HomeMy WebLinkAbout010, 012, 014, 015-74
ec,'" ..,
'-"r-~:' . '"
/
r
-,'
''; i
C--' ,i..
. -t
""-",'/"~:i':<<f
, "',, ",;";~._,;,, '-~"<'-;
~"-"",;,~""",-"""""",,,- .
........~t ' i"
...:.' ': . '. ,...,......:...._ ';" '~.. ..... . '. 0... '.' .. _ . ..,....... _ ; _ _ ... . .. .-.4. '. ... C"..... -.. I -'," _d .
\cU)~ c~~_.
I
F...
1." .
, ;I
Ii
Ii
,I
'I
Ii , Minutesofa meeting-of the Board ~f Appeals ,July 16,
111974. Attet':l(tlngwereMr. W.Holrnes, Mr. R. Taylor, Mrs. H.
rBackus and Al:ernate Mrs; 'E. Cahoon.
,I In the matter of the' petition of Robert A. Cinquini and
IIRobert A. Marques 015-74,: ,for a variance to permit an extension
IOf a non-conforming use: .
I
I
II Appearing for the petitioners was Attorney James K. Glidden.
III Mr. Glidden stated the building in question is situated on Old
;ISouth Road and was constructed as a multi-family apartment house
I I
ii with a commercial use, upholstery, on the first floor. The
!I
,.
:lpetitioners now desire to discontinue the business on the first
11
lIfloor and convert the area formerly devoted to upholstery into
I: three apartment s .
II Mr. Glidden stated the rules governing continuances or
llextensions of non~conforming uses are:
I .
I
I
I
I
I of the use;
,
A
, I
!l degree;
II
II 3.
II Mr. Glidden stated the new use would elimina:te a high risk
II
!!use since the upholstery.business required storage of flammable
\;
iimaterials. Also, the bus~ness was discontinued due to lack of
II ,.'
l'business and there is no apparent substitute of a commercial
II .
i'
l' nature that is compatible .with the surrounding area.
II Mr. Glidden stated th'~re was a definite community need for
I . . .
,
1.
That the extensi9n reflects the nature and purpose
2.
That there be no difference in quality character or
That there be no difference in kind.
:1
;1 year-round housing and the installation of these three units
i'
'I
i! would serve to alleviate that need. Mr. Glidden stated there
Ii
il would be no exterior expansion of the building.
II
il
'I
II -I-
I,
II
."
I,
'I
"
t.._.om
I
~~~.;',";::.~."'fflrr_~,:.
.-;.:.;..,,,,-;,,_.~~~:t',;,';.';
I
"... -'- ":~'. ~ -; .....~
..,..-
, ,r
11
~ II
,1
*'
,.
Ii
II
ii
II
1\
n
II the Ijant,!cket By-Law which excludes apartment buildings per se.
I' Mr. Glidden stated there were now six apartments in the
Ii
II building and the conversion, if allowed, would make a total of
I'
119 units. No other person spoke in favor of the petition. In
!lresponse to the Boards I s questions, Mr. Robert Epple, Nantucket
I:Building Inspector, stated that no permit was ever issued for
Ilthis work and that he had stopped the conversion of the commer-
II
:lcial space after d1scoveri-ng the work in progress. Mr. Epple
Ii stated the original permit was for a building for carpet sales
II
Ijand apartments.
!:
Ilfor this area..
! No other person spoke ,in opposition.
I
I,
IBoard ;r-equesting the petitipn be denied.
I
II
~th€ Board fouhd:
II
!lthree-apartment unit, is an ~xpansion of a non-conforming use that
Ilis dUterent in kind and purpose from the prior use.
!i 2. The intended use ,is not provided for in this zoning
II , .'
iicl8:ssificati~n .
-I '
II Upon motion by Mrs.: .Ba?kus, seconded byMr . Taylor, it was
i:unanimoUsly voted to' DENY the application and therefore the
I;
'I
Ilpetition for a variance is DENIED.
Mr. Glidden discussed the legal aspect~ of a by-law such as
Mr. ,Epple stated he had received no d~awlngfl
He stated the area was zoned Res-Commercial.
The ehairrnan read a 'letter from the Nantucket Plan,ning
After due consideration and examination of the premises,
1.
The intended conve.csion of commercial use space to a
II
h
Ii
il
\!
II
I
I
I
q
II
, I ~
II
Ii
!
:1
~
". ... . .', >
4~k..~
",:
\~ .L ~\'-LC..Q
'...1
:..(,.....-'...L;._..: \
,"
.... ,
j:
I
I
I
II
,-
-2-
....
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
,I
!
I
i
!
I
.1
I
. I
I
.,...'....
,
T
1\
i:
'I
~!
..
Ii
d
I
II
I'
!i
"
II In the matter of the petition of Sanford Gallanter 010-74
I' '
_!lrequesting a variance for the construction and use of a two
il family house on Pocomo Road.
it
Ii Mr. Gallanter addressed the Board and s.tated he was the
;! .. ,~\\~\.
liowner of the Pocomo tract and had purchased the,lUi\ilile in 1970.
, q
I,
\1He said he purchased the lot.subject to certain restrictions
.'
ilrunning in favor of the Po~omo Association which restricted
!
lithe land use to a single family dwelling. Mr. Gallanter stated
II
r
ii the area was zoned for single family use and that he considers
!! his house designed for such use. The house is a 3 floor unit ~ I
i' i
!lwith a complete living unit. including kitchen on the second floor. j.
:\He stated he intended to US'0 this area for his children when they i
Ii I
1: grow up and have a family of their own. Mr. Gallanter stated
lithe plans wer~ approved by. HpC in July 1972 and a building permit
I!was issued in August 1972. He stated he had reviewed other lots '1
:1 and buildings in tne area and had noticed other apparent violations'~
I; !
Ii
!!Mr. Gallanter presented photographs of the building.
In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Gallanter
'I
!i stated the second floor unit was a complete living unit and was
'!rented to persons and used by persons other than his family. He
Ii
!ialso replied that there was a. separate outside entrance to the
11'
:: second floor and that it c01l1d be completely closed off from the
'first floor. He replied that it was his intent to continue to
i!lease both living units in the house when he was not using one
:i
ii uni t for his own family.
He stated~he was not a speculator and that he valued the
"preservation of Nantucket natural resources. In response to the
questions of hardship from the Board, Mr. Gallanter stated his
I ~
L
"
!i
I'
,I
Ii
!i
;:
'i
Ii
'I'
I.
IL
(-3-
i
I
..
~,' _... ._.-.~.~ -----'-,~----_.."'...-.- ,-..
..~
r
. .
~""'''''';''~'
fj"nm ,.,'.
Ii
I'
II
"
'I
II
r
I!
Ii
Ilhardsh~p basis for a varia~ce is that the hQU&~ is now eompleted
\land would have to be remodelled if the variance is denied.
II
il
!i Mr. Borchert stated he wa. 's the contractor who built, the house.
I
liRe stated the owner, Mr. Gallanter, left the building details to
Ii him since tr.e owner was then involved with negotiations over a
i!large subdivision elsewhcr~ in Nantucket. Mr. Borchert stated
II '
i he obtained approval from HDC and he subsequently obtained
II
I' from the BUildi,ng Permit.
"
II
II building permit was issued~' according to Mr. Borchert, and plans
Ilwere not filed until a'month or two later.
II 'In opposition appeared Mr. E.V. Higgins, stating he was
It
dpresident of the Pocomo Association, and was representing that
Ii .
Ilgroup of 35-40 homeowners in the Pocomo Area. Mr. Higgins
I - .
'! indicated he had discusse-j this m(itter with Gallanter on prior
loccasions and expressed the disapproval of the Association. He
Ii
!said the Association was opposed to duplex housing and o.pposed
Ii
t'l: to rental prop~rties being erected in that area. Pocomo had its
I, ..
\\ own zoning a3'farback as 1969 when certain landowners, inclu-
:\ ding a predecessor in ti~le to Mr. Gallanter, covenanted to
II restrict their lands to. single family use. Mr. Htggins read
,\ the covenant agreement. '
II
II
I!the applicable zoning regulations and urged the Board to deny
lithe petition as being without any merit. He stated multiple
iI
;' family dwellings will des-tl'oy the Pocomo residential area.
,
"
'.
Also speaking1'n favor of the petition was Carl Bo.rchert.
No plans were filed at the time the
Also appearing in opposition was Mr. John Mannix who recited
I
i
Ii
"
Mr. George Wislocki appeared and stated the use by Gallanter
a dup~ex was inconsistent with the environment.
:Ias
Ii
I
II
.1
I'
Ii
,
I,
II
In rebuttal, Mr. Gallanter stated he had no ulterior motives
II
,I
,
II
'.
Ii
I,
:i
"
'I
I,
:i
m .....L ___.
-4-
I'~.'
'. .
II
'i
I,
"
j!
....;.;..;..... -"~ "''''-- .... . .
,I'
. '.
~..,
'- .."..:.....
.- ,. ~
"Ii
d
I!
'i
I'
'I
I!
ii am:! had been coming to Narrt;:u,~ket for 25 years. He stated he was
Ii
I not a <:leveloper or specu,lator.
it
,
I; In response to questions by the Ohairman, Mr. Robert Epple
,I I
i\
II Nantucket Building Inspect'o,r, stated he reqei ved the original plans,
!! at the time the building perl!li t was issued. At that time, the :
it
.'
:: plans provided ..for a singl,c family residence. Mr. Borchert,
I! with Epple's consent, removed the plans from his (Epple's) office
I'
i;
j, and returned the plans some .months later. At the time of the
'I
!! return, Mr. Epple stated the plans were modified to show a
"
;i
IIkitchen on the second floor and to show an exterior entranceway
:, ~
I!to the second floor. The permit was issued in December, 197'2
:1
'land the plans returned to Epple in March, 1973, according to Mr.
I
I
:; Epple. In addition, Mr. Epple stated the permit is issued
"
II subject to requirements of zoning and it so states, on the permit.
"
:,
I:Mr. Epple stated the area was zoned to permit single family
:1
:1 housing only and" he ordered t;he work to stop.
I . -
II
!I There was no other discussion. The Chairman read letters
!! opposing the petition recei\ied from the Nantucket Planning Board,
'i
iiMr. Bruce Truesdale, Merlin E. Nelson, William Siddall and
'i
;!Helen H. O'Hara.
iI
'.
I! After due deliberation, and after viewing the premises, the
"Board 'found:
:1
,i
,I
1.
No hardship was established by the petitioner as a basis
"
II for his variance request .
,I
;:hardship predicament and thereafter complain of the matter.
"
'I 2.
The petitioner may not create his own
-;
The present use is a clear and intentional violation of
)
Ii
ii the Nantucket Zoning By-Law.
l'
I:
.
3. The Boa~d recommends to the Building Inspector that
"
I;appropriate action be taken forthwith to restore the petitioners
"
I
:iland to a proper use.
I ~
Ii
"
,:
jI
II
I:
'j
d
II
II
. '-5-
"...--
o \
;.'.....'..''"'". o..,">;;:...-~J;,;.,. ,,;.,.c..< j"'f1" ",
:1
-,
\\
11
..Ii
I
!.
Ii
Ii
II
,I
I'
II
,!
lj
\:
Upon'motion by Mr., Taylor, secondeq. by Mrs. Backus, /1 twas
:1
\imoved and unanTmously voted to deny the Petitioner's request
II
Ii for a variance.
'!
II
II
'i
Ii
I;
II
:1
h
ii
I'
q
'I
Ii
,
_ I
The Petition is therefore DENIED.
~
/lJ4f /~
=>
,.
,I
II
\,
"
;1
F
i!
. /'
\\ {).~u..v. \
.-
\ -. <:,), \,..
A.. ..... . ,_)c~_. (.f~
In the matter of the'petition of Beverly Martin (012-74) for
special permit to operate a lodging house at 132 Main street.
.
"
:i
II
:a
Ii
!,
II
.
Appearing for the petitioner was Attorney Robert F. Mooney.
\: Mr. Mooney stated the parcel was situated in an area zoned ReS-I-
i:
I
!i dential use (R-I) and that the Nantucket By-Law allows the; Board
I'
jiof Appeals to grant a special permit for such a use as requested.
II
~'The criteria is that the llse may be allowed if there is no evident
"
I
,'deterioration of the ~urrounding area and the use is generally
;, in harmony with the neighborhood.
,!
i:
Mr. Mooney stated the'house was purchased in March 1973.
The zoning is R-OH. Mrs. Martin was led to believe by meetings
"
:with the Planning Board and.the Board of Selectmen that her in-
i~tended use was approved~ - She made substantial improvements in
I
'the property and can now meet all the requirements of the var:tous
:ipublic agencies involved with approving lodging houses.
Mr. Mooney stated the petitioner needed to operate this
.'
business for an income and that the business would be conducted
"
iiin a manner that will not disturb the neighborhood. He stated
!
d
oj
ii
'.
I
'!
d
;1
I,
~6-
II
\I
'lIi'
,...;i;':;;::"'",:"~:_."_._:_'~_"'~'.
-------. -I--
I
.
II
,I
II
I:
II
II
Ilthere are several similar u~es in the area.
I.
tl
;1
lj \.
llhe owns property at 124 Main Street and is familiar with the
II petitioner I s conduct of a rooming house.
,\lhOUSe at 124 Main Street
jin that neighborhood.
II Mr. Russell Heston spoke for the petition stating he is
Ilconfident that Mrs. Marti~ will operate in a manner compatible
II with the area.
II Rev. William Babbitt and Attorney Michael Driscoll also
I,
II spoke in favor of the petition.
II
II
ti she intended to rent seven rooms. I
'1'1 It
In opposition appea~ed:
II I
g Mr. Bertram Johnston,' stating he appeared for himself and !
III t
\Mrs. Cady, also present. H~ stated the Nantucket zoning by-law \
II I
I! requires guest hOllses to be in a residential-commercial zone. !
,i Mrs. Martin's proposed use is not a non-conforming use. He I
II stated he knows the house. has always been a single family residenc~
iI and the intended use was clearly an expansion into a lodging i
Ihouse. I
I
II Mr. Alexander Craig ::;;tating he supported the statement of ,-
II Mr. Johnston and that he has no recollection that the petitioner's i
II premises were ever used as a lodging house. He stated if this I
!l exception is made, other ow:ners will pressure for similar uses. I
l' I
ii In rebuttal, Mr. _ Mooney stated the intended use was still i
jl
ilsubjectto other regulations and licenses. In response to a
I'question from the Board, ~e stated there was adequate on-street
II
it
il
II
II
i:
I,
II
II
:t
Also appearing in favor was Mr. Robert Francis.
He stated
and stated there are other such
He operates a rooming I
I
operations,
I
I
I
In response to quest~ons from the Board, Mrs. Martin stated
"
II
I.
It
-7-
.. .
:1
- ~_..~
\ ~
'I
II
II
I,
:i
!i
"
"
,I
Ii
II
II
ilparking in the area and that persons utilizing this lodging house
il
llwould probably not have automobiles.
II
'.
II
Ii
;!
il
IiBoard opposing the petition.
i,
'I
11
I
!l~nd the area the Board found:
I'
1\
\,
:: lodging houses in the immediate neighborhood. There are also
II .~ . ' ,
I(ental cottages in the, ~,mmediate area.
q 2. The petitioner's premises are set back from the road
II . .
Happroximately 40'; and have a small paved yard suitable for parking
I,
r
112 or 3 cars.
!I 3. The petitioner may operate a rooming or lodg:i.ng house
!jWithout interfering with the use or enj oyment of neighborjiing
i'
iipropertie3.
d
II
Ii
il
!:mov~d and unanimously, v9ted that the application for a special
_/
_~,____",,,,,,___d__ II
The opposition waived rebuttal.
The Chairman re'ad a letter from the Nantucket Planning
After due deliberation, and after viewing the premises
1.
The area is re~idential in character and there are
Upon motion ,by Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it was
I!permi t be granted subj ect to the following conditions:
1,.1 1. .
The permit shall be for a period ending September 30,
II ,
111975, and shall be reviewed by the Board of Appeals at that time
lor at their regular meeting first following September 30, 1975.
I
I
il 2. In the event the Board finds valid cause or complaint
1\
I,
I from the neighborhood residents concerning. the conduct of this
I!
::lodging house during the _period now to September 30, 1975, the
h
iiBoard may revoke the special permit by failing to renew the permit
ji
The special permit is
gra~e :egOing
ij -
j:condi tions':
I!
I'
I!
Ii
I'
II
#~/~
\\ ~~l ',~ ~'~
I .~
\.~ - \
~
~ l'L~ ~lLr....
,
I)
-8-
r,,,
.. '.. ~ . ....
I
I
II
'I
I,
\1
I'
\1
,
I and
I and
II
\.
I
I
I
In the matter of.the'petition of John Roche (00.4-74)
Joan Roche 'requesting a va.riance to allow the constr\lction
occupancy of a.mult:t-family residence on Atlantic,Avenue.
Mr. Roche appeared and stated he was in the process<of
putting in an apartment. on the second floor of his house .t
Atlantic Avenue. He steted the Building Inspector informed him
\1 the ,area was zoned for single family use only and that he stopped
II
r
,I
;;
construction.
II could not make the mort,l$age payments unless he was permitted
II
!l
II
II
\1
'I
I!
Ii
,
.Mr. Roche stated he was unable to afford his house a.nd
to have the extra rent~l ,income.
There were no other speakers.
The Chairman read a letter from the Nantucket Planning
Board o.pposing
the petltion.
!
I
!'
I
I
II
;, asa basis for granting a variance.
After due deliberationg, the Board found:
1.
No hardshiph~d b.een established by the petitioner
-I
!
I
Ii 2. The are is zoned Residential I p.ermitting single
I family dwellings only.
, Upon-;:-:."t1otion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Mrs. Backus? :! t
il
h was moved and unanimously voted to deny the petition'. Therefore,
;i the petition for a variance is DENIED.
!\
II
,I
tI
,
!I
I!
i'
II
~",-,."._,.."'..,'..'..-'''-'-''
.,.,...,..~.. .
. ;'," " .
. 'C ,,'
~./~
"
Ii
"
-
\\
\\ (t.'''C.'-q,~':\, \..~ t ~ l'~r: \(..L~
,I
if
:i
I!
Ii
:1
Ii
I'
,I
I
i!
II.
"
"
-9-
'I'
'I
t
!
:i for a var1\artce.
., .
Ii
Ii
.!
ii
Ii
The Petition is therefore DENIED.
~
/l~/ ~.
~
I
i
I
I 1"
I-
II
:1 '
.'
~ ;
"
..
'I
.1
Ii
,
II
L
.;
. . /'
\ \ ~'. '
\ ,).,~Ut~ \..-,., . \_..;''In..,..'' \.,.0 C,.f".~
.
j:
.t t~.
': In the m:~t;tE!J? of the, yetition orr Beve:r-ly Martin (012-7J1) for ~
, ,
~I a spec'ial permit to operate a lodging house at 132 Main ~treet,.
l! .
.. Appearing for the petitioner was Attorney Robert F. Moo'ney,o,
II
.
,: Mr. Mooney stated the parcel was situated in an area zones! Resi--
I'
,
!~ dential' use (R-I) and' that t:'1e Nantucket By-Law allows the B~$:nd
! -
I
, , '
!i of Appeals to grant a special permit for such a use as requ.ested:
I' '
~: The criteria is that the 11se may be allcwed if there is no evident
! ~
'deterioration of the ~ur~ounding area and the use is generallY
:j in harmony with the neighborhood.
~ :
Mr. Mooney stat'ed the' house was 'purchased in ,March. 197~j./q
_The zoning isR-OH . Mrs.- ,Martin wasTed to, believe by meet;J!n
,
with the Planning Board and.the Board of Selectmen that her
'.
i; tended use was approved.
She made substantial improvements in
.C'_i.i,.'-_;...':~~.
:d;.~~;:,
I. .,:. -~';f'
all the requirements of the variC;>ll~":}}',,j~.;:
, . r.'; ,%,,"',
;- -.'; -".}-:
.I.~"'::} ,.",j:-::~,}~-
I. . '
the property and can now meet
'public*'agencies involved with approving lodp;in~ houses.
.ft1r. MooneY sta1:ed the petitioner needed to operate t,h1~s:- .:,.,,:,', .,' -
. .~~~~. ~" :~~,~~~~:~~
business for an income and' that the business would be condu'cted'
ji in a manner that will' not uisturb the neip;hborho,od. He sta.ted
!'.
I:
:i
-,
II
1\
1/1
~6-
..
.:oi.
/1'
/
ji
P
,!
II
II
oj
,
:1
r
,I ,
llth~re are several similar u~es in the area.
I!
:1
;1
it
l~ he owns property at 124 Main Street and is familiar with the
"
rlPetitioner'~ conduct of a rooming house.
I house at 1211 Main Street
,I in that neighborhood.
"
II Mr.
,
1\ confident
.. with the area.
II
ii Rev. William Babbitt and Attorney Michael Driscoll also
I'
\!sPoke in favor of the petition.
II
II '
,she ~ntended to rent seven rooms.
II
'!
II
! ~
jl
I! i#
I\MrR. Cady, also present.
I,
Ii requires guest hOl1ses to bE' in a residential-commercial zone.
"
i:Mrs. Martin's proposed use is not a non-conforming use. He
~stated he knows the house has always been a single family residenc~
"and the intended use was ~learly an expansion into a lodging
!house.
I '
il
,I
:1
,iMr. Johnston and that he has no recollection that the petitioner's
"
iipremises were ever ,used asa lodging house. He stated if this
II
:l exception is made, other owners will pressure for similar uses.
Also appearing in favor was Mr. Robert Francis.
He stated
and stated there are other such
He operates a rooming I
I
operations,
I
I
I
stating he is
Russell Heston spoke for the petition
that Mrs. Martin will operate in a manner compatible
In respor.se to quest~ons from the Board, Mrs. Martin stated
In opposition appea~ed:
Mr. Bertram Johnston,' stating he appeared for himself and
He stated the Nantucket zoning by-law
Mr. Alexander Craig stating he supported the statement of
Ii In rebuttal, Mr. Mooney stated the intended use was still
\;subject to other regulations and licenses. In response to a
I.
i question from the Board, he stated there was adequate on-street
II
it
!f
I.
! ~
,\
!.
!I
II
"
II
II
-7-
'" ..
,/
/
-...
I
'I
I
I:
.1
!'
'.
:i
II
d
I!
i\ .
lIparking in the area and that persons utilizing this lodging house
,,'"
it
I!would probably not have automobiles.
"-
Ii
~ i
ij The opposition waived rebuttal.
"
:1 The Chairman read a letter from the Nantucket Planning
,:
a
"Board opposing the petition.
II After due deliberation, and after viewing the premises
II
!Iand the area the Board found:
II
II 1. The area is residential in character and there are
j,
!:lodging houses in the immediate neighborhood. There are also
,I '
II
ilrental cottages in the ~ mmediate area.
!l 2. The petitioner's premises are set back from the road
,II
I.approximately 40'; and have a small paved yard suitable for parking
!,
i!2 or 3 cars.
Ii
'!I
II 3. The petitioner may operate a rooming or lodging house
il .
"without Llterfering with the use or enj oyment of neighborlJing
I r
i:properties.
Ii '
l! Upon motion 'by Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Taylor, it was
H
il
.imoved and unanimously v9ted that the application for a special
<; .
ppermit be granted subject to the following conditions:
II
'j
il
!11975, and shall be reviewed by the Board of Appeals at that time
II
Ilor at their regular meeting first following September 30, 1975.
2. In the event the Board finds valid cause or complaint
!\
I,
,from the neighborhood residents concerning the conduct of this
I!
,;lodging house during the ,period now to September 30,1975, the
,
:i
1.
The permit shall be for a period ending September 30,
jiBoard may revoke the special permit by failing to renew the permit
j:
The special perrrit is
gra~egOing
"
'\ -,
:condi tions ~
L
.'
Ii
/fJ~ / ~
!:
"
ii
\-\ c~~ l" ~ ~ ~
I ......
,,-, ,
~.
~ t"L r \::... l. r.... .
II
Ii
-8-
'I'