HomeMy WebLinkAbout006-009-74
""'~
,'f "~
..
~ \
. '
~
Minutes of a meeting of 'the Aoard of Appeals held May
21, 1974. At tend in(~ vICf'C members - W. Holmes, H. Backus, R. Taylor and
al'ternate members E. Carwon and ^. Royal.
In the matter of the Petition of Walter .r. Glowa'cki et
ux 008-74 to construct an asphalt manufacturing pl:1nt on premises
off Old South Road, (Lot 10 L.C.Plan l6514-E).
Mr. Holmes stated he intended not to participate in the
decision on this matter, but would conduct the hearing unless there
was an objection. There was no objection.
Appearin~ for the Petitioner was Attorney James K.
Glidden. Mr. Glidden described the location of the lot and re-
viewed the ownership of' the parcel, He'stated the Petitioner has
owned the lot and surrounding area since 1963. The area has been
used at various times as a junk ya~d, sand pit, cement mixing and
construction site and is no~ the home of Glowacki Construction
Co. The proposed location of the asphalt plant is 400' from
the closest boundary o'f land owned, by the Petitioner and is '900'
from Old South Road. The closest residence is that of the Petitioner
and is about 1700' from the locatinn of the plant.
The plant site is hidden from view and will not be an
eyesore to any person or propel'ty adjoining the Petitioners land.
Mr. Glidden reviewed the equipment owned by the Petitioner
He stated as an item of fi~t impre?sion this is a working construc-
tion company employing five men and has historically engaged in
all facets of construction includ~ng cold asphalt mix, cement
mix, sand and grave~ and general trucking associated with a con-
struction company.
.
He stated the plant location was the result of the geo-
logical conditions available in the area. This plant is in liVe
with the Cape Cod & Islands Cons'tr'\l'ction Co. and the facility of
Nantucket Construction Co. and each is situated on the vein of
sand and gruvel that traverses the island. These conditions do
not exist in other areas and are requirements for the successful
operation of this business.
\
...
....c... .
"
'I
He stated the use rcque~ted has no adverse effect on
density and actually improves on,the intent of' the by-law by
utilizing an area available for housln~ by putting the area to
another use. He represented that ~LI other factors involved
in the use of the plant, such as cilean air, noxious fumes etc.
will be subject to State and Fed~ral controls and there is no
-:-
danger of community or area deterioration via the operation of
;
the plant.
Mr. Glidden stated the recent increase in business
made necessary by Planning Board requirements mandates a second
source of asphalt. The present sin~le sour'ce of hot mix does
not allow fair and competitive business practices. The benefit
,
to the community will he substantial if' a second plant is allowed.
In reply to a question L:'om the Board, Mr. Glidden
stated the location of the plant is approximately 1300' from
Lover's Lane. He also stated the ~lant as a non-conforming
use now prepares and dispenses cold asphalt mix.
No other person spoke in favor of the petition.
In opposition appeared: ,
Mr.
Jemott who stated he was appearing for Cape
Cod and Island Construction Co. and was a 1/5th shareholder in
that company. He stated the Petitioner had a chance to purchase
the CC&I Construction Co.and elected not to do so. Now 10 months
later, after failing to purchase this company, the Petitioner
wants to construct a plant. Mr. Jemott stated he and his assoc-
ciates have a vested interest in the CC&I Construction CO. He
stated a second asphalt plant on Na~tucket is not economically
feasible.
Mr. Robert Christman stated he thought he should have
received notice since he owns property in the area. He stated
the present asphalt plant is a smokey mess and if another plant
is allowed, the neighborhood will deteriorate.
Mr. John McGrady stated he represented the Boy Scouts
and has objections to the plant because of the effect on adjoining
-2-
~
_.__4"'J'f"'-'.~------ -
,.
.;
Scout reservations an~ al~o believes the increased traffic
of trucks will preGent a, ha~ard to hikers. (In reply to a question
from the Chai~man, Mr. Glidden stated traffic would be from Old
South Road only.)
Mr. Robert Marks stated"he owns an apartment house on Old
South Road and would be cau~ht between two asphalt plants if the
petition is allowed. He stated he objects to the smoke and fumes.
In rebuttal, Mr. Glidden stated that economic feasibility was
not a factor to be weighed by the Board. Insofar as smoke and
all applicable clean air codes.
odors etc. are concerned, r1.~. Glidden pledf1:ed to rigidly observe
In rebuttal, Mr. Jemmott sta~ed there was not enough
business for a second plant and that the Petitioner had an
opportunity to_,.buy an existing plant and elected not to do so.
The Chairman closed the discussion and read one letter in
opposition from Thomas SUlliYan,'Esq. an abutter of an abut~er.
After due deliber'atiori, the Board found:
zoned Residential 2 and LUG-2.
I. The present use is a non-conforming use in an area
non-conforming use.
2. The Board hFl.3 no aut;lority to allow the expansion of a
3. If the Petitioner's' were given a variance to construct
and operate a hot mix asphalt, f)lant, the existing non-conforming
use will be substantially expanded by adding a commercial use
not now a part of this business.
Upon motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was
unanimously voted to Deny the#f)etition and therefore the request
\N~~~~
.4;<<(',:1 /" -:7'-4 l--
6Cl>",k~
4:o-L--..J
/)1
L,<.f..Can J
?>
Scout resey'vations iJn'l ;11 ';r) Lr,jj eve:, the increased traffic
of trucks will pre:;cnt iJ ha/'rlr'ij to JJikcr~j. (In reply to a question
from the ChCilY'man, fftr'. (JlIdiJcri stated traf'f'ic vlOuld be from Old
South Road only.)
Mr. Robert fJ]iJ.Y'k~; :c;talerl he owns an apartment house on Old
South Road and would be cau~ht between two asphalt plants if the
petitIon is allowed, He ~;tatcd he objects to the smoke and fumes.
In reblJttal, Mr. Glidds'j :;tatecJ that economic feasibility was
not a factor to be wei;~rl('rl by the r~oar(j.
fnsofar as smoke and
odors etc, ace conccl'ned, :,1r', Glidden pledged to rigidly observe
all applicable clean air code~.
In rebuttal, Mr'. .]I;rnmot":. :;tatccJ they'e was not enough
business for a :;ecoII11 rJlant and that the Petitioner had an
o p p 0 r tun i t Y t 0 buy an e xi s tin i" p I ant an ci e 1 e c t e d not t 0 do so.
The ChaLrman clocjcrl the rlL~cuf;sion and read one letter in
opposition from 'rhoma:; :;ull1,rarJ,' I'::c;q. an 8butter of an abutter,
After due rlelibecatiotl, the !)(..J8.rd round:
1, The present Ucjl; L; ;j non-cC))1f'OJ'rnjnfJ: Uf;e ill an area
zoned Residential 2 and LUC-~,
2, The Goard hac; no au tor} ty to ell low the expansion of a
non-conforming use.
3. If the Petitioner":; vlt.'J'e given a variance to construct
and operate a hot mix asphalt plant, the existing non-conforming
use will be substdntLally expanded by adding a commercial use
not now a part of thj:; bu,..:;iness.
Upon mot ion by [IIY'. 'l'ay lor, seconded by Mr's, Backus, it was
unanimously vot ed to Deny tlJe~ pre tit j on and there fore the reque s t
for a variance is DENIED.
00?5~ 7Y-
_m~~~J^~_
A-?~e~
Do () 01
\ S Su€--
/// (Ir/ j /
'~~
/~~ 2-
/'
U. /'"
-.l.l~ ~
1.:.:' ;')
'-~ .c--[.o_c...-<J 0
w
6 c~ u.J:::.
ki:~~~
"
-j-
-,
I :;
L( Lee. n
/.j So':
f. I(crr,l
v "
'3
'"
, ,
In the matter or the petition of Ronald Santos 006-74 for a
variance to p(~r'mit thl: :,uhdivL';ioTl of Lot 27, L.C. Plan 26439G:
Mr. Santos appeared and st&ted he had previously subdivided the
land in 1968. In 1972 he was advised by the Planning Board that
a three year exemption applieJ to his subdivision and that his
subdi vision Vias invalirj as far as a use after 1971. He stated
the Planning Board advised him jn 1973 that a five year exemption
applied to his subdivision. " However, at the time the Planning
Board advised him of' the eI'ror, the f'ive year exemption had
expired and he is still ura~le to sell the lot.
He requests a variance to allow Lot 27 to be ~eclared a legal
lot.
Also appearing for th~ Petitioner was Donald Visco, member
of the Planning Board. Mr. Visco stated that through an error
of the Planning Board, Mr. Santos was denied the effective use of
Lot 27. He stated the Planning Board now approves the petition
for a variance.
In opposition appearea:_
Mr. Lionel Starr, who told the Board he was an abutter and
objected to any more building"lots in the area because of water
and septic systems problems. He stated there are now two
instances of int?-rference with potable water sources and he
feels more building will increase the hazards.
In rebuttal, Mr. Santos '~tated he knew of one instance of a
problem with water but that "was due to the user locating hi~
point in surface water. When the point was relocated to a
#
depth of 45' the condition was coprected.
After due deliberation, t~e Board found:
1. The error of the Planning Board did deny to the Petitioner
the effective use of Lot 27 and did ciepr'ive him of the opportunity
to sell Lot 27, and that, th~~erore, the Petitioner did suffer a
substantial hardship.
-4-
L1-
"W'
i
'::0
!t.
...-...... . .
:.~, lU.;i .;'t:,...-JLilA~'~J~l't....Ii..,___"""""__"". ._
. ..
2. 'rhe varianc(~ can be f'-:l'anted wi thout derogating from
the intent of the by-law and without injury or deterioration to
the surrounding area~.
Upon motion by Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it was
unanimously voted to grant the p~~~~he
variance is GRANTED.
, ,.<
W ~ \. \J0 ~ ~ Cio-d<-.U,;:)
\
/ft,~1:A-( / :~dfrv-
/'
/&~) JL~~
.~ /;J~-
(, f,Z'l,?l j '~ '
(j
In the matter of the petition of Dennis J. Dias, Jr.
007-74, requesting a speciaJ, permit to construct and operate
a drive-~n restaurant on Surfs ide Road near Hooper Farm Road.
Mr. Dias appeared and stated'he intended to build a rest-
aurant on the site owned by, h)m, now zoned Residential 2, but
had no plans or ideas concerning size and appearance. He stated
the hours would be daytime only 10:OO A.M. to 6:00P.M., and
seasonal operation only - p~obably from June through October.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Dias stated he
was unable to state how the restaurant would be operated and
was not sure whether there WQuld be service as well as take-
out facilities.
Mr. Dias stated that h2 was not now prepared to give the
Board answers to questions because his planning had not progressed
to the point of " knowing detai]~ of the proposed operation.
He requested permission to\~fhdraw~~cation and
permission wQ.s granted. ' CLL\ l^,\ ~
. \~ c....l\J1..~ '\ W I 13> ~~
the
/J"./-[vI /. "71,--
~
,_,_' ~
)f=2.,.I'""-.I) ---Y. ~
-5- {leU.;' / '/?ya.-p
5
.
_....---"!' 1. ,_ _ __ ,
--:-
..
In the matter of' the pctit:i.on of J"rank L. Hardy 009-14 reques-
t1ng a variance to pcr'!f1it the' ~~llbdivision of Lot 10, L.C. Plan
370138 into two lotf; cd' les~; than ?O,OOO sq. ft. each:
I
Mr. Abrams stated he represented John and Iris Sutton, contract
Appearing for the petitiuner was Attorney Gerald Abrams.
,
purchasers of Lot 10. He told the Board that Lot 10 noW has
39,814 sq. ft. and could be divided into two parcels of 19,9o6
sq. ft. and 19,908 sq. f't. 'l'h.e applicable zoning category is Re-
sidential-2 requirinv 20,000 sq. f't. minimum lot size.
Mr. Abrams stated the Sutton's moved here about one year
ago and have a house on shorefront property. Because of
the erosion of' their exh;tinv, house, lot, it is anticipated that
it will be necessary to move 'their house to this lot. In
addition, the Suttorl'~ want to be able to construct a second
dwelling unit as a rental jH'Opcrty and thus defray the costs in-
volved.
Mr. Abrams stated the ~utton's would suffer a financial loss
if they purchased this tract and were unable to subdivide.
Mr. Taylor asked if the construction of a rental unit was
the prime consideration of th~ petitioner Sutton and was advised
by Mr. Abrams that this was ~0. Mr. Taylor stated the newly amended
zoning code allowed the construction of second dwelling units on single
lots subject to certain set-off's and he failed to understand why
the petitioner could not take advantage os this provision of the
code.
Mr. Abrams stated that even if this is true, the petitioner
still wants tc have a subctlv:Lf3ion.
Mr. Abrams stated the surrounding lots were in some instances
less than 20,000 sq. ft. a~d this subdivision, if allowed, would
result in lots which were compatible with the other lots in the
area.
No other person spoke,in favor or in oppsition to the petition.
After due deliberatio~~ the Board found:
-6-
~
~~...~------
.1
.
. "..
.
.
1. The pet1 U ont:I' had e:-~tabl i ::hed no hardship and had established
no basis for i-l vari~HlC:t:.
2. The plan or u;;c c:xriI'c~;:Jed by the petitioner is presently
allowed under the amended by~lnw,ir approved by the Attorney General
and no further a6tion is required.
Upon motiop by f'~r'. fray lor) seconded by Mrs. Backus , it was
unanimously voted to deny the petition and therefore the application
for a variance j~} DE!HED.
.. ...\JJt\M'A~
\.
-/
/
f~'~'
\\ J<..^--n..",_,,~\ \..0. 6 a:-c:..\" u./.>
'-..,'''_ , ,~/>.AI.;-
,,( ", /" I ...... \") - ~./:- I'
F r ~{-, ~ J" A ' ' ,;I , ./ ,,- ..T,,'{..../t...44-~..~
, G c eel ~ d Q, - 0 '
(t I\~
;
-7-
7
;.;,;:;;:{'~"""'---'.
"I'
','
cV'7-7~
MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Attorney at Law
Nantucket, Massaohusetts 02554
Post Offioe Box 1044
(617) 228-0016
228-0017
April 30,1974
C. Clark Coffin, 'Ibwn Clerk
'Ibwn & ColIDty Building
Nantucket, Mass. 02554
RE: Appeal from Zoning Ruling
by the Planning Board
;Frank L. Hardy -Hurmock Pd. Rd
Lot #10, DC #37073-B
rear Mr. Coffin:
Iris Sutton has a P&S A.greerrEnt for purchase of above described lot. A plan
was submitted to the Planning Board for approval not required division of the
lot.
'Ihe Planning Board has ruled t.'I1.at the lot if subdivided would not confonn
to the Zoning restriction apllicable to the locus.
A petition has been filed with t..~e Appeals Board in hopes that this :may be
resolved.
']he Petition to the Appeals Board is brought by the record a-mer of the land.
Sutton has equitable interests in the property by virtue of the p&S agree-
IlElt. I believe the Planning Board has been dealing with Sutton.
'~,
is given in compliance with C40-A, 516 of the General Laws.
/
_.._--,-_.._.._,~.."..."..__...._.., ,
''"'- ' ...,..,-----.".
"'t::.
141; 3, /'77;/
~,..~--~'t:_--.'" _~""""""_~"'_~'''''-,'7'' .~_-.. -'- ':'"'~ "-'
.- '","",'~ ....:*-:'1r". ..... ~.~ "1lt!:"'!'". r.~ - ~ t.!41:il11f" ~"
---,-~,._'-_.- ,,----,-,--~--'-_._'- -"'-,--~..
l-l
FEE
Case No.
APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Must be filed in duplicate and both signed
NANTUCKET
Apri 1 10, 1 q 74
To the Members of the Board of Appeals:
The undersigned hereby applies for relief from the terms of the (ZONING BY-LAW)
(BUILDING CODE) on property described below:
Location of Property
Hllmmock Pond Road
Lot No. 1 0
Plan No. L.C. 37073-B
District is Zoned for 'RPRinpnt::iC'll - 2 (Minimnm Lo+: 20,000 sQ. f+:.)
Type of structure (Existing or Proposed) or proposed use:
Owner's Name FrC'lnk To. HC'lrdy
Owner's Address off 'RohprtR ToC'lnp
When did you acquire this property?
Has application been filed at Building Departmen? No
Has any previous appeal been made? No
Section of By-law or Code from which relief is requested: Section V of ZoninC]
By-ToC'lW C'l!=: C'lmmpndpd lq71 (m:inimnm lot !=:ize)
Reason for asking relief: ppt-i t-i oner wi !=:hp!=: t-o dj vide Toot 10 into two
lotR
Prpspnt lo+: hC'l!=: 19.R14 RQ. ft.
lR6 sQ. ft less t-~an
DPpnpd pp+:it-ionpr own!=: t-o cpn+:pr of +:he WC'ly.
ATTACH: (1) A list of the names
owner abutting the abutters.
Signature of
owner
"
( 2)
(3)
(4)
authority to
Check in the amount of $50.00 made payable to the Town of Nantucket.
Map or pl~n showing the location of the property to be considered.
If the applicant is other than the owner, please indicate your
make this application.
BOARD'S DECISION
Application submitted to Board
Advertising dates
Hearing date
Decision of Board
Decision filed with the Town Clerk
.....,
.....,
f~/(()
.:) .--.
t~~'8
'lit ~ '
.....,~ f(J
4j ~ h," 0/
"' 9:: \4, t7j,
~ 0 G til
(J ~ i:;.) /
~ "t"~ ^
'" ~~
~f9
I;:;
(J
.. ...."-l
.'~ 1j
~
,~Cj ~
" ~ ~
Cj1,;~
~o ,..() '....
,.". ~:., oS' ::::I ~ t-.....
('-' .? ".. , (\ <:).. '-I }
K. -Y0 V) ~.~
~ tl
~~ ~
~ ,r{JO~
)~-.? ~ 1::: "J
~O~O {j ~ Q,
~ ~ r;.,)
~ 1-..\ ~
"'-\~~
~~"'-I
~ ~ "oJ
2~~
9...~~
~~~
.
l:l
" ~
,.13 ~
~~,
q~
~
~
~
~~
~~
~~
I
~-\": ,
.~ li5~~ ~ ~
~ ,~J ~ C1
0... ~ -- 1J
~ (II .Cr) r)j ~
(j ~)U) Qj ~
~ ~~l.vG~
~ ~~~~
~~..~~~~~
~~~~\:j~
r.,~ ~'~~ ~
~ il)~ ~
~ ~ ~(J)~~
C) \.), J.:i ~ C)
" ~ 1qCj~
~ ~')j 1:: (1)~
~ _ ~ "'-l I".,J ~
~~,,~(j~~
~~~~~t~
"-J ~~ ~ ~ ~
.... ~..t ,; ~ !:t,
~~t)tJ ~
~ (J) U) "",
---.....,
~
~
Q
~
, t p' 'i< ~ ,..;. .
..~.. '.\'
,.. ?:
~,
" ",
.-. ....
",,'
..:~ .
__ g~,40~~'()Z1':J'7 (rr:to7
;" .........
~ -- ..... -- -.......... ........... --' ",.. -- --... -- --
--
---
,-
<
;
;~
~
.... '"t"
\ ----
/ ,
f I
I I
U ~
~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ )
~ ~ ~i
~ ~ ~'
~ .. ~
'^
~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~;:
:; ~ ~i
~
~
~~~
(fj' (1)' (1)'
1-1 ..., 1-1
~\()~
O\~~
~ O\~ ~"\
"" l\:)
h \I II D
~ rolJ "t\ iJ
~~~~
~~~
~ . ~
i1 ,~,ti..\
~~~
~
" I
, I
I
...
,~
I:'
1 '
r,
~
J'
~".
t
.
,
,o' ,
,
'I
~...
i"
, ';
TI' i'
,
~~ ~
lJj' U) OJ'
\ ....'...,;..1
Q:) ~ &. QJ
;1 ~(Q ~ ~
~ ~~ (\)' ~
.. '-1' C\:)
~<S 'I ~ " ~
(:)~ rkl~ ~ ~
o C5.. C;:) ~ ~
(\')..., ~ ~ ~
(3 ~~ '"
~ C O'~
~ ~~
~~ ~
~ : ~~
I
_J
_1" ~ CO
03:~-
U < 0 0
(J) ..J u5 0
- (/)
0::1-< I
O<~a>
>- .(\1
-' /.LI .... ft_
Z W ~'I
W ~ ~I
d' 0 u "
. .... :::l
1: F- ... b
< V ..... ILJ
~.,,:,,< ,-,
,:E.',,' z (()
I '< '/o.J
, \J 1j
CJ~Q)
~~ ~
~ (j <;J
y.,Qj~
~~ 1}
qCJ~"
~1er)1v)1
~I~I~I
J~~I
..I I '.
~" ~
r-Q~~
--t.~Cj
lJ~ QJ
~ (j r1J
~C3 ;j
~ ~ hl"
~.~ ~
~ \3,
~
()
~
~~,
'~~
.~~
....d'l)
(j~
r{)~
~ ,
CD ~,
~~
~' ~~~
~.
'....~
QJ <;J
erq~
~
~
~