The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About008, 010, 011-75 ~'VIi'=:iiiIIlOi;i;';':;:~~r?''''''~~'""':::::::7,,...J,..... '_ J I Ii"" 'I .~, all -~ . ~ ~ '~i\i I . II II ~I Minutes of a meetipg of the Board of Appeals, April 29, 1915: Present were members, W. Holmes, H. Backus, O.E. Hyde and alternate member E. Cahoon. Ii In the matter of t~e petition of Paul Kelner 011-75 for recon- !Isideration. Appearin~ for Mr. Kelner was Attorney Richard Glidden. Ii " 'Mr. Glidden stated the. reconsideration was requested because h~ II . I, iifelt the prior hearinv,'resulted in confusion with the operation,of Ii -:' ,IMirage Ga~age. Mr. Gl~dden stated that the original petition was ilheard two months ap;o and at that time, there were many junked II '. . Il vehicles on the site., In addition, the site to be used by the I~etitioner was a 5000 'sq. ft. portion of the property located on I Dave Street next to the "Chicken Box" night club. I t 1\ two s'tory buildinp; on the lot and would use the upstairs as living I quarter. I I I framing materials and one-half by Kelner for the repair of engine I motors, motor bikes an~ lawn mowers. No automobiles would be re- I lipaired on the premises. The bicycles, if registered, would be tes~ II driven on public roads. If not registered, the bicycles would be I il taken out side town to private lands and tested there. \1 Mr. Glidden stated there would be some noise, but the exterior I' Ii II appearance would not be offensive. I i Appearing in opposition was Attorney Robert Campbell. Mr. Ii I' Campbell stated ne ',las appearing for Mr. and Mrs. Benj amin Stone, II residing at West Creek Road. He reiterated his prior opposition Ito the petition and re~statedhis desire to have fencing concealing II the operation if it is allowed. I I. I II lithe permit and from Attorney Robert Mooney opposing the permit. I' ,I !I Ii il Ii _.'_'___'m'" __ \L -- - -_.-~. Mr. Glidden ~tated the petitioner would construct a 36'x24' The first floor would be used one-half for storage of " No other perbon appeared in opposition. , i The Chairman read ~ letter from the Planning Board recommending After due deliberation, the Board found:' 1. The operation 9f a motor cycle repair shop and motor __'m.n.' ,. -_.~- ... ~ . l. I . 1'<' 1" ,,[.M.~ ',.; ',,. :"', ,f"'" I" ~ .,.1' I.. , : I, ~ :' I.';.. '111;:.'/ i.,. .1' 'w .1"'1.1.'1" r/ ,:;.J.""I' '~ ! t:. i'i'l W....I. ; ,.. ~ __ ,...;.. ..i:._~~~,_ ~ , i , I J.. ..... i; :1 Ii -'.._-~--' I I · 1\ II II II Irepair shop cpuldnot be aonducted on this 'site without substan- \,il tial detriment to the area. I- '\1 2. The area ~s pr~rnarily residential with the ii, "Chicken Boxl~ club and includes Qur Island Home. new material was presented to the Board in this recon- exception of thi \ Ii 3. No , !sideration which warrants a finding reversing the Board's prior i' II decision. II Upon motion of Mr. Hyde, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was il I 1\ unanimously voted to DENY the II fore DENIED. I. I. II 1\ . I . . . ~~. il ~Wr".{( \u ~..,\.- Wo ~~ bn,:",j~/97S '~'? ~~. a~ ' " ()IJ a. ")1?, ~~' In the matter of the petition of Hudson Holland et ux 010-15 petition is there- P-- ../ )f;j'J~)J ~A.1--.u ". ... I Appearing for Mr. Holland was Attorney Richard Glidden. Mr. Glidd I 1\ stated the petitioner owns property at 8 Fair Street and desires ~to use a portion of -t~e structure for the sale of antiques. I Chairman Holmes' 'stated that he is an abutter and will dis- I . I qualify' himself from participatin~ in the decision. Mr. Holmes \i stated that unless there was any objection, he would conduct I . . 11 the hearing. Ther'e was no obj ection. I lj I II I' II ber 1974. I I tion" permitted the intended use. Relying on the zoning regulati< II then in effect, the Hollands proceeded to remodel the interior of 'I lithe house and purchased stocks of antiques to sell. When the Apr II Ii 1 Town Meeting voted to amend the by-law and bar retail sales as II . . ilpart of customary home occupations, the Hollands were denied the j, results of their labor and expenses. Ii Mr. Glidden stated the petitioners purchased the house Novem- At that time~ the definition of "customary home occup~ ----1........ '.' J ., , I: I' ,I " !! '/ II .11 If The intended Use consists of utilizing three rooms of the 14 I I room house for the display and sale of small antique items. i I Because of space requirements, the items would be small pieces of I I furniture, silver, china, p;wter and glass. The hours o~ operati01 /are intended to be 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. every day except Sunday~ /Plans for a sign advertising the premises are not presently I II finali zed. I 1 Mr. Glidden stated that the petitioners were very aware of I I the historic value of the house and are cognizant of the integrity I I of the neighborhood. Everything Possible has been done to preserv lithe house and to inscre that the sale of antiques can be done in a Ilmanner that will enhance the character of the neighborhood. i Iii Mr. Glidden reviewed the present USes of adjacent properties I and cited the propertie3 to the north as being a single family I !dwelling used as a guest house, an apartment house containing a I stUdio, and Murray's Toggery Shop. Other operations in the area I I include Barnicle Inn Hot~, Ships' Inn, a ~seum and a profesSiona~ I office. II Mr. Glidden cited hIs hardship as being the fact tha~ all the , II plans had been made, the 'funds expended and now, due to an un~ore-I I seen delay in moving ~ Nantucket (Childen in school) the bY-law I /! I 'was changed and the new applicable definition now precludes retail i isales. I :1 , Ii Mr. Hudson Holland spoke in favor and stated his operation II would include the sale of ..11th and 18th centur.y furniture and I :1 accessories. He antic ipates using the doorway on Fair Street as I il the comm~rcial entrance. , il I :1 Mr. F.A. Pawley spoke In favor saying he was the owner of pro- . II I il pert y a bu t t in", the pet it i one~ s and had reviewed, with the Ho Hands " " " ~ nl 1ni Ii their proposed use. 'I II II Ii d II ~.. ,.:="'-;-- , :'. -,." .~~ . ',' .-: " . i:.___ . ". .. :::~=. ~.~ . ..( '" ,:..A~: . _-#-_--. I I L.. /::..~~ ::' r , . ... ;,..l \ ~ ~ 'I II . 7 ... ,.1 .' 1;." " (i f., , .' " ~: '; ~...-, ~ !'/ 'I .~ 1/ i II Ii Their were n.o othel' Gpe,akers. The Chairman read letters from the Planning Board and Mrs. il \1 Lee Holmes in favor of the petition. I !! I II 1. II II liture of residential and low profile commercial use. I '! The area surrounding the petitioners' property is a mix- I I \ I \ I . I I, After due delibe~~tion, the Board found: ;1 2. The operat ion proposed by the petitioners can be conducted 11 ilo~ the premises without dero~atin~ from the intent of the by-law ,\ :1 and without detriment to t~e neir,hborhood. i; I' 3 I: . ,I II of the neighborhood. I II 1\ I imously voted to grant the variance requested subject to the I I following conditions: Ii I Isale of antiques shall be limited to the front three rooms. The' I I remainder of the premis~s'shall be used by the owner/operator Ilof the premises as his sin~le family residence. II 2. Hours of operation of the business shall be not prior to I 10:00 A.M. and not later than 5:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. The proposed use is in harmony with the general character Upon motion of Mr. Hyde, seconded by Mrs. Cahoon it was un an- 1. The area within.the house to be used for the display and 3. No exterior sip;~ may be displayed unless the same is app- I I roved by the i, ' 4. This Board of Appeals. conditional variance shall be valid until September 30, 1976, and ,shall be reviewed by the Board at that time. Therefore, the variance is CONDITIONALLY j2- ~~~'~JJ ~ ... t\~ \,0 ,~~~UD I II II I! II ,--_._~---".__.._-"---,,- II I' Ji -::.. --"_._-,-,,, ~. .' 'I. ._.__._L ./ , i' /........."') ." I l' I '-/ V _."..'.' .0, ,. ...... "~_~_~. :;.~""-...:i:.<.:;;..~-.::u_....="'-=::-~~.=~. "':.?f-~ -,... '. .../', ./ I, i;" I: / ,I ~ ul,-~ ~ ~~~ ~-~.:-~...crr '.... .. . Ii " Ii I, ii II Ii II In the matter of th~ petition of Mark Malec 008-75. 1'1' Appearing for Mr. Malec was Attorney Robert Campbell. Ii II Mr. Campbell stated that the petitioner requested a variance 'I II from the term. of the BuIlding Code. The petitioner desires to I construct a replica of an old Nantucket house. The new building I ' Ii " Ii code does not allow ceiling heights and doorway sizes that are II authentic in historic design. ?he petitioner wants to have I: Ii II ceilings measured from the bottom of beam~ spaced less than 4' .It . Ii !I on center to qualify .fQ~" .the 7 16" measurement; additionally, door II sizes of 6' 6" are requested and stair treads of 8" and risers '1/' o.r 8" are requested. II II lined in accord with code requirements except for the ceiling, door I! II nnd stair measurements. II ii an abutter. r II II could be ,. II code and without detriment to the structure. :' I Upon motion of Mr. Hyde, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was unan- ,limouslY vqted to gran~' the petition. I . !I Therefore, the variance is II , I I I I, II /J?~~~ male.c ".p~cll:i ~B, /-1 /'173 I "'?.li;oo Q.'~ :Z~ ~ ,?~ ~ ~ In all respects, the house is structurally sound and is desig- Also speaking in favor of the petition was Andrew O. Lewis, After due deliber'ation, the Board found the requested variatiol's made without derogating from the intent of the building , GRANTED. , c lfl-- ~~~~ Z~Jl~~ , Jt~ '^=>. 6o..~ '-A..4 I' I: II Ii