Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-12Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds road 0 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www nantucket -ma. eov RECEIVED Commissioners: Ed Toole (Chair), Lis. Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), MiZifIE6 1 44eri4 i4s.2sm,Wk Poor, Michael Angelastro, Geoff Thayer --- MINUTES -- 1ANTUCI(ET TOWN CLEP,n Thursday, December 12, 2013 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room -1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:10 p.m Staff in attendance: Leslie Snell, ZBA Interim Administrator; Eleanor W. Antonietti, Land Use Specialist; K Bradford, Interim Agenda adopted as amended by unanimous consent I. October 10 & November 14 - Motion to Approve as written (made by: Poor) (seconded by: Botticelli) Carried unanimously ZBA Minutes Taker Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer, O'Mara Absent Members: McCarthy, Angelastro Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: None Agenda adopted as amended by unanimous consent I. October 10 & November 14 - Motion to Approve as written (made by: Poor) (seconded by: Botticelli) Carried unanimously Page 1 of 11 OLDBUSINESS 1. 028 -11 Industry Road Trust/Reis Tracking 10 Industry Road Myles Reis, Jr. Determination of compliance with height requirements for C & D building. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Poor, O'Mara Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Charles O'Neil, Operation Manger for Reis Trucking- Explained to board that because they use an excavator that needed to be stored in the building, they needed a building with a high ceiling clew mce. During the planning stages, they came to the ZBA asking for a variance, based on the drawings they had at the time. The building was built exactly as expected. They are now in the process of applying for a CO for the building and had an as -built drawn up which shows that the highest point of the building is 0.97% higher than the original plan. While applying for a CO, they were advised that the +/- tolerance is actually a +/0 tolerance, and now the request for the CO is frown. Also, in addition, the manufacturer for the building didn't take into account the trim for the height, and this wasn't included in the original plans. Explained that his understanding of the +/- tolerance is that if there is a tolerance on a 40' building, for example 40' + / -, that would mean it could be 40', and not to exceed 41'. Meaning that the +/- tolerance implies, just below the next foot increment. Further stated that the intent was not to make it 1 /I0P higher than it was suppose to be. Public NONE Page 1 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Concerns (1: 12) Discussion about the +/- tolerance. Toole — Agrees the rake wasn't taken into account. It seems that the board needs to have a discussion about the +/- tolerance, to omit confusion from Marcus. Believes that Mr. O'Neil's interpretation is reasonable. Botticelli — Doesn't have a problem with the height issue. Wants to check something on the map showing the average mean grade calculation that appears to be in error— showing 39.5 + 39.6 + 38.5 when on the south side, it's actually 39.5 — so that'sjust going to change that 41.3 to a different figure. Wanted to make sure we have that figure correct. Or else the figure is maybe incorrectly typed in and it is 39.5. Just wants to make sure we're voting on the right thing, since we don't have + / -. Inquired as to how much +/- can you be. Toole — Thinks the intention of the board is not + or-, you can be below it, not above it. Confirmed that calculation of41.3 is correct and that there was just a" that Botticelli mentioned. O'Mara — Thinks the +/- tolerance is to allow for a height on the ( +) side. Snell — Recommends voting that the building was built in compliance with the plans and that the board recommend that a CO be issued to the applicant, and in the event that the Zoning Officer will not accept that, a temporary CO be granted until that applicant can come back for a public hearing. They need to open for business and it would be unfair to hold them up for this. The intent of today's meeting was for the board to make a decision, or not, that the final condition, met the instructions of the decision. Confirmed she believes that it does. Further stated that she doesn't feel the discussion about clarifying +/- tolerance was appropriate for this application, as that is not what they are here for today. Toole — Agreed and asked if there was any further discussion. Motion Motion to Suggest that CO be issued or a temporary CO be issued in the meantime until a public hearing can be held if necessary. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously - Further discussion by the board about +/- tolerance and determining with future decisions, the necessity to be more specific to avoid vagueness. 2. 023 -13 Bridget Bloise Smith 10C Thirty Acres lane Smith CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2014 3. 040 -13 Todd and Kathleen Manning 4 A Street J. Glidden CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2014 4. 047 -13 Charles and Susan Dragon 23 Friendship Lane Bailey CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2014 5. 064 -13 William F. Hooter, as Trustee of The 1908 Realty Trust 47 Monetary Road Alger CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2014 6. 069 -13 John McDermott and Victoria McManus 14 Wood Hollow Road Norton CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2014 Concerns Toole —Noted that most if not all applications that are being continued to January 9, 2014, action deadlines are coming up and recommends the board grant extensions that the staff can allow if necessary. Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Botticelli) Vote Carried unanimously Page 2 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Page 3 of 11 Ill. NEW BUSINESS Lee A. MacLeod 27 Meadow View Drive McLeod 7. 082 -13 Requests Special Permit relief, to validate the siting of an existing deck, by reducing the rear yard setback requirement from 10 feet to 9.47 feet. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Poor, O'Mara Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Lee A. Macleod, owner — Stated previous owner of 27 Meadow View (hive constructed a deck without a permit, and is 9.47 feet from the setback line. She is requesting variance relief for this. Confirmed she did not know about the violation when she bought the house. Jahn MacLeod, owner —Stated they were under the impression that the house did have a CO. Said previous owner didn't get the CO because she was 6" from the setback. Continued to state the deck is about 10 years old. Stated the previous owner did have a permit, but she just went a little too far on the deck. The Special Permit relief request was suggested by the building department. Public None Concerns (1:25) Discussion about how the previous owner was denied a CO. Toole —The house had a building permit, but the deck did not. There was also not an HOC approval for the deck. Asked ZBA Administrator for clarification about permit requests for the deck. Snell — States she is not aware of any other building permits, but confmns she did not do any extensive research into the building file. Botticelli — States she is looking at a plot plan from 1999 that does not show the deck. Confirms that in 2002 there is an as -built showing the deck which suggests that the deck wasn't part of the original building permit card or the original plan, and that the deck must have been added at a later time. Snell — stated that the applicant was applying for a variance, when in fact it is special permit relief. Toole - Expresses concern about dotting I's and crossing T's by going to the HDC for approval and applying for a building permit. Concludes that this is an odd situation where there was no permission to do any of this. Botticelli — States that they can only bless the intrusion and not the fact that they don't have any of the other approvals in place. Snell — They would have to get approval from the ZBA for the setback intrusion, they would have to get an as -built approval from the HDC, assuming there is not an approval already, and they could get some kind of after - the -fact building permit with an as -built and get it inspected Botticelli — Suggested that it would be okay to issue an approval from the ZBA and that way they can move forward with applying for approvals from the other divisions. Toole — Doesn't think that they have dealt with anything like this where they built without any permit, and then come asking for relief. Poor— Suggests that they continue this matter to the next meeting and give the applicants the opportunity to apply to the HDC, get then approval, and apply for a building permit. He'd feel more comfortable if they had HDC approval on the project, at the least. Toole— Thinks he would prefer to not grant relief in anticipation of HDC approval. O'Mara — Questions if they never got this permitted, they can't be behind the ten (10) year statute. Poor — Confirms they can't be behind the ten (10) year statute. O'Mara — Inquires the board as to what they think about issuing a Special Permit on HDC condition. Snell — Informs the chairman that they cannot condition thew approval dependant on the approval of another board. Koseatac — Questions the applicant as to why they didn't do the research necessary prior to purchasing the house to make sure there were no outstanding building permits. Botticelli — Asks can't they approve the 9.47 setback relief for the deck only so they can't put anything else there. Toole — Confums that would be all they are doing. Confirms the board doesn't have an issue with the violation, it's more of a problem with the way the process is happening. He would want it to be a part of the decision that the board is not giving anyone a free ride from participating in activity without including the HDC. Koseatac — States that he is totally fine voting for this, but doesn't want to set precedence for applicants in the future to reference this, and there's got to be a note in the decision for him to vote in favor of it Motion Motion to Approve the special permit relief for only the intrusion for that particular deck, and not changing the rear backyard setback across the property line. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried; 1 opposed (Poor) Page 3 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 B. 083 -13 Preserve ACK, LLC 15 Meader Street Alger Requests Special Permit relief to alter and extend a pre - existing nonconforming use by converting five dwelling units into four condominium units. Applicant also seeks relief to validate non-confirming setbacks, ground cover, and driveway access. To the extent necessary, Applicant also seeks Special Permit relief to waive the parking requirement. Sitting Toole, Koseatac, Poor, O'Mara, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah F. Alger, Esq., Sarah F. Alger, P.C. — Announces her presence with Terry Sanford, Principal of Reserve ACK. LLC. Proposes a revised site plan to present to the board and delivers. Proposes a Special Permit to alter and extend a pre - existing nonconforming use, and pre- existing non - conforming structure at the location. Property is currently improved by five (5) structures; four (4) of which are official dwelling units, and one (1) unit that does not have a kitchen unit but has historically been used for living. Property has nine (9) bedrooms and has primarily been used as an employer dormitory type of arrangement with a lot of overcrowding and over -use. Proposes demolishing three (3) of the five (5) structures and rebuilding two (2) of them. Remodel and renovate the other two (2), totaling four (4) single family dwellings. The property will remain conforming and they will be bringing the building in to meet the ten (10) foot setback on the SE comer, a 5.5 setback on the side yard, and 8.6 feet in the rear yard. The only remaining nonconformity would be on the SW comer where there would be a three (3) foot setback in the front yard. Plan would reduce the ground cover to 300/6, which is the requirement, reducing the intensity of use and reducing the amount of non - conformities. Alger also proposes relief for curb cut and relief to waive the parking requirements due to the new parking plan of four (4) side by side spaces. Alger confirms that her understanding that the non - permitted non - conforming use of the unit that has no kitchen, has historically been used as living space prior to 1972. They are currently working with the Conservation Commission in regards to reducing the flooding issues in the area by removing the asphalt, reducing the footprint, and with pile /crawl space foundations. Alger states that the properties will be marketed to a different clientele, where the resident only wants to bring one (1) car to the island or no car at all. Public Brian Legg, abutter at 46 Union Street — Concerned that the setback needs to be taken into consideration and that the parking is definitely an issue. Concerned that eight (8) bedrooms leaves the potential of eight (8) cars being parked there. Concerned that if the grade is changed, there is a flooding problem that will only get worse. Paul Belanger, abutter — Concerned that they are making the parking space smaller, as there are more spots than the four (4) proposed. The tenants have historically parked in surrounding neighbors driveways and it continues to be an issue. Concerns (1:51) O'Mara — Clarifies that the request for the curb cut is being asked to be blessed by the Board. Requests clarification on if these are two (2) story structures. Toole — Comments that arguably we would be increasing the intensity of use by buildings having living space on a second' /, story. O'Mara — Comments that arguably the drainage could get better. Koseame — Confirms the proposed calendar for doing the work — to not happen during the summer. O'Mara — Feels like this is conforming more than the original non - conforming and it is better. Toole — Feels the parking will continue to be an issue. Poor — Feels the parking is as minimal as it can get to service this property. Feels there appears to be room if the curb cut was granted to let them stack two (2) parking spaces on the south of the building closest to the road. Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested according to the new site plan, including the grades will not be changed, no water runoff onto the other properties, and that they provide six (6) parking spaces, two (2) of which will be stacked, and relief for the requested curb cut (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Roseanne) Vote Carried unanimously * A person of the public (Dr. Mindy Levine) requests to make a comment on an application out of order due to her work schedule and pending appointment for a patient. After the board checks with the applicants before them on the agenda, the board unanimously votes to move 086 -13 application up on the agenda to be heard immediately next 9. 086 -13 Rebecca Mosinger a/k/a Moesinger 45 Surfside Road Brescber /Glidden Requests Special Permit relief to renovate the existing structure to create a take -out food establishment and bakery, with a two- bedroom apartment intended for employee housing. Applicant requests additional relief to waive six (6) parking spaces. Applicant is also requesting Minor Site Plan Review and, to the extent necessary, is requesting waivers of the content of the site plan. Sitting Toole, Kosemac, Boticelli, O'Mara, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 4 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Representing Paul Santos, Nanmcket Surveyors — Hands out packets to the board. Explains packet to include aerial view, view from Surfside Road, three (3) architectural plans of elevation and floor plans and a proposal of the plans that have been approved by the HDC. The allocation of windows & doorways change and the majority of the work takes place in the existing structure. Shares the history of the building as a former health club, church, and employee housing for Waste Options Nantucket, LLC which allowed seven (7) vehicles. The property then went into foreclosure before it was acquired by the current owner. Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief, to use as a bakery, take -out food establishment and employee apartment housing. They are in compliance with the rear, front and side yard setbacks. Existing ground cover is 24.4 %, and there is no change proposed for the ground cover of the building. The open space for commercial use requirement is 20 %, the proposal is in excess of that requirement. A take -out business is allowed by Special Permit in the RC -2, and a bakery is allowed both by Special Permit and as an accessory use. The take -out food establishment requires five (5) spaces per station, they are proposing one (1) space for the take -out station and few (4) spaces for each sit down station, which totals sixteen (16) seats total. The apartment requires one (1) parking space per bedroom, totaling two (2) spaces for the apartment and employee parking requirement is one (1) spacer for every three (3) employees during peak operating shift. Total required parking spaces for the proposal would be twelve (12), and the applicant proposes six (6) spaces, one (1) of which is a handicap /van accessible space. Applicant is adjacent to the Bartlett/Surfside Roads intersection, when a potential proposed rotary may later be developed, and the applicant has written a letter to the Town of Nantucket regarding her interest in acquiring a part of that land, to further develop more parking spaces, and create a better traffic flow along the existing site. Concluded that this application does stand alone but wanted to note the applicant's willingness to expand the property in the future. Requests also minor site plan review as they are in the public wellhead recharge protection district, so any type of improvement to the parking component would need a sign off with the Wannacomet Water Company in regards to drainage. Existing site is presently screened with a privet hedge m the properties located to the south and natural vegetation on all other sides. Confmns loading zone will be used in off -peak hours with the parking area is not in use. Confirms that the 56' feet alongside the Levine property would not be an issue at all. States that rubbish removal would be similar to that of a residential pickup and a daily happening. Public Dr. Mindy Levine, abutter — Concerned the last time the property was transferred that there was suppose to be a privet hedge between her property and the applicants property that was never installed. Personally doesn't feel that five (5) spaces is enough for a take -out, apartment and delivery space. Commented the parking space determination was made for the previous tenant was because the tenants all worked for the DPW and didn't live on island so they were all carpooling together. Confirmed that the screening was not in response to congregating and that she was required to screening in all around her property and that the applicants property was required as a continuation of her screening— and the privet hedge there all but that one spot. Questions if the parking is enough if the employee /tenant is home but not working, and then the other employees come to work, and then the customers need places to park. Gail Sharretts, abutter 32 Surfside Road — Stated that there were fifteen (15) can in the lot every night when the building was used for housing for the Waste Options employees. Feels like this is a lot of congestion in this area, for this kind of business, and doesn't feel good about trucks backing in and out as the area is very dense over there. States there is potential for four (4) people to live in the two (2) bedroom apartment and then the business traffic, and just doesn't agree with the application. Shirley Cabral, abutter Bartlett's Road — Agrees with the previous abutter regarding upstairs apartment capacity and allowance of cars allowed. Raises concern regarding three employees working and no guarantee that they will carpool every day. States that the area is very congested and would like to know how the commercial rucking companies to deliver before working hours and/or after hours — and if we are going to have rucks coming in after hours that this is only going to make it noisier and more congested. She raises the concern about where rash will be stored, and smells associated with cooking and suggests that there is a scrubber in the exhaust system to eliminate the horrible odor created by something that is burnt, etc. Feels this is a poorly thought out use for the property and that it is unsafe regarding the school children and other residents using the bike path. Concerns (2:18) Koseatae — Confirm that the applicant is required to have twelve (12) parking spaces, and that they me only proposing six (6). Questioned what the parking space number was before. Toole — Feels that there may be a request for additional screening. Feels there's not a lot of support for this application. O'Mara — Sees a problem with the loading area. The truck will either have to back in or back out of the loading zone, over the bike path onto Surfside Road. Feels the same would pertain to the rubbish removal. Koseatac — Feels there's no way to really enforce the delivery schedule, etc. Toole — Doesn't feel that there is a lot of support for the present application. O'Mara — Feels any kind of food component is going to be difficult— thinks it should be mixed use. Toole — Applicant has requested continuance to January 9 meeting. Snell — The continuation to January 9 meeting would entail this application and this kind of use. If the applicant were to come forward with a new proposal, they will have to modify the application and we will have to re- notice and re- advertise and go through that process again. Page 5 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Motion Continuance Requested on behalf of the applicant Motion to Approve continuance. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Botticelli) Vote Carried unanimously 10. 084 -13 Michael Lynch 58A Orange Street Alger Requests Special Permit relief to modify the relief granted by the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals in File No. 075 -13 to demolish the existing structure and to construct a new two -story residential structure that will be less non - confirming than the existing structure. Applicant also proposes minor changes to the shape of the lot. Sitting Toole, O'Mara, Koseatac, Botticelli, Thayer Documentation Representing File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Sanh F. Alger, Esq., Sarah F. Alger, P.C. — Explains that due to the strange shape of the lot, they are hoping to achieve a swap of land with a neighbor, although they are looking for approval from the board with or without the swap due to uncertainty of the abutters lender approving the swap. The lot is so small that the difference of the land being swapped is almost imperceptible. Proposes to demolish and reconstruct building to make it smaller. Without the swap there would be 3' on the North, 5' on the West, 3' on the South and .9' on the West, becoming significantly more conforming but not completely conforming. Obviously we are not conforming as to lot size. Ability to meet the rear yard setback is reduced by the swap. Pan of the proposal is to include a space where air conditioning sits on the ground and would like to put the air conditioning units about 8.5' below grade in the access way to the rear of the property that would be more than 3' but less than 5' from the property line. Confirms that they would agree to all requirements of the prior relief They would also agree to put a retaining wall alongside the Palleschi property, where there is a 4.5' grade difference. Confirms space will be livable for a `man cave'. Would like to leave the issue of dormers to the HDC. Could agree to no dormers on the Palleschi side. Public Marianne Hanley, Esq., Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP, counsel for Palleschi abutters at 67 Orange Street— States the Palleschi's are very happy that Mr. Lynch is demolishing the building that is there and that it will make the neighborhood look nicer. Confirms that the Palleschi's would like the swap to happen as it is better for setbacks, his driveway, and better for the applicant to access his property and get his work done. Confirms her client does want the retaining wall along the Westerly lot line. Requests that a requirement is that the ridge height does not exceed 29', and there not be dormers. Presents photos to the board that shows how close the properties are in each other. Concerned that they will not be notified by the HDC about dormers due to the sin, and have no way to keep track of it. Thinks the parties can work through the agreement in good faith about the dormers, but would still like a condition that there are no dormers along the westerly side, the ridge height wouldn't exceed 29', and the retaining wall would be placed on the Westerly boundary, my client would be happy with that as far as the ZBA is concemed. Confirms that she has not discussed AC units with her clients and that this is the first she's heard of it. Requests that the swap be approved as it is already being worked on. Concerns (2:54) Discussion about setbacks and previous approval. Botticelli — Noted that the stairs leading down should be included in the setback. Would like to see a plan that shows the window well going the entire length of the building. She would like to see a plan. Toole — Specifically recalls having this discussion last time about the window well and would like to see a plan. Confirms that Alger is looking for the board to bless both with and without the swap of land. Confirms that they would like to put the air conditioning in the setback, even though the last time they met the discussed at nauseam about not putting the AC in the setback. O'Mara — Asks if the neighbors have blessed the compressors in the setback. Botticelli — States you can't have a retaining wall on property over 4' without it being a structure. Asks for confirmation. Snell — Confirms a retaining wall that supports buildings, is a `structure' if over 4'. Toole — Inquires as to why the dormer issue can't be part of the swap agreement. O'Mara — Assumes the Palleschis agree to the AC 8' below grade. Toole — Confirms that the Board has been pretty consistent about not putting AC units in the setback. Thayer— Feels there is an issue with approving two (2) plans. Botticelli — Would like to see a new Exhibit A showing the 3' from the setback AC installation. Toole — Confirms with Alger that she will provide a new Exhibit A. Motion Motion to Approve as requested to include two (2) plans, restriction of dormer on the Westerly side, AC at 3' from the setback, ridge height approved at maximum 29' (NO +/- including shingles) and limited to seasonal construction. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously Bm45 %minuM. 11. 085 -13 Joseph W. Foley & Harris K. Doliner, as Applicant 8 Charter Street Beaudette Page 6 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Requests Special Permit relief, as well as Variance relief, to reduce the side yard setbacks. The proposed 40 square foot two - story addition to the west side of the dwelling will create new non-conformities with respect to the westerly side yard setback. Sitting Toole, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Rick Beaudette, Esq., Vaughan, Dale, Hander & Beaudette, P.C. — Proposes a 40 square foot addition to the westerly side, to move the downstairs powder room slightly to open up the downstairs living area and to expand the upstairs master bathroom. Requesting a variance because they are moving 5" closer to the side property line. States the Board can grant a Variance if the change will cause substantial hardship to the applicant. States the topography of the property drops off significantly in other areas where an addition may go causing a substantial financial hardship for the applicant as more funds would have to be appropriated for leveling the ground. Confirms this is the natural place to put this addition and that it is very minor and modest. Notes applicants sent a note to each direct abutter, and have since received two (2) responses wishing them luck and that they have no opposition to the design. Further states that if the lot was not the shape it is, they would not be requesting this Variance. Requests a continuance after hearing the Boards concerns. Public None. Concerns (3:42) Toole —Not sure he's convinced the standard for Variance relief has been met. Koseatac — Doesn't want to increase the non - conformities that are already there. Poor— Feels it doesn't meet the requirements. Reluctant to grant Variance. O'Mara — Confirmed there's no issue with growing the ground cover. Toole — Reluctant as the Board has been consistent on saying no. Thayer — Feels the same as the other Board members. Not sure the standard has been met. Motion Motion to continue. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously Bmtk�mleam -Room ¢Leduliepton0lp 12. 087 -13 Joseph A. Perry, Administrator of the Estate of David E. Perry et at, as Owner & Jeffrey Kaschuluk Trustee of 12 Bartlett Farm Road Realty Trust, as Applicant 12 & 12R Bartlett Road Reade Requests Special Permit relief, or in the alternative Variance relief, to create a lot with reduced frontage and without meeting the regularity factor requirements. Sitting Toole, Koseatac, O'Mara, Botticelli, Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Esq., Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP — House on property is in terrible condition and has been condemned by the Building Department. States house will be removed and that his Estate has plans to sell the property to Mr. Kaschuluk. Property abuts Bartlett Road and Thirty Acres Lane, which historically was owned by the Perry Family. Raises issue about 10' wide strip of land that was conveyed to neighbor to help them meet the condition needed for the subdivision roadway, in exchange for 12A Bartlett Road, but no rights were given to original owner at the time for access to Thirty Acres Lane, which did not exist at that time. Planning board approved an ANR plan with all the lots abutting Thirty Acres Lane, however there are no rights to use it, so that plan cannot be used. The property does have access to Bartlett Road and the property could potentially be subdivided into three (3) lots. These lots would be very narrow with fronting rights onto Bartlett Road. Proposes the frontage on Bartlett Road with ANR plan, and also Special Permit for the waiver of the third lot to be less than 20' of frontage. Proposes setting it up this way so that the three (3) lots have a single /shared driveway access. Also proposes a Variance from the regularity factor. Clarifies for the Public that they'd like to go out onto Thirty Acres Lane and have had conversations with the homeowners at Thirty Acres Lane which involves two (2) back lots coming out onto Thirty Acres Lane and the rest on Bartlett Road —those discussions and negotiations went nowhere. Conforms it is very clear at this time that they will not be able to get rights onto Thirty Acres Lane. Confirms there will be no mailboxes for the property. Comments he has worked with the applicant for a long time and doesn't know another developer who is more willing and happy to work and deal with neighbors on things, and will continue to stay in touch with the neighbors as he goes forward with the project. Jeff Kaschuluk, Applicant— Confirms there was dialogue with the homeowners of Thirty Acres Lane and all options are exhausted. Best situation they could figure out was two (2) lots on the backside by Thirty Acres Lane that would be restricted to residential only. There was a whole litany of conditions and expenses that made this "no dice ". Page 7 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Public Kevin Huyser, Abutter, 15 Bartlett Road— Wife, Rhonda and Ms. Cabral share his concern of safety. Very dangerous section of Bartlett Road, where cars reach thew top speed. Isn't sure there is a good reason as to why access can't go out onto Thirty Acres Lane. Asks if mailboxes could be on the opposite side. Shirley Cabral, Abutter, 13 Bartlett Road — States she lives directly across from the property being discussed. States she remembers the four (4) driveways that were originally there before the property swap happened. Questions as to why the driveways that existed before are no longer considered driveways. Requests the applicant goes back to the Thirty Acres Lane homeowners and ask again, to protect the school children going up and down that road. States that this is making more traffic congestion and interrupting the bike path that is supposed to be there for safety sake. Requests a meeting of the minds to cut out the traffic pouring out onto Bartlett Road. Thinks there needs to be some thought of safety as we're talking about three (3) new commercial buildings and possibly 10 -12 cars coming and going every day. Furthermore, she hopes that there would be some talk about vegetation/screening for the lots that are being put up on the Bartlett Road side. Questions why Thirty Acres Lane homeowners are objected to access on Thirty Acres Lane. Rhonda Huyser, Abutter, 15 Bartlett Road — Requests the board to consider the fact that if they do allow the easement, she will have commercial trucks coming in and out across the street from her house on a regular basis. Asks if there's any way the Board can require a speed bump be put in the driveway going onto the bike path. Concerns (3:54) Poor— Questions if Lot 3 is the commercial lot Confirms that all lots will be commercial with possible residential activity. Toole — Clarifies that they could do an ANR plan and get three (3) skinny lots anyway and arguably would have three (3) entrances on to Bartlett Road. Clarifies what is being proposed is shared. Koseatac — Confirms what is being proposed is the lesser of the two evils. Questions if all avenues with Thirty Acres Lane homeowners have been exhausted. O'Mara — States to the Public that the Applicant can go directly to the Planning Board with three (3) ANR's and have three (3) driveways, and there's nothing they can do about it. Just wants to be clear that they understand. Toole — Doubts that it is good traffic safety to have a speed bump at a stop sign, as you would have to `gas if to get over the bump. The stop sign is what's going to stop people at the bike path, not a speed bump. Botticelli — Doesn't think the speed bump is a bad thing to slow people down before they get to the intersection. Toole — Confirms that the plan is to put a paved driveway on the property. Snell — All considered, applicant is going to need longer /larger lots. Botticelli — Doesn't have a problem with the Variance. Toole — Applicant is better served with bigger lots. Feels the Variance situation is a little sketchy. O'Mara — Willing to support the Variance. Snell — Confirms that RC2 district requires a special permit for commercial use, so they'd be back. Koseatac —Okay with Variance, thinks it makes mare sense and is safer— maybe privets or something should be required. O'Mara — We don't want anything to be growing at the end of the driveway that would block visibility. Poor— Thinks they can deal with that when they come back. Toole — States to the Public that this seems to be the best alternative. The Board can put some conditions on it like the stop sign and speed bump. Snell — Certainly can require a stop sign on the property. The town will determine if a stop sign, by request, is needed on the bike path. Suggest the language could be flexible. Poor— Asks for clarification on which plan they are approving. Feels a Special Permit plan works better for a neighborhood like this one. Confirms he does not feel three (3) skinny lots with three (3) separate driveways would not be better. O'Mara — Questions if any stipulations need to be implied regarding trucks backing out onto Bartlett Road. Snell — Confirms that no vehicle is allowed to back out onto Bartlett Road and that they'd have to get a Special Permit from the Planning Board. Motion Motion to Approve the Special Permit Plan with appropriate stop signs at the end of the driveway, and as allowed by the DPW, along the bike path —with agreement of no mailboxes and no speed bump as the driveway is too short. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Poor) Vote Carried unanimously 13. 088 -13 Charles A. Kilvert, III & Emily H. Kilvert 4 Darling Street Dale Requests Special Permit relief to allow an increase in ground cover from 29.9% to 31.7% in a zoning district where the maximum allowable ground cover is 30% for undersized lots and up to 50% by Special Permit. Sitting Toole, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 8 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adapted April 10, 2014 Representing Kevin Dale, Esq., Vaughan, Dale, Hunter & Beaudette, P.C.— Requests that the Board approve an eighty-one (81) square foot addition to the South side of the building so the applicants can renovate their kitchen. The addition on the south will be shielded by a plank fence and existing vegetation. States this renovation will be better for the neighborhood and the applicants. This plan has been approved by the HDC and applicants are "shovel ready". Public None Concerns (4:40) O'Mara — Doesn't see any issue with it. Toole — It meets the setback and confirms there are no issues. O'Mara - Conforms there will be no construction work between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Motion Motion to Approve with the exterior construction restriction dates. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Poor) Vote Carried unanimously 14. 089 -13 BJP, LLC, as Owner & Brian Johnson, as Applicant I I Arrowhead Drive Glidden Requests Special Permit relief to build a commercial structure to be used as a Contractor Shop with Light Manufacturing on a site and a waiver of off -street loading zone. Sitting Toole, O'Mara, Thayer, Koseatac, Poor Documentation Representing File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Richard Glidden, Esq., Glidden & Glidden, P.C. — Applicant plans to construct a Contractor Shop with an office and no residential use is intended or asked for. Public Concerns None (4:46) Snell — The ZBA has reviewed several applications for this neighborhood just like this one, and has approved them with screening. O'Mara — Recalls the last time they approved something out in that neighborhood they were going to hold off on the planting for some period of time to wait for the completion of the development. Toole — Believes that was six (6) months after completion of the building, the entire property has to be screened. Snell — Confirms the property is in the Commercial Industrial District subject to a freeze in the RC -2 district. The issue with the freeze is the people who are buying the 5,000 square foot lot(s), they don't need all of those Motion requirements. Motion to Approve Special Permit with three (3) sides of screening. (made by: Thayer) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 15. 090 -13 EES Holding, LLC, as Owner & Nantucket Lighthouse School, LLC, as Applicant I Rugged Road Guay Requests Special Permit relief to allow off -site parking or, in the alternative, waiver of the requirements for a Special Permit because the use of the site as a school is exempt from zoning regulations and the off site parking area has been used by the Nantucket Lighthouse School since 2008. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation States the intent is the applicant, is a deed to one of the lots (5B) and an casement onto one of Representing Joseph Guay, Esq. — the other lots (5A) that is owned by EES Holding. The property has gone through an ANR Subdivision and the entire subdivision is owned by EES Holding. Feels EES Holding and Attorney Peter Kybmg would be the ones to Public address concerns of the abutters. Frank Hanlon, Abutter, 64 Fairground Road — Concerned that with all the easements and setbacks on the property, it doesn't leave much room to build a house. Believes that their sole reason for doing this is to eventually sell the lots, as it doesn't make much sense otherwise to subdivide the property in the first place. There is currently no driveway access to the property from Fairgrounds Road and he believes the whole purpose of allowing subdivisions was for people to share driveways. The building that is there, leaves over 3,000 square feet of buildable space left, which would be right next to the house of the abutting property. Concerns (4:50) Snell — Shares her opinion that the Nantucket Lighthouse School is an educational use, it's exempt from zoning, ancillary uses that are ancillary to the exempt use are also exempt from zoning. Town Counsel confirmed that Parking on the adjacent lot, is for the sole purpose of the school and is exempt from zoning regulations and no relief is required. A building permit was issued and a CO was also issued. When it was reviewed back in 2008, the Zoning Enforcement Officer felt the parking that was provided, was adequate. O'Mara - Doesn't necessarily agree with the letter written by an abutter. Toole — Confirms with the Public that the owner of the property can put a building on the property with or without Easement relief, and that he hears the concerns of the Public, but states it is not the Boards purview, and that they Motion don't have any need or power to discuss. Motion that no further relief necessary due to Educational exemption. (made by: Poor) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously Page 9 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 16. 091 -13 Roland J. Augustine 3 Cash's Court Halstead Requests Special Permit relief to demolish and rebuild the pre- existing non - conforming garage, extending the existing foot print by eight (8) feet in the northerly direction. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Patricia Halstead, Esq. — Proposes a pre- fabricated metal building be placed in the space where the existing garage that is in disrepair sits. Ground cover will increase slightly and height will increase per HDC request for a higher roof pitch. Applicant does have HDC approval. Presents elevation plans to the board after request of the Board. Public None Concerns (5:05) Toole — Requests reviewing the HDC plans, and agrees elevation plans are sufficient. Botticelli — Doesn't have any issues. Motion Motion to Approve Special Permit with work completed by June 21, 2014. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried unanimously 17. 092 -13 CORBIE ACK, LLC 10 Sahos Road Hanley Requests Special Permit relief to construct a 2,340 square foot, 4 -bay Contractors Shop, with interior and exterior storage of landscaping materials, which will be confirming as to all setbacks, frontage and ground cover. Applicant is also requesting Minor Site Plan Review. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Marianne Hanley, Esq., Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP — Proposes building a Contractor Shop, in conjunction with his Landscaping Business. Three (3) parking spaces are provided in accordance with the By -law. Provided on the plan with screening for the perimeter of the property. Two (2) letters blessing the project have been received from abutters. The water company has signed off on this as it is in the watershed protection district. Confirms the apron width was considered to make sure the driveway stays intact. Confirms there will be no AC needed. Public None Concerns (5:09) Toole — Confirms the apron will be 25' wide and questions if it is necessary. Further questions if they need to know about it if it is not on their property. Snell — Confirms the purpose of the apron is to keep the driveway and the road intact and that relief is not needed by the Board. O'Mara — Questions if AC will be needed. Botticelli — Confirms that it is only for storage and no light manufacturing will be occurring. Toole — Questions where the screening is intended as he cannot see it on the plan. Motion Motion to Approve as requested with additional screening of vegetation or fence of 6'. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously 18. 093 -13 James B. Wicmann, as Owner, David E. Webster, as Applicant 46 Surfside Road Wilson Requests modification of a previously issued Special Permit allowing for three (3) parking spaces required for the adjacent lot to be located on locus. This relief is no longer necessary. Applicant also seeks Special Permit relief to convert a portion of the existing residential duplex to office use and to permit the continued residential use on the first floor (or a portion of). In the alternative, applicant requests Variance relief to continue the residential use. 19. 094 -13 James B. Wiemann, as Owner, David E. Webster, as Applicant 46A Smfside Road Wilson Requests Special Permit relief to alter and extend a pre - existing non - conforming residential structure. Applicant proposes to remove all or a portion of the existing structure and to construct a new structure with the same footprint. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Page 10 of 11 Motion to Adjourn: 5:30 p.m Submitted by: K Bradford Page 11 of 11 Minutes for December 12, 2013, adopted April 10, 2014 Representing Michael Wilson, Esq. — 46 Surfside Road has a residential duplex on it, and 46A Surfside Road has a single - family residence. Applicant is selling the property, but is taking his house from 46A with him. When the applicant originally built the buildings, he applied for a Special Permit to allow parking from 46A to be allowed on 46. The properly now sits in the CN zone, and the applicant proposes to eliminate all of the parking for 46A, from the Special Permit requirement as 46A will be supporting its own parking as part from the new construction that will occur after the applicant takes his house with him. The duplex on 46 will remain as a duplex, with residential use on one side and an office on the other side. Requesting to allow the continued residential use for 46A, as the house is leaving but the foundation is staying. Public None Concerns (5:19) Toole — Questions if CN doesn't allow residential. Snell — Confirms CN doesn't allow residential as a primary use. Toole — Confirms that they are removing the Special Permit for parking from 46, and blessing residential use for 46A. Snell — Confirms that once the house is taken away, the new property owner will need a Variance to put the property back as a residential use. Motion Motion to Approve both applications as requested. (made by: Toole) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried Unanimously I OTHER BUSINESS 1. Proposed Amendments to SACHEM'S PATH. -Continued to January 9, 2014. Motion to Adjourn: 5:30 p.m Submitted by: K Bradford Page 11 of 11