Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-05 ry ... 7:0:: ,~ U--:;;I;'~....-:-r~J ,--.-- - - ----~~ ~ rrr~ CLA-L l(~ Ir ~~Y-o k~ .~ ~;c~ . waUtJ-. o-v ... ~ 2&14 . a . ~~ i\ . ... fJ~ Meeting of the zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town and County Building, Nantucket, MA 02554. The Board at this time is Robert Leichter, Dale waine, Ann Balas, Linda williams, and Michael Angelastro. Application no. 068-93/ Clover Development/ Cedar Grove/ Tillotson The subdivision approval for this application was challenged. Attorney Tillotson said that there is a trial date off island and hopefully we will be able to get going on the application soon. Dale Waine asked Mr. Tillotson if we have all the appropriate paper work. Spencer Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator, even if the trial date is Feb 17, there will be an appeal period and it will be April before we see it. Motion was made by Linda Williams to grant a continuance until April. Motion was seconded by Michael Angelastro. All voted in favor. Nancy Sevrens replaces Ann Balas on the Board. The Board at this time consists of Robert Leichter, Dale Waine, Nancy Sevrens, Linda Williams, and Michael Angelastro. Application no. 015-93/ Charles and Ann Balas/ Center Street/ Reade was a request for relief by special Permit to allow the alteration and extension of a home that is nonconforming as to side yard setback and it is a commercial use in a residential district. This application involves the Anchor Inn which is a guest house on the island. The existing building is sited 1.5 feet from the side lot line to the north. The required distance is 5 feet. An addition to the house will expand the living quarters. This is a small residence occupied by the Balases. Proposal is to enlarge the small residence so that there is more livable space. Some of the addition will be within the required setback area, 2.1 feet from the northerly side lot line. Attorney Reade said that he would put the plans up on the board so the Board could see them. Linda williams and Dale Waine go over the plans. The plot plan shows the existing location and also the elevation we are dealing with and the nonconformi ty. The lodging house ( Anchor Inn) is nonconforming. Mr. Reade said there is no front yard setback to speak of. He said there are a couple of points where the setback is as little as 1.5 feet. The overall height of the Anchor Inn is 30'. Mr. Reade went over the plans. The HDC gave its approval of the plans. He submitted a letter from Pat Butler with copies. Mr. Cowan said that he did receive a letter from Pat Butler. Mr. Reade gave a history of the house. It was built in 1806 and is in the old historic district. Obviously, the historical significance is great said Mr. Reade. " At this point," said Mr. Reade, " I'll ask Charles Balas and David Bentley, the architect, to walk through the plans." Michael Angelastro asked the Balases if there was any information that they could provide for us that Mr. Reade hadn't already given the Board ? Mr. Balas said there would be no additional living use. Linda Williams asked if there would be any Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. owner/manager use. Arthur Reade said any expansion would require a parking waiver. The applicants request relief under 9 139-18B from the parking requirements of 9 139-18D. Mr. Reade said that no additional spaces are required as a result of the proposed alterations. We do not require any more for existing use but this is the bylaw. Mr. Reade said that 10 years ago they were given waiver for parking when they added to the guest house. Attorney Reade said that 7 spaces are needed. The computation works out the same as it is now. Robert Leichter said most of these people don't bring cars. Charles Balas said that his application for parking permits is going down. Mr. Balas said he did not encourage guests to bring cars. They are not asking for more parking spaces. Ms. Sevrens said that she has read this thing about setbacks and felt that the more detrimental purpose of the setback is not necessarily aesthetic but to increase the exposure to areas for public safety. Linda Williams said this is already 1.5' so this is a mote point. David Bentley said this is not going to have people trying to get out. Robert Leichter said the building code will require new construction to meet the requirements. I'm doing the landscaping next door so there would be full access said Martin McGowen. Linda Williams said most of the neighbors have been contacted by the Balases. " We have had several calls from Mr. Heddon. I would be remiss if I did not say that." Mr. Cowan said the major concern was the size of the lot area. If the plans over 50% they would need additional relief. Mr. Heddon said his house is 86' away. Linda Williams said that his question was if he expanded could he violate his setback? Linda Williams said there was no Planning Board recommendation. Linda Williams motioned to approve relief in accordance with the plans. The motion was seconded by Robert Leichter. Exhibit A is on file with the Board of Appeals. The motion is subj ect to the following conditions: 1. Waive of 7 parking spaces. 2. No commercial use of the addition. It is for the use of the owner/manager only. All voted in favor. The Board is now Nancy Sevrens, Robert Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda Williams, and Ann Balas. Application no. 016-93/ Nantucket Bank/ Sandcastle/ Bartlett Road Newman was a request for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-9B (2) (a) , (b) and (c) and 139-30A to allow the use of the premises for light manufacturing, storage and warehousing. Mr. Newman was present to speak and discussed the plan at the blackboard. Nancy Sevrens asked what off-site exactly means. Ms. Sevrens asked, "Does that mean saws and noisy machinery?" Ms. Sevrens said she had one more question about open storage. She wondered if in that kind of a business insulation is blowing around and what would you do to reassure the neighborhood? Is the outside storage higher than the 2 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. fence? " In terms of your impact as a commercial place," asked Ms. Sevrens, "will there be heavy trucks or light trucks? Your storage is not going to be covered, not right now?" Dale Waine, Chairman asked if anyone in the room had anything to say for the application or against. Linda Williams said there are a lot of neighbors here who want to speak. Howard Faria was present and asked if the Board could read his letter. Linda Williams read the letter which said he opposed any relief in the form of variances or special permits as the neighbors are worried about the area becoming an industrial park. The letter stated that there are other areas available. Linda Williams also read a letter by Barbara Colliander in opposition. The points of concern by Ms. Colliander were that there be a buffer of land separating the buildings from the residential homes, adequate noise control and working hour restrictions such as no weekend or evening hours. Another control is no hazzardous wastes or materials allowed. No construction on the site, and the driveway paved. Dale Waine asked what is the length of the driveway? Another letter from Fran Purcell Brownell was read in which she asked that attention be paid to the necessity for screening and fencing for aesthetic value, security, and child protection, noise control, fabrication restrictions, and working hours restrictions. Mr. Faria was also upset that this might create a domino effect and ruin the neighborhood. Another letter was read by Linda Williams written by Edward Tucker and Ann Farber which requested restrictions._penny star was present to speak and she said that basically her concern is same as the ones who have written letters. She wanted the Board to put resttictions on what the driveway is made of and the size of the trucks. Ms. Star said this is not far from her driveway. Ms. Star said that hazardous materials would have to have restrictions. An abutter at 62 Bartlett Road, Sandy Olney, said that she just wanted to make sure that John Newman gets no more than others with the same type of application get. "Noise is my concern," said Ms. Olney. Mr. Faria said the property has not been purchased yet. Linda Williams said the Board did not want to revert back to the two. Dale Waine said it is important to realize that this is something that hasn't happened yet and we should put restrictions on now. Mr. Waine said that one of the concerns that I have is that there might be construction projects that go on outside of the building itself. At this point the applicant brought the plans before the Board and Mr. Waine said," If anyone would like to come up and see what is really going on as we go over this, they may." Ann Balas said she would like to see what the applicant has in mind as far as restrictions. What are you recommending for your hours? Linda Williams asked if the building is going to be sound proof? Mr. Newman asked," What does that mean?" Ann Balas asked about the screening, noise, hours of occupation. Linda Williams asked about maintaining the natural vegetation. She said if you cut into it, you replace it. Dale Waine said the prevailing winds will be from the southwest. There will be a gravel road for 300 feet. Ms. Williams said she would_like to see 3 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. some requirements for the road. She would like to see a stabilized hard surface. Ann Balas said, "What about the storage that was asked about?" Ms. Williams also inquired about the fence? Yes said Mr. Newman , there would be a fence. Dale Waine asked how many trucks there would be? Mr. Newman asked if that meant including our employees? Linda Williams said," How many do you own?" 3 was the answer. The points of concern so far were: hours, vegetation, driveway, storage area, number of trucks, noise, fence, maximum height, buffer on storage side, vegetation, soundproofing, no commercial use on Sunday and hours 7a.m.-10p.m. for interior work. Nancy Sevrens said," Litter is going to blow off those trucks, I can tell you right now." Upright cedars will do more than hide it, it will cut the noise . Mr. Newman said he would like to keep the cost down for us. The landscaper suggested that Mr. Newman ask if someone will split the cost with him. The landscaper said that he was trying to buy thousands of cedars and it is not available. First of all you are heavily treed. There could be a little privit but there will be more dead trees. If someone is going to cut the driveway anyway, why not let the pine trees die. They will reproduce themselves. If you will apply fertilizer, you will have a better product than what you are asking for with planting shrubs. The new pine trees will come up thicker. Dale Waine asked if the Board should have a requirement that the vegetation more dense. Robert Leichter said," Someone could put a house there and we wouldn't even be here." Nancy Sevrens said," We are talking about commercial use. These neighbors, much to their regret, have ended up in a commercial area so what are you going to do to eliminate the problems?" Mr. Newman said his employees were probably not going to be there more than 8a.m.-5p.m. anyway. Linda Williams asked if the Board is not dealing with interior hours? Ms. Williams said ,"My point is that the first time we dealt with this, we made the applicant sound proof the building and vent it. They had to leave the windows up with no loud noise." Dale Waine said to sound proof it by not opening the windows is not soundproofing. Mr. Waine said we have a neighbor who is very close so we want to do everything possible to eliminate the noise. The landscaper present said that arrow wood vibernum or equivalent is recommended. He said it grows to a huge height around 70 feet. Motion was made by Linda Williams to grant the relief with the following conditions: 1. The driveway shall be an improved hardpacked surface, not gravel or unimproved dirt. 2. There will be a security fence of the maximum height allowed. 3. Driveway shall be sited around the northeasterly lot line beginning 125 feet from Bartlett Road with a 5 foot wide buffer zone. 4. Any and all hazardous materials stored on the site will be in accordance with Federal, State, local regulations. 4 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. 5. Hours of operation of commercial activity on the premises will be between 7:30a.m. and 6:00p.m. Interior work can be done from 7a.m. -10p.m. 6. No commercial activity on the premises on Sunday. 7. Soundproofing shall consist of sound-deadening wallboard and shall be vented, and, if necessary, air-conditioned to allow use of the premises without opening the windows. 8. The owner shall plant and. maintain a dense vegetation screen not less than 170 feet in length along the southwesterly lot line beginning at 125 feet from Bartlett Road. 9. No major vehicle maintenance on the premises. Robert Leichter seconded the motion. Ann Balas asked about the trucks to be used and the no maj or vehicle maintenance. Nancy Sevrens asked if this means that this is an architectural office and carpentry shop. Spencer Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator said the use is a matter of right unless you put it in the decision to the contrary . Linda Williams said that the Board has asked applicants to do this. All voted in favor. The Board now consists of Michael Angelastro, Robert Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda Williams and Ann Balas. Application no. 017-93/ Pacific National Bank/ Rowland / Commercial Wharff Self was a request for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-18B,139-20C, and 139-33A to allow alteration of and a change of use in a structure which is said to be nonconforming. The building is currently a residential use on a lot with less than the required minimum lot area, containing 3,310SF. A minimum lot area of 5,000 SF is required. Mr. Rowland was present to speak on his own behalf. He said that there is parking available on the street. Ann Balas wanted to clarify that his request is for 2 parking spaces. Linda Williams said no, that what Mr. Rowland wanted is 3 parking spaces? He is allowed one space. A letter was read from his current landlord who said Mr. Rowland is a great. Mr. Cowan said he has until April 1 for the loading area. Mr. Cowan said the use on the lot is a residential use. Attorney Kevin Dale said the Board should consider this a Goldhearst finding. Mr. Dale is not representing Mr. Rowland but he added his legal opinion. Ann Balas saidd she thought the applicant was allowed one use at a time, either residential or office. She added that this is a congested area. Michael Angelastro said that he would like to see whatever is created as parking on the plans. Motion was made by Linda Williams to grant a waiver of 3 out of the 4 parking spaces and relief on the loading area under 9139-33A. Mr. Cowan said the Board could grant relief either way. Ms. williams 5 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. said it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. She said she felt it would enhance the area. Michael Angelastro seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Application no.018-93/ Edward Coffin/ McGowen/ Somerset Road/ Self was a request to operate a landscaping business. ' It calls for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-9B(2) (a) , (b) and (c) and 139- 30A to allow use of the premises for light manufacturing, storage and warehousing. The relief would also alow open storage of goods properly screened and the fabrication and assembly of component parts for off-site construction or use. Ann Balas disclosed she might have a conflict. Mr. McGowen has a business in Sconset. He said he goes out of his way to keep my neighbors happy. I have my grandparents on one side and a young family on the other. He said he usually works from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m. 7 days a week. Mr. Cowan said the Planning Board used the original figures in the area calculation and this was wrong. The figures say 2192 SF instead 3850SF of interior. 4750SF is the total. It does not come under major commercial. Robert Leichter suggested the Board say it shall be under so many square feet. Dale Waine asked what kind of business is this? Mr. McGowen said that he has mainly small Toyota trucks. He works 40 hours a week and no more. He said he keeps the trucks at my place. This is completely private. Dale Waine asked what kind of noise would the business make. Mr. McGowen said there no major maintenance of vehicles. Dale Waine asked if is this is Mr. McGowen's residence? He answered yes, that it was. Ann Balas said outlined the use of the area saying he would be living there and would have a residence, shed, private office , shed , and storage. Ms. Balas asked if there would be no tenants on this site? Mr. McGowen answered that there would not be. A woman, an abutter in the audience, said that her main concern was insectisides and pesticides. The hours of operation are 7:30a.m.-6p.m. for exterior work. Nancy Sevrens said this location may be a carpentry shop in 3 years and then what? Mr. Cowan said that the Board could impose this is for a landscape business in the decision, if the Board so desired. Linda Williams motioned to grant relief with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a security fence to the maximum height allowed. 2. All hazardous materials will be stored on site according to all State, Federal, and local laws. 3. Hours of operation are from 7:30a.m. to 6:00p.m. for exterior work. 4. Dense vegetative screening. 5. No major maintenace of equipment. 6. Commercial use shall be limited to landscaping business without possibility of change without coming back to this Board. Robert Leichter seconded the motion. All voted in favor. 6 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. The Board is now william Hourihan, Robert Leichter, Dale Waine, Linda Williams and Ann Balas. Application no. 19-93/ Stephens/ Sound View Rt/ Eel Point Road/ Dale was a request for relief by Variance under 9139-32A from requirements of 9 139-16A. Attorney Kevin Dale represented the applicant and said this was a technical setback violation and the intensity regulations. Ms. Williams said Mr. Stephens' property did not have any nonconformities. Attorney Dale said that the fact that the Board forgave Ware (another application)means the Board should forgive Stephens. Dale Waine said that he didn't have any problem with this. He asked if there is a motion. Robert Leichter made the motion based on topography and previous finding of the Board that we grant the relief. Bill Hourihan seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Kevin Dale said, " For the record, we are not here to take advantage of the Board." Sitting on the Board at this time are Michael Angelastro, Ann Balas, Nancy Sevrens, Linda Williams. Application no. 20-93/ Allan and Harriet Fox/ Greenleaf Road/ Reade On this application there was a request for a continuance to allow for a 5 member Board. It was suggested that the application be moved to April 13,1993, Tuesday meeting. Linda Williams motioned to grant a continuance. Motion was seconded by Michael Angelastro. All voted in favor. Application no. 21-93/ Malcolm and Marv Kay Condon/ Oranqe Street/ Attorney Arthur Reade represented the applicant and asked to continue this application until the next meeting, March 5,1993. Linda Williams made the motion. Dale Waine seconded the motion. All voted in favor, Michael Angelastro, Linda Williams, Dale Waine, and Nancy Sevrens. The Board for the next application is William Hourihan, Michael Angelastro, Linda williams, Dale Waine, and Ann Balas. Application no. 22-93/ Dalton et all Baxter Road/ Reade was a request for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-30A and 9 139-33A to allow the alteration of an existing single family dwelling which is said to be nonconforming. The premises are in violation of the front and side yard setbacks, and the overall ground cover ratio on the lot is 29.2% or 2,2223 SF. This is over the 1500 SF allowed. Attorney Arthur Reade represented the applicant. The property is located at 72 Baxter Road. Mr. Reade said this would be a simple matter if the law had not changed. In 1973, the Daltons obtained a Varinace from the zoning Board but the 7 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. Bylaw has changed since then. In a 1973 decision, the Board granted a request with the conditions that there be no exterior storage of building materials and no additional structural improvement. Mr. Reade said "We're concerned with the language that exists at the present time in the Decision." In the present Decision in the existing Variance, granted in zoning Board of Appeals file number no. 029-73 which reads as follows," that no additional structural improvement of any kind be allowed on the land of the petitioner." Mr. Reade said that what is on the lot exceeds the ground cover. The existing house is sited 14.9feet from the front lot line where it should be 30 feet as required. It is situated 6.0 feet from the southern lot line and 3.4 feet from the northern lot line~ Mr. Reade said the property was rezoned to R2 in the 80's and what the new buyer proposes to do at the present time is that there would be no increase in any of the setbacks but there would be changes in the roof line. There would be no second floor. The house would be maintained as a single story. Neil Parish is the designer of the house. The alteration would combine the house and the garage. This change would improve the garage which is in even worse condition than the house. Mr. Reade said if the relief is granted it saves the applicant from coming back in for a Special Permit to demolish the garage and rebuild, maintaining required setback. Mr. Reade said he was not asking for that at the present time but instead was asking to modify the condition in the old 1972 Variance without application to this Board. Spencer Cowan, zoning Board Administrator, said if the Decision were straight "Goldfinch" (a previous application) the Board would have no problem with it. Ann Balas said she wanted it noted in the Decision what the height is because this is on the cliff. Linda Williams read a letter in opposition. Mr. Reade said he has spoken to Mr. Rudick and his only concern is if we have to come back before the Board a second time. Mr. Reade asked if there were any further questions. Michael Angelastro asked why this had a condition in the first place? Attorney Reade said 1500 SF is the maximum ground cover allowed. He said ground cover was fixed at 20%. Mr. Reade said the new area will be used to keep furniture. He read the old Decision which stated that there be no addi tonal structural improvement. Dale Waine asked if there is anyone here to speak for or against? There was no response. Linda Williams motioned to grant the relief. The motion was to allow the modification and allow the alteration. Mr. Cowan suggested that the Board modify the " no additional structural improvements without coming before the Board" statement. Motion was seconded by William Hourihan. All voted in favor. Linda Williams made a second motion to find that the alteration is not intensifying . Motion was seconded. All voted in favor~ Application no. 23-93/ Edward and Margaret Phillips/ Hulbert 8 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 5,1993 at 1:00p.m. Avenue/ Fitzqerald This was a request for relief by Special Permit under 9 139-33A to allow the alteration and extension of a dwelling which is said to be nonconforming as to the side yard setbacks. Attorney Julie Fitzgerald said the house is sited 3 feet from the southern side lot line and 4 feet from the lot line abutting James Street where a 5 foot side yard setback is required. "We are here because the house does not conform to the setback requirements." Ann Balas asked if the applicant is changing the foot print. Ms. Fitzgerald said that no, they were not changing the footprint. Ms. Fitzgerald said they want to be able to make the beds. In order to do this they need to raise the roof. They are reducing the bedrooms changing from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Motion was made by Linda Williams to grant the relief requested. Included is Exhibit A subject to the HDC plans submitted. The property is found not to be intensifying the existing nonconformity or adding any new nonconformities. William Hourihan seconded the motion. All voted in favor. There being no further business before the Board, meeting adjourned at 3:35p.m. Dale Waine, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals 9