HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-08
ry
...
7:0:: ,~
U--:;;I;'~....-:-r~J ,--.-- - - ----~~
~ rrr~
CLA-L l(~ Ir
~~Y-o
k~
.~ ~;c~
. waUtJ-.
o-v
...
~ 2&14
.
a
. ~~ i\ .
...
j)~
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
in the Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town and County Building,
Nantucket, MA 02554.
The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. in the Selectmen's
Hearing Room. The Board consists of Robert Leichter, Dale Waine,
Linda williams, Ann Balas and Michael O'Mara.
Application no. 059-92/ Elizabeth Moore/ S. Mill Street/ Philbrick
was a request for a Variance from the restrictions of S 1-39-
7C(2) (b) limiting accessory apartments to a maximum of 2 bedrooms,
including rooms that may be converted at a future time to a
bedroom. Relief is sought under S 139-32A. Attorney for the
applicant is Melissa Philbrick. Ms. Philbrick said that the
applicant has to get a permit for electrical work to be done and
Ms. Philbrick asked the indulgence of the Board and requested that
the application be continued to the next meeting. Linda Williams
said that she questioned that things were taking this long and
whether or not the application should be continued or not. Robert
Leichter said this has been continued too long and that the next
time it should be thrown out. Ann Balas said that there is public
sentiment out there about this case. We started this in July said
Ms. Balas, and it is not fair to the community they need to know.
Melissa Philbrick said that she did not have a problem with having
notice given and she would like to continue this to March. She
suggested that the Boared notice this for the March hearing. Ann
Balas said that her understanding of what the Board is trying to
do is to get a Certificate of Occupancy based on the revised floor
plan. Linda Williams said that she is worried that what we have
isnt covered under the original notice. Dale Waine said that what
we have is a situation that if the building is built according the
the plans approved by the building department then you get your
Certificate of Occupancy and we have no problem. Melissa Philbrick
said that the interior of the building is what we are dealing with.
Linda Williams she did not have a problem with going to March. Dale
Waine said that he felt there is a big problem with the relief.
Robert Leichter said he felt the Board should start this thing all
over again. He said that he has heard a number of people complain
about the game playing going on. Motion can be made to allow the
relief reguested said Spencer Cowan.
Melissa Philbrick said she would like to ask for a withdrav/l
without prejudice. Ann Balas motioned to withdraw without
prejudice. Linda Williams seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Michael Angelastro joins the board at this time.
1"\PRlication no. 097-92/ Deborah Dilworth and Kilbrough DihlOrthL
Pleasant Street/ Self was a request for relief by Special Permit
under ~ 139-33A to alter and extend a dwelling which is said to be
nonconforming. The building is sited approximately J feet from the
rear lot line where a minimum of 5 feet is required. Spencer Cowan
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
said that he had a letter from the applicant requesting withdrawl
without prejudice.
Linda Williams motioned that the application be withdrawn without
prejudice. Motion seconded. All in favor.
Application no. 068-92/ Clover Development/ Cedar Grove/ Tillotson
was a continuation of the application.
Motion was made to withdraw the motion without prejudice by Linda
Williams. Motion was seconded by Michael Angelastro. All voted in
favor.
The Board at this time is William Hourihan, Robert Leichter, Dale
Waine, Linda Williams and Ann Balas.
Application no. 001-93/ Van and Barbara Zissi/ 30 A Washinqton
street/Keith Yankow was a request for a Special Permit under zoning
code 9 139-33A to repair storm damage to a property that is
nonconforming as to loading and off-street parking requiring relief
under 9 139-18B(2) from off-street loading area requirements and
under 9 139-20C from off-street loading area requirements. Keith
Yankow, attorney for the applicant said a car crashed into the
house and there was flood damage to the house requiring
renovations. Mr. Yankow said that there are 2 spaces required.
Linda Williams questioned that the applicant wanted relief for one
space and the loading zone. Ms. Williams asked what kind of
business is going to be there? Spencer Cowan said this is in core
district. " You could say that the grasssy area would have a
negative effect on the neighborhood and the parking area is bigger
than the building and there would be backing out onto Washington
Street. II Dale Waine asked if anyone want to speak against this
application? William Hourihan asked if there would be no real
change in the property?
Linda Williams motioned to grant under 9 139- 33A and 18(B) (2) for
parking requirements. Motion was seconded by William Hourihan. All
voted in favor.
Application no. 002-93/ William B. MurphV/32 Sankatv Road,
Siasconset was a request for relief by Special Permit under 9139-
33A to allow the reconstruction of a garage which is nonconforming
as to side and rear setback. Mr. Murphy represented himself. Linda
Williams said that things have changed. Spencer Cowan said that
there is a recalculation of the amount of ground cover. Mr. Murphy
explained to the board what he wants to do. The building is a
garage and does not comply with requirements as to the side and
rear lot lines where a minimum of 5 feet is required. 42 feet over
Ab he has a shed he is going to take it down and make it
conforming. He is 42 SF over the ground cover. The maximum allowed
2
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
for the ground cover is 1812.5 SF and the garage and the dwelling
on the lot combined are a ground cover of 1854 SF. Linda read a
letter from Robert N. Wiley and Elaine Wiley stating that was in
opposition to the application. Dale waine asked where Mr. Wileyls
property was located. Ann Balas asked if this proposal would be
conforming to the ground cover. Mr. Cowan said that abutters in
opposi tion don't want construction wi thin the setback area. II I
don't think they understand that this is already within the setback
area." Dale Waine said that if the Board doesn't allow them to
rebuild, it will fall down wi thin the next few months anyway.
Robert Leichter asked if there was any other place to put it? Mr.
Murphy said there was not.
Motion was made to grant relief to the applicant with exhibit A
conditional upon no human habitation. william Hourihan seconded the
motion. Ann Balas said it was her understanding that the applicant
is increasing what has been noticed. II No, II sa id Mr. Ha ine, IIHe is
doing exactly what is noticed." Linda Hilliams said it is in the
best possible siting. Mr. Cowan said this is a reconstruction in
the same footprint. All voted in favor.
Appl ication no. 003-93/ William and Norma Ai val ikles/ 45 Fai r
Street was a request for relief by Special Permit under ~ 139-33A
to allow the alteration and extension of a dwelling which is said
to be nonconforming. It is nonconforming according to present
requirements for rear yard setback and is a residential use on a
lot with less than the required minimum lot area. Board member
Michael O'Mara said that he might have a conflict of interest with
this application as this house was on the real estate market before
and he is a realtor. Peg Wiley, part of the design/construction
company, was present to speak for the appl icant. She said the
applicant is not coming closer to the lot line than before. Some
work may be occuring within the lot line said Spencer Cowan. The
building is sited 2.0 feet from the rear lot line and the lot is
3160 SF with a minimum of 5 feet for a setback. The minimum lot
size is 5000 SF. She explains what is going on in the plan. The
applicants propose to enclose an existing porch on the east side
of the house. A two-story addition is also planned. Dale ~'Ja ine
asked if anyone wanted to speak against or for.
Linda Hilliams motioned to grant relief inclusive of exhibit A.
Motion was seconded by Hilliam Hourihan. All voted in favor.
The Board at this time is Michael O'Mara, Hilliam Hourihan, Dale
Haine, Linda Williams, and Ann Balas.
Applicant 004-93/ Fred Jelleme/ 8 Center Street/ Kevin Dale was a
request for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-33A to allow the
alteration and extension of a dwelling located at 8 Center Street
in Siasconset which is said to be nonconforming. Attorney Kevin
3
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
Dale represented the applicant. Mr. Dale said the problem is that
the structure does not conform to present requirements for side and
rear yard setbacks and ground cover ratio. Mr Dale sa id the
applicant would like to add ground cover to a lot that is already
over ground cover. It has 61.3% ground cover or 901.3 SF. The lot
does not conform in that the maximum allowable ground cover is 735
SF for this lot. The lot contains 1470 SF in a district that
requires 5000 SF. The house is built on no real foundation so the
applicant would like to put a basement in. The applicant proposes
to add a bulkhead to part of the house nearest the Way and this
will reduce the setback .50 feet and add 64 SF of ground cover.
He would like to keep a patio and build a cellar. No intention to
change the size of the house. Because the appllicant is over ground
cover now, Mr. Dale said the fence will stay intact and it will
look like it does now. The end result is that this will add 64 SF
of ground cover increasing the ground cover ratio to 65.6%. Mr.
Dale said the excavation will occur prior to June 1. Mr. Jelleme
was here to speak. Mr. Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator, said that
he spoke to Pat Butler, of the Historic District Commission, and
that their concern is aesthetic and they do not want an entrance
with a bulkhead next to the pump in Sconset. Attorney Dale said
that he had no intention of going with an above ground structure.
Mr. Cowan said this is very much like the Ingram case if the Board
has a complication at all. Ann Balas asked if the plan for the
basement is just for storage. Dale Waine asked if the patio is
going to count as ground cover? IINo", said attorney Kevin Dale. Ann
Balas asked about the additional ground cover of 64 SF. She asked
if this is just egress for the basement. Ms. Balas asked what the
current height is now? Mr. Dale said it was no where near 30 feet.
Attorney Arthur Reade was present to speak for abutters. HE said
he was retained by people across the way. Mr. Reade said his
clients were concerned about this construction encroaching upon the
way. Mr. Reade said that with the concerns addressed, his clients
are in support of the application. One condition the abutters had
is that there be no work done in the summer. They also did not
want the overall height to be substantially increased by more than
a foot. Mr. Reade said his clients do not want to wake up and find
a 2 story structure being built. Ann Balas wanted to clarify that
this is not going to be an accessory apartment. This is just for
storage. Linda Hilliams said she would hate to take away the right
to have a bedroom in the basement. Mr. Cowan said that the Board
has the right to impose that condition because this could be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Attorney Dale
said that there will be no accessory apartment. He have a notice
here that we are going to put a basement in but no where does it
say that we are going to put in an apartment. Mr. Cowan said that
the notice does not limit the relief.
Linda Hilliams motioned to grant relief with conditions limiting
intens i f ication. Motion was seconded by wi 11 iam Hourihan. Ann
4
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
Balas voted against the motion. voting in favor were Michael
O'Mara, william Hourihan, Dale Waine, and Linda Williams.
There was a second motion on whether or not this construction would
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The north
side shall stay intact and work is to be done from June I-October
1 for exterior work. The height is not to exceed more than a foot.
Construction is to be done according to exhibit A. All voted in
favor.
The Board is now Michael O'Mara, Robert Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda
Williams and Michael Angelastro.
Application no. 005-93/ Anne Geddes/Salter's Court/ Tillotson was
a request for relief by Special Permit under S 139-33A to allow the
al teration and extension of a dwelling which is nonconforming.
Attorney Ted Tillotson represented the applicant. Mr. Tillotson
said Ms. Geddes' intention is to add an extension but the house
does not comply with current requirements for side yard setback,
and is a residential use on a lot with less than the required
frontage. He said the house is 4.8 feet from the lot line and it
has 40 feet of frontage. This is the cottage and the applicant
wishes to construct an addition on the north side of it.
Motion was made by Robert Leichter to grant relief as this is not
adding intensity to the area. Motion was seconded by Linda
Hilliams. All voted in favor.
Application no. 006-93/Barbara Van Winkelen/ 6 H. York Lane was
an application for relief by Special Permit under ~ 139-30A and
~139-16C (2) to validate a front yard setback intrusion of .54 feet
created by the construction of a studio on the property in
January, 1990. Builder Peter Meerbergen was present to speak on
behalf of the application. Dale Waine asked if anyone would like
to speak for or against the application.
Linda Hilliams motioned to grant the relief requested with a
condition that there be no further construction within the setback.
Michael O'Mara seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Application no.007-93/ Jennifer Erichsen/ Rhode Island/ Reade vias
a request for relief under S 139-33A to allow the alteration and
extension of two dwellings that are nonconforming. Attorney Arthur
Reade represents the applicant. He said the applicant would like
to go up to a second story on each of the houses. Neither of the
houses complies with current requirements for setbacks. One house
is sited 5 feet from the lot line abutting Pennsylvania Avenue.
The requirement for the district is a minimum 30 foot front yard
setback and a 10 foot side/rear yard setback. The houses are
located at 34 Rhode Island Avenue and are a residential use on a
5
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
lot with less than the required lot area. The required lot area is
a minimum of 20,000 SF. This lot contains 12,000 SF. Mr. Reade
said that he felt this application did not constitute an
intensification. Mr. Reade said that there is one point he would
like to raise in terms of the timing of the construction to be
done. There would be no exterior work done from June 1 to
October1,1993. Mr. Cowan said that plans were submitted showed only
roof lines on Rhode Island Avenue and a three-quarter story
addition to the house closest to Pennsylvania Avenue. Dale Waine
asked what the square footage added would be. It would add 560SF.
The square footage would not go for ground cover, just the roof
line. The HDC approved the plans. Exhibit A and and HDC approval
are part of the application. Mr. Cowan said the plans cover both
buildings.
Motion was made by Linda Williams to grant relief under ~ 139-33A
with a finding that this is not an intensification. Motion was
seconded. The question was asked if he can plant a la'\vn? Yes.
Comment was made that there should be a stipulation that no
vehicles be allowed to block Rhode Island Avenue.
Motion was made to ammend the motion that Rhode Island Avenue be
free of obstructing construction vehicles. Motion was seconded by
Ann Balas (the amended motion). All voted in favor.
The Board sitting for the next application is Michael
Robert Leichter, Michael Angelastro, William Hourihan,
Balas.
O'Mara,
and Ann
Application no. 008-93/ Harold Whelden/ Baltimore Street/ Reade
Attorney Arthur Reade represents the applicant who is asking for
relief by Variance under S 139-32A from intensity regulations. Lot
146 is a nonconforming lot as to frontage in that the lot contains
12,274 SF with no frontage ip a district where there is a minimum
required lot area of 20,000 SF with a minimum 75 foot frontage
requirement. Mr. Reade gave a history of the lot saying that it
came into separate ownership in September of 1978. The applicant
wishes to validate the existing lot as a separately builable and
sellable lot. The applicant also requests relief by Variance under
~ 139-32A from the requirements of S 139-16A , also intensity
regulations for maximum ground cover ratio so that he may construct
a dwelling having 1260 SF of ground cover to replace the existing
dweling of 782 SF. Mr. Reade said, " The substance of vlhat exists
here is the "Dale Doctrinell Variance." Ann Balas asked, " Hhen
did the nonconformity come into being?" She questioned the
adajacent land and said the issue, besides the frontage issue, is
that there are problems relating to the lot per se. Mr. Reade said,
"The second thing to be mentioned is the work that vie propose to
do. As noted the lot does not have frontage. Mike Bachman, the
surveyor, is here today to speak to any questions. As to lot area,
6
Meeting of the zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
what we have on the site one is dwelling 782 SF and there are two
other structures, a garage and studio. All 3 structures pre-exist
zoning. What we are proposing to do is to replace the old dwelling
with a new dwelling with 1260 SF of ground cover." Mr. Reade said
that 1,534 SF or 12.5% is permissable. Ann Balas said that there
is a problem in the Town's Assessor's Off ice of the area in
question. Michael Angelastro asked, " What does the building
department recognize?" Mr. Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator, said
that in land courted property the area to the mean high tide line
determines the boundary of the lot. The owner owns to the high
tide line. The result of the plans is a total ground cover of 1845
SF where the maximum allowed is 15434 SF. Michael Angelastro asked
what the building department is going to say. Mr. Bachman said the
building department would request a survey to show the line. Mike
Bachman said the mean high water line would be the boundary. He
explained what is meant by the high tide line. Hith a high tide
line there is still the same land mass. It is not like erosion.
Mr. Bachman said that one of the land court plans is in error. The
property line really is different and he shows it to the Board.
Arthur Reade said that what he would like the Board to do is
either. Mr. Reade said the edge of the marsh should be considered
the mean high water line. Mark Poor is the designer and he VIas
present to speak. Mr. Poor spoke about the front yard setback. He
handed out 3 sets of plans to the Board for the proposed project
that he designed. He spoke of the flood plane requirements.
Michael Angelastro looked at the site. He said it looks
substantially higher in person. He said the current height is 16
to 18 feet. Mark Poor said that the proposed height is 26 feet, 22
feet to. the ridge on the back side of the lot. Mr. Bachman said
that the building itself has to comply with the 12.5% rule. Mr.
Bachman said this applicant is hurt because on this particular
property we can't count the ground cover because of the way the
bylaw is written. Attorney Reade said he would like to clear up one
issue at a time. The roofline is 25 to 26 feet. Mr. Reade sairl the
Board has the letters from the abutters. A letter from Milly Taylor
in favor of the application was read. Another one in favor by Lloyd
Arnold was read by William Hourihan. Mr. Cowan said that he spoke
to 2 abutters who were not in favor but hoped that if the
application was approved, the construction would be kept to one
level. Mr. Cowan was asked if these people wrote letters. He
answered that he urged them to write a letter. Mr. COVlan VIas asked
the names of the people and was told they did not want their names
given. Michael Angelastro asked, " Do you have to go up just
because you are in the flood plane? You will be bringing in 3 more
feet of fill." Michael Angelastro said that his concern is that
the applicant will block the view of Mr. Turner's house. Mr. Harold
Whelden was present to speak. He said the Turners look straight
into his roof now and this would open up a view. Ann Balas said she
would like to summarize some of the points. What is wanted is a
variance for the front yard setback. II We are building a house that
7
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
may conform or may not according to what we determine today. II We
have delt with coastal and not with tides. The mean high tide line
is the boundary which has shifted. Therefore, no pattern has been
established. Ann Balas asked "Why don't we deal with this on the
14,603 SF to the edge of the marsh as the ground cover? What are
the assessors saying now?" The Assessor is saying that the lot has
15,115 SF. The high water line gives it 12,274 SF. Ms. Balas asked
which is line for the 14,603 SF? She was told the 14,603 SF
calculation is the yellow line shown on the plan. Ms. Balas asked
if the Board has any preference? We haven't dealt with marsh land
before.
Motion was made by Michael Angelastro for a finding that oecause
of the uniqueness of the topography of the lot the minimum lot area
be set at 14603 SF and that the allowable ground cover be 12.5% or
1825 SF. The lot is 14603 SF so the house can be 1825SF. Michael
Angelastro said the motion should include a Variance to validate
the lot at 14,603 SF. Ann Balas said the other thing is that we
should talk about height. The motion was seconded by William
Hourihan. Mr. Cowan said the Variance should be written to validate
the lot as it exists at 14603 SF with an elevation not to exceed
27'. Ann Balas said, " Now we are going to get into discussion on
a Variance for the lot's front yard setback issue." Arthur Reade
said this will only push the building closer to the wetlands. Ann
Balas said that what the Board is saying is that there is an
easement. Arthur Reade talked about the frontage.
Motion was made on the 'finding' that they did not have to maintain
the front yard setback from the easement. Motion was made by
Michael Angelastro. Motion seconded by William Hourihan. All voted
in favor.
A second motion was made by Robert Leichter and seconded by Michael
O'Mara. All voted in favor.
The Board at this time is Michael O'Mara, Robert Leichter, Dale
Waine, Linda Williams and Michael Angelastro.
Application no. 14-93/ Warren and Linda LindsaY/8M Street,
Madaket/ Julie Fitzqerald was a request for a Modification under
~ 139-29E (2) of the Variance granted under S 139-32 and the
Special Permit granted S 139-16C (2) in ZBA File No. 111-92
Attorney Julie Fitzgerald said that she would like to delete the
portion of the condition of the relief that says II No further
expansion of the structures on the premisesll and substitute II No
second dwelling on the premises". Linda williams said that the
Board originally said there could be no second dwelling . II But
then we expanded it to say nothing." Ms. Fitzgerald said the buyers
threw together a set of plans that may not be what they want. Mr.
Cowan said that the Board has the authority to put on a lot of
8
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
conditions. Mr. Cowan said that he spoke to a couple of abutters
who were satisfied with the conditions. He said that if none of the
neighbors objected before, it seemed to him that it might be
invalid to come back after the fact. The applicant is asking for
expansion of the existing dwelling. Michael Angelastro said that
if people were going to call in in opposition, he felt that they
should leave their names. Linda Williams read letters in opposition
from Charles E. Dunleavy and Sylvie O'Donnell. The objection is
that the lot not buildable. Dale Waine said that he wanted to take
a look at the plans. Mr. Waine said, "My feeling was that you felt
comfortable with a definite plan allowing the applicant to do
this." Mark Poor, designer working with the applicant, said,1I This
is what we came up with at 11:00 this morning." Michael Angelastro
said that they can put up a second story but if they can't use it
for anything, he's not sure they would do it. Arthur Reade said
they are still operating within the 12.5% ratio. Linda Williams
asked," What more intensification are we going to have here? Julie
Fitzgerald said that there probably would be no more
intensification because this brings it up to the limit.
Robert Leichter motioned to grant relief requested Vlith the
condition that the expansion is no more thatn one story not to
exceed 24x36 SF and that the expansion meets all setback
requirements. There is no second dwelling is also a condition.
Linda Williams seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The Board for the next application lS Michael 0 I Mara, Robert
Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda Williams, and Michael Angelastro.
application no. 009-93/Nicholas Punnett/ Old North Hharf/ Reade
Michael Angelastro wanted it on the record that he has a relative
on the abutters' list. Attorney Arthur Reade represented the
appl icant. He said he would give the Board a summary. lIyou I ve
gotten $600 out of this episode, and $300 the last time", said Mr.
Reade. Glenn Franklin was present to speak. " I work for ~hnthrop.
There is an illegal widow's walk there already. What we are looking
at from winthrop's point of view is whether or not this can be a
precedent." He commented that this would block the view. l-1s.
Williams said she did not think any view of Hinthrop's would be
blocked in that it is all commercial property. liThe HDC has approved
this," said Dale Waine. He said this application is consistent ,\',lith
other single family dwellings being expanded upward. The question
is does this intensify the area? Chariman Dale Waine asked if
there was anyone else in the audience who wanted to speak. Robert
Leichter said the applicant has not come in to say he's going up
2 stories. Mr. Franklin said the height is pretty close to 30 feet.
It's a tall building.
Linda Williams said that there are 2 motions. Ms. Williams made the
first motion that the application does not intensify the
9
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
nonconformity. Robert Leichter seconded the motion. All voted in
favor.
Linda Williams made a second motion that this application would not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Michael
Angelastro seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
The Board for the next application is Michael Angelastro, Robert
Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda williams, and Ann Balas.
Application no. 010-93/ Francis/Frances Rooney/ Shimmo pond Road/
Reade was a request for relief by variance under ~ 139-32A from the
requirements for a second dwelling/apartment requirements and or
relief under 9 139-33A to allow the expansion and alteration of a
house which is nonconforming. Attorney Arthur Reade said the
applicant is nonconforming even though we are connected by a pre-
existing breezeway. Mr. Reade said the applicant is no where close
to the ground cover. The applicant is nonconfomring in that he is
connected by a breezeway and the lot is not zoned for this. The
nonconformity is not being altered in any respect. Hr. Reade said
that if the breezeway was not connected, we wouldn't be here.
Linda Williams read a letter from an abutter in which there is no
objection to the application.
Michael Angelastro made the motion to grant the relief in
accordance with the plans and Exhibit A. The motion was seconded
by Robert Leichter. All voted in favor.
Ann Balas made the motion to withdraw the request for Var iance
relief. Motion was seconded by Dale Waine. All voted in favor.
Application no. 011-93/ Arthur Broil, Jr. Baxter Road/ Kevin Dale.
was a request for relief by Special Permit undert ~139-16C (1) to
reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. The property
is located at 33 Baxter Road. Mr. Dale said that the house was
bought in 1991. The same surveyor discovered a descrepancy. Mr.
Dale said the reason there is a difference in the old flag plan in
Sconset. In the updated plan, the surveyor said that the old plan
is a matter of interpretation. Mr. Dale said the applicant bought
the property with the certificate of occupancy. There is a side
yard setback intrusion of .47 feet into the required 10 foot side
yard setback. Linda Williams said the special Permit is to reduce
to 5' the side yard setback. Ms. Williams asked if there are any
expansion plans? Mr. Dale said there is a plan to construct a
garage on the property that is in the works. Linda williams reads
the letters against the application. Hs. Williams said the author
of the letter has the idea they are building into the setback. Mr.
Cowan said the architect does support the validation.
Robert Leichter made the motion to validate what's there with no
10
Heeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
further building within the setback. Jeff Blackwell said he would
like to clear the name of the plan maker.
Linda Williams seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
The Board at this time is Michael Angelastro, Robert Leichter, Dale
Waine, Linda Williams, and Ann Balas.
Application no. 012-93/ Nancy Grellier/47 Starbuck Road was a
request for relief by Special Permit under s139-33A to allow the
alteration and extension of a house which is nonconforming. The
dwelling is nonconforming as to front and side yard setbacks and
is a residential use with less than the required minimum lot area.
Mellissa Philbrick was the attorney for the applicant. She said the
applicant wants to put on an addition. Ms. Philbrick said the house
was built in 1978-79. To the rear of the structure they are adding
10x14 addition. Ann Balas questions the setback.
Linda Williams moved to grant the relief. Robert Leichter seconded
the motion. All voted in favor.
Linda Williams made a
detrimental to the area.
voted in favor.
second motion that this is not more
Robert Leichter seconded the motion. All
Application no. 013-93/ Fath/ Fairchild/ Kellner/3 Naauma Lane
was a request for relief by Special Permit under ~139-7D and ~139-
30A to allow the construction of a tennis court. Helissa Philbrick
is the attorney for the applicant. The property is located at 3
Naauma Lane in the Sesachacha Pond area. The HDC has a condition
that the owners of the lot do not want to build a house. They vlant
to limit the density. This is an R2 zone and I submitted it as an
Lug 2 zone. make correction. The issue raised by the plannning
staff is how do you get a tennis court alone on a lot and this is
not more substantially more detrimental than putting a house on it.
Attorney Helissa Philbrick quotes from the zoning record that this
can be done. Michael Angelastro asked if these people can get
together and just say that they are a nonprofit organization. Ann
Balas asked how the court will be used? The court will be used by
the 3 owners. Ann Balas asked, " If I live on an adjoining lot can
I pay you $15 and play tennis?1I Attorney Philbrick ansvlered no.
They are holding this basically as open land. Attorney Philbrick
said that she is just trying to say that there are a lot of uses
that are permitted we could do it as a right. Ann Balas said that
she had an objection to calling it nonprofit. Hs. Philbrick said
that the word IInonprofitll is different from calling it
IIcharitablell. Ann Balas said she was not willing to grant this as
a nonprofit organization. Linda Williams said , "Hhy can't '('Ie say
its a not for profit club?" Ann Balas asked if the Board can't just
give this a Special Ppermit for a tennis court Vlithout a house?
11
Heeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, January 8,1993 at 1:00 p.m.
Linda Williams motioned to grant relief for the non-profit club.
The motion was seconded by Michael Angelastro. Voting against is
Ann Balas. Voting in favor is Robert Leichter, Michael Angelastro,
Dale Waine, and Linda Williams. The motion passed.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:31p.m.
Dale Waine, Chairman
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
12