used for contractor's
shops. Cohen stated that the Applicant had received a Multi-Family Special Permit from
the Planning Board to place four units on the second floor of the mixed-use commercial
structure. The HDC had approved the alterations to the building and they were now in the
process of cleaning up the permits at the Building Department and regularizing the relief
granted by the ZBA. There had been several commercial tenants in the spaces on the first
floor and after the Applicant purchased the property all tenants left the premises and the
Applicant proposed to use the entire first floor for one business, as a cabinet shop and
related uses and office. The laundry that was permitted in one of the previous Decisions
would be removed and the use abandoned. The commercial use of the property would be
less intense with one business entity. Applicant asked that all reliefbe issued anew, even
if allowed in previous Decisions, in order to clean up the record. Special Permit relief
was being asked to waive open space, parking configuration, aisle width and the loading
zone requirements. Variance reliefwas being asked for to validate the rear walkway that
provided alternate access to the apartments due to the steep change in grade from the
front of the building to the rear of the building.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
MODIFICATION OF THE PREVIOUS PERMITS, AND RELIEF BY SPECIAL
PERMIT UNDER SECTION 139-9B(2)(a), (b) AND (c), TO VALIDATE AND
ALTER AND EXPAND THE COMMERCIAL SHOP SPACE AS PROPOSED;
UNDER SECTIONS 139-18 AND 139-20 TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO
WAIVE THE PARKING AND LOADING ZONE REQUIREMENTS AS
REQUESTED; UNDER SECTION 139-16E TO WAIVE THE OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENT; AND RELIEF BY VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO SECTION
139-16A WAIVING THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO
VALIDATE THE REAR WALKWAY, (Waine/Koseatac).
Conditions: Special Permit relief is conditioned on Exhibit A; a maximum of one
commercial tenant, either the land owner or otherwise, to operate in the commercial use
areas of the site, without further relief from this Board. The walkway, herein validated by
the grant of Variance relief, shall be sited substantially as shown upon Exhibit A. In
separate action, by a UNANIMOUS vote, the Board waived the site plan review as
required under Zoning By-law Section 139-23.
8. GEORGE TOWNSEND, ET AL, (005-07), 69 POCOMO ROAD:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, Toole, Koseatac, Wiley (O'Mara specifically recused)
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicant, Attorney Arthur Reade for
the contract purchaser.
Discussion: Glidden made a presentation. The lot was a lot of record and the house was
constructed before 1972. The lot was undersized and located in the LUG-3 zoning
district. A former owner had made application to the ZBA for variance relief in 1987 in
order to cure a possible merger of this lot with an adjacent lot that had been held for a
time in common ownership after 1972. The Board determined that no relief was
necessary and denied the relief. Oddly, even though there was a denial and thus no
conditions able to be imposed, the Board nevertheless made a finding that stated that any
change in the residential use, such as expansion of the house, even if conforming, would
necessitate a grant of special permit relief. The language of the Decision was confusing
and the Applicants were seeking a modification and clarification of the Decision to allow
the Applicants to alter, extend and or demolish and reconstruct the main dwelling and
construct a new secondary dwelling without needing a grant of special permit relief,
provided all dimensional requirements were met. Should the Board not have made the
finding, said work would have been allowed as a matter of right. Glidden stated that in
1994 the Zoning By-law changed and allowed that lots, improved with structures that
pre-dated 1972, did not merge even if held in common ownership. Reade stated that his
client was concerned that the language was confusing enough that even though today no
relief would be necessary, the Decision stated that it was necessary. Both attorneys
agreed that it was best to strike the language entirely related to the finding.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, BY A VOTE OF FOUR IN
FAVOR (W AINE, TOOLE, KOSEA T AC, WILEY) AND ONE ABSTENTION
(SEVRENS) TO GRANT THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION AND
CLARIFICATION OF THE 1987 DECISION TO ELIMINATE THE
STATEMENT THAT SPECIAL PERMIT RELIEF WAS REQUIRED FOR
EXPANSION OR AL TERA TION OF A PRIMARY DWELLING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY DWELLING, (WainelToole).
Conditions: Any new primary dwelling and/or secondary dwelling and accessory
structures shall meet all ground cover and setback dimensional requirements of the
Zoning By-law.
9. MNB LLC, (006-07), 136 OLD SOUTH ROAD:
Sitting: Sevrens, Waine, O'Mara, Toole, Koseatac
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: There was one letter of concern on file from the direct abutter to the
east. He was primarily concerned about outside storage of material and asked that a
sanitary facility be made available to the tenants of the commercial storage units.
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicant
Discussion: Glidden stated that his client had bought the property in 2005 with the
intent to continue to lease the individual commercial storage units to separate commercial
tradesmen. The property had been benefited by a previous Decision which allowed the
passive storage of goods and materials with no outside storage of commercially related
materials. In truth, the units had been rented for active storage and workspace by the
previous owner. Applicant was now asking to allow active storage, for small tradesmen
who would store their materials and equipment in the units. He described the existing
types of businesses on site. The Applicant also proposed adding two additional units for a
total often. There would be no use of the units for fabrication and construction of
component parts, such as a contractor's shop. Board Members agreed with the concerns
of the abutter and asked that a bathroom facility be provided for the business uses and all
would have access to the unit in the building. There was a discussion about the parking
situation on the lot. The owner of the property would also use the site for his landscaping
business and park his trucks there. The Applicant withdrew that portion of the request for
relief under Section 139-9B(2)(a) and (c).
Action/Vote: IT WAS VOTED, BY A VOTE OF FOUR IN FAVOR (W AINE,
O'MARA, TOOLE, KOSEA T AC) AND ONE OPPOSED (SEVRENS) TO GRANT
THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION IN BOA FILE NO.
039-96 TO ALLOW THE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF STORAGE UNITS AND
THE CHANGE FROM PASSIVE STORAGE TO ACTIVE STORAGE,
(W ainelKoseatac).
Conditions: Exhibit A; conditions "c-g", inclusive, contained in the previous Decision,
are re-imposed; use of the property shall be limited to a maximum often commercial
storage units without further relief from this Board; the ten storage units, for a total of
nine bays and one shed, shall be limited to active storage by tradesman with no on-site
manufacturing and no on-site fabrication or assembly of component parts, and with no
storage of boats outside; sanitary facilities (toilet and washroom) shall be provided on-
site in accordance with all applicable codes and made available to all commercial
tenants; parking of vehicles overnight shall be restricted to vehicles owned by the
residential tenant and to vehicles owned by commercial tenants which are owned or
controlled by the owner ofthe property. In separate action, by a UNANIMOUS vote, the
Board approved Exhibit A as the site plan for the project as required under Nantucket
Zoning By-law Section 139-23.
10. ROBERT C. GRIFFIN AND BARBARA A. GRIFFIN, (007-07), 18 RABBIT
RUN ROAD:
Sitting: Sevrens, O'Mara, Koseatac, Wiley, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: None
Representing: Attorney Richard Glidden for the Applicants
Discussion: Glidden stated that the Applicants wanted to demolish an existing single-
family dwelling that was nonconforming as to ground cover requirements with a ground
cover of about 2300 SF and reconstruct a new single-family dwelling in a different
conforming location with a maximum ground cover of about 2300 SF. When the house
was constructed the lot and house met all zoning requirements, having the benefit of
LUG-l zoning. However, when the area was re-zoned to LUG-3 the house became
grandfathered as to ground cover. No HDC approval had been obtained though the house
was in the process of being reviewed. Glidden asked that the Board grant the special
permit provided the existing ground cover was not exceeded and the house was sited in a
conforming location. Glidden stated that there was no room for a secondary dwelling.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
SPECIAL PERMIT RELIEF UNDER SECTION 139-33A(9) TO ALLOW
DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-F AMIL Y DWELLING AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING WITHOUT INCREASING THE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING GROUND COVERE RATIO, (Wiley/O'Mara).
Conditions: The maximum allowable ground cover shall be 2318 square feet; the
structure shall comply with all applicable zoning setback requirements.
11. J. STEWART BRYAN AND LISA-MARGARET S. BRYAN, (008-07),144
MAIN STREET:
Sitting: Sevrens, O'Mara, Koseatac, Wiley, Tupper
Planning Board Rec.: The Planning Board made no recommendation due to the lack of
meetings over the holiday.
Public Comment: Direct abutters the Montalbanos to the east were present and spoke
about light, air and setback issues related to the new addition. They were also concerned
about the massing of the structure and argued that the addition overwhelmed their smaller
house and the main portion of the Applicants' house.
Representing: Matt MacEachern, designer for the Applicants and Tom Boyce, builder
for the Applicants
Discussion: MacEachern stated that the Applicants were undertaking a substantial
renovation of the single-family dwelling that included demolition ofthe newer rear el and
reconstruction of a new story and a half rear addition to increase and reconfigure interior
living space. The existing easterly setback nonconformity would be cured and the new
addition would conform to all setback requirements. The project was before the HDC for
review. Applicants were also seeking to add about 56 SF of ground cover. The ridge
height of the new addition would be about 21' 6" with the main roof ridge staying the
same at about 23'6". The existing large tree in the back yard would be worked around
and maintained. The existing oil tank would be moved to a conforming location and out
of the setback area. There were no plans to alter the garage, which was allowed by a grant
of variance relief in 1984.
ActionNote: IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED
SPECIAL PERMIT RELIEF UNDER SECTIONS 139-33A(9) AND 139-333E(2)(a)
TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED AS PROPOSED, TO
REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT THE REAR EL, AND EXPAND THE
GROUND COVER; AND A MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION IN BOA FILE
073-84 TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ON
THE SAME SITE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE REAR OF THE LOT AS
NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION, (O'Mara/Wiley).
Conditions: Exhibit A; the reconstructed rear addition shall conform to all setback
requirements; maximum ground cover allowed for the lot shall be 37%; no exterior work
between June 15th and September 15th of any given year; no human habitation of the
garage and the garage shall be repositioned no closer to the westerly side yard lot line
than presently located at about 1.5 feet.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:46 PM (Wiley/Toole)
Respectfully submitted by Linda Williams, recording staff.