Loading...
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