Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-9-11Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket- ma.gov P E C InEl V E D Commissioners: Ed Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michaeu, U'e Ko4 ?AtJc,1fjrk YLr, Michael Angelastro Geoff Thayer `' ` ~— MINUTES -- a �;:D Thursday, September 11, 2014 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Angelastro, Thayer Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: O'Mara Agenda adopted by unanimous consent APPROVAL 1. OF 1. August 14, 2014 - Held OLD BUSINESS 1. 085 -13 Joseph W. Foley & Harris K. Doliner 8 Charter Street Beaudette Action deadline December 10, 2014 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 9, 2014 2. 17 -14 Andrew T. Perlman 4 Derrymore Road Brescher WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Voting Members ET, SM, LB, GT) Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing None Public None Discussion None Motion Motion to Approve the withdrawal without prejudice. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried unanimously 3. 37 -14 Nantucket Islands Land Bank, as Owner, and Lynn G. Silverman et al, as Applicant /Appellant 4 Codfish Park Road Sutton Action deadline October 17, 2014 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 9, 2014 4. 42 -14 Eric F. Silverman and Melanie W. Silverman 5 Heller Way Beaudette Action deadline November 12, 2014 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 9, 2014 111. NEWBUSINESS 1. 40 -14 Nantucket Island Resorts, LLC 20 Cherry Street Beaudette Action deadline November 12, 2014 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 9, 2014 2. 44 -14 George D. Williams and Mary V. Williams 11 Pochick Street Williams Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant seeks Modification by removal of a Condition in previously granted Special Permit which stated, "There shall be no living space for human habitation and the structure shall be used as a garage and a workshop ". Applicant further seeks, to the extent necessary, Special Permit relief to allow a change of use of the existing garage structure to a dwelling. Applicant proposes to construct a 111 - square foot addition connecting the existing dwelling to the existing garage /workshop. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing George Williams, for Mary Williams — Asking for 111 additional square feet (SF) over what is permitted by right under the zoning bylaw. Explained one bathroom in a 3 bedroom cottage is a hardship. Addressed concerns expressed in a letter from an abutter. Public (Speakers are inaudible.) Discussion Koseatac — Asked if the setback would be 5 feet or 3 feet from the property line. Discussion: Looks like 2 feet off the property line, it is inside the setback. Toole — the applicant indicated that if it had been a 100 -SF addition this would not have to had come to the ZBA. Asked Ms Antonietti if that is true. Page 1 of 6 Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 Antonietti — No. Discussion: the abutter's letter: no change of use is taking place. There is an existing 1/2 bath in the garage. Toole — The office space would have to remain office space; it exists according to their plan. If the two buildings were not connected, they would still have to be here for the setback intrusion. Botticelli — It is not getting any closer than the garage currently sits; has no concerns. Toole — In the previous approval, the garage existed and the 64SF was allowed with the notion that it would be a workshop /office. We would maintain /reiterate that. McCarthy — It looks like the applicant would ask for a change of use only if the board required it in order to put in the full bathroom. This board could uphold the conditions of the prior decision and not allow this to encroach any further into the setback. Angelastro — Clarified the neighbors' position that the bathroom is okay so long as the ZBA reiterates that the garage remain a garage and the office remain an office. Discussion on the motion: Koseatac — Originally they were allowed 30 %, now they are allowed 50 %. Toole —That condition doesn't need to be reiterated; we are saying the office /workroom and garage cannot be used for human habitation without further relief. Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested with the continuation of the conditions from the original permit. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Angelastro) Vote Carried unanimously 3. 45 -14 J. Daniel Schrauth and S. Whitney Schrauth 14 W. Sankaty Road Schrauth Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief in order to raze, reconstruct, and expand a pre - existing nonconforming accessory building substantially in the same location as the existing structure. There will be no increase in the pre - existing nonconforming front and side yard setback distances as a result of the reconstruction. Applicant further proposes alterations to the main dwelling which do not require relief. The proposed alterations will not result in an excess of allowable ground cover. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Whitney Schrauth, owner /architect — Cottage to be used as office /studio to be built within the existing footprint. Also, proposing dormers for the upper level of the main house which will conform with the setbacks and groundcover. The cottage will be slightly taller with the ridge running north /south. Setback along Lincoln at the closest point is 3.3 feet, the furthest is 3.5 feet. Public None Discussion Toole — Asked for confirmation the ZBA could grant relief to demolish this non - conforming structure and rebuild. Antonietti — It is by special permit. Botticelli — This will be getting taller in the setback. The north setback would remain 1.9 feet. Discussion about vertical expansion of a structure that is within the setback compared to other changes to a structure that is within the setback. Discussion on the motion: Toole — Doesn't agree that a restriction on construction should be imposed. Koseatac — Suggested restricting exterior construction on the property from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Botticelli — Thinks it should be from June 15 to September 15. Discussion about the exterior construction restriction. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested with exterior construction restricted between Memorial Day and Labor Day. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried 4 -1 /Toole opposed 4. 48 -14 Kevin Conrad 5 Perry Lane Guay Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Modification of prior Special Permit relief or, to the extent necessary, a new Special Permit to allow the use of the first floor of the existing mixed -use structure for commercial storage and warehousing with an ancillary office in connection with the operation of a heating and air- conditioning business. The residential use on the second floor, containing two dwelling units, will remain unchanged. Applicant is further requesting Minor Site Plan Review and, to the extent necessary, a waiver of the parking requirements. Sitting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Joseph Guay, for applicant — Original relief was granted in 1998 with subsequent modification is 2002 and 2003 relating to the prior owner's business. This is a change of use for the 11t floor. Proposed either approval of a new special permit superseding the prior permit or a 3rd modification of the original permit. Asked for a special permit to verify the site plan showing existing conditions. He is asking for a parking waiver for one space in regards to the storage area. This would be for storage of supplies and equipment. Public None Page 2 of 6 Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 Discussion Koseatac — Asked about the loading zone. Angelastro — When this was built, there was a loading dock where there is space for six trucks in front of the loading dock as well as parking in the back and along the side. An abutter is asking that street parking be restricted. Toole — Stated it is not outside the realm of reality that fabrication of ducts on this site could take place; this would be restricted to storage only. If there were fabrication taking place, there would be additional restrictions. Review of restrictions that might be imposed in this case: dumpster, parking, no outdoor storage, presence of vegetative screening and fencing, operating hours, no parking on Perry Lane, and no retail sales. Poor — there is an existing gravel driveway running to the street with no apron as opposed to the existing loading zone concrete apron. Asked for clarification that they aren't looking to add another apron. Present situation delineates the tenant parking from the former loading zone. Toole — Not "blessing" an apron, a second curb cut the full length of the property, this is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. Prefers the single apron which also allows screening along the road; not willing to approve the proposed site plan for that reason. He would approve with the caveat a new site plan be submitted showing only the existing apron. McCarthy — The site plan shows a parking space at the end of the stoop. Parking should be outside the stoop area. Discussion on the motion: Poor — A fence is better than vegetation when backing onto Perry Lane. Motion Motion to Grant as requested with conditions as discussed and a new site plan showing the gravel driveway with fence and a waiver for one parking space. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried unanimously 5. 46 -14 L. Dennis Shapiro, Trustee of Dionis Realty Trust 73 Eel Point Road Reade Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant seeks Variance relief 1) to validate Lot 1B shown on Plan File 28 -C as a buildable lot; 2) to waive lot area, ground cover, and rear yard setback requirements for Lot 1B; and 3) to waive the regularity factor for the proposed fixture combination of Lot 1B with portion of Lot 5 and Lot 6 shown on Plan Book 15, Page 10 and Parcels I and J shown on Plan No. 2009 -2. Applicants propose to move the existing structure away from the eroding coastal bank and on to Lot 1B. Once the owner acquires title to Town owned Parcels I and J, all five lots will be combined. Sitting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP — Tristram Avenue has been taken by the Town to eliminate the road and dispose of through a yard sale. His client is negotiating terms to purchase that parcel. This filing is to allow the property owner to start the structure move soon instead of waiting until the lots can be combined. This relief would place the house at zero setback from the yard -sale parcel and exceed groundcover requirements. Once the lots are combined, the structure would be in compliance with all zoning regulations. Public Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law PC, for Freedman at 69 Eel Point Road — The applicant is seeking relief from the regularity standard for a fixture lot; stated he doesn't believe the yard -sale process that would eliminate the setback issues would resolve that. Discussion Poor — As a practical matter, there would not be a reported decision for about two months with the appeal period. Reade — Realizes that. Toole — Tends to agree with Mr. Poor. Poor — Finds it difficult to do this on the variance side. The applicant would make this move at his own risk. Asked if they would be amenable to an expiration date on the variance to be less than a standard year. Reade — This has been pushed back already a couple of times. Poor — It looks like there is a substantial addition going on the structure that causes the issue with the yard -sale lot setback. Reade — Stated they are looking at the Conservation Commission approved site plan. Poor — There are encroachment issues; feels the board can't endorse the proposed plan. Toole — This shows the deck at zero setback. Typically this board would prefer that the client wait until the yard sale goes through. Discussion about the lag time between signing the permit and the client being able to file with the building department. Koseatac — Stated he is not comfortable with basing a decision on a hypothetical. McCarthy — If they got rid of the deck for now, there would be no setback issue. Reade — Request that this be continued until the October 9 meeting. If at that time there is still a chance of delay, then they might want to push further and get input from the planning office. Motion Motion to Continue to October 9. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 6. 47 -14 Richard B. Urban and Jocelyn S. Urban 51 Cliff Road Urban Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief and, to the extent necessary, Variance relief to allow the alteration and extension of a pre - existing nonconforming garage structure. Applicant proposes to raise the roof line, make fenestration changes, and install shed dormers within the setback areas. Applicant further proposes to build a 15 square foot storage shed addition outside the setback Page 3 of 6 Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 area. The work will result in an upward extension of the pre- existing nonconforming side and rear yard setbacks as well as an increase of the pre - existing nonconforming ground cover ratio to 33.5 %. Sitting Toole, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Alisha Ranney, Botticelli & Pohl — Explains the owner is an artist and wants to convert the garage into a painting studio. Has HDC approval. They want to raise the roof, add dormers for a partial loft, make fenestration changes, and add a small attached storage shed for bikes which will increase the ground cover by 15 SF. They are currently 122 SF over allowable ground cover. Public None Discussion Angelastro — Asked about the difference between the existing height and the proposed height. Toole — Normally this board doesn't allow an increase in ground cover. Poor — A detached shed wouldn't count as ground cover. Zoning allows for a 120SF detached shed outside the setback. Koseatac — Is not in favor of an increase in ground cover but okay with raising the roof for dormers as long as the space is not for human habitation. Discussion on the motion: Toole — No increase in ground cover at all. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested which allows for a sink but no water closet or shower and not for human habitation and that there be no increase in ground cover. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 7. 49 -14 James C. Herbert and Kathleen H. Herbert 58 Pleasant Street Guay Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief to validate the siting of an above - ground propane tank and an existing deck attached to the primary dwelling by reducing the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 2 feet. In the alternative, Applicant requests Variance relief for a waiver from the 5 foot setback requirement. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Joseph Guay, for applicant — In 1995, the prior owner pulled a building permit to extend an existing deck, which was sited 9 feet from the side boundary where the side setback is 5 feet. After construction, the deck at its closest point was 4 feet 6 inches from the side boundary. Rather than tearing out the deck, the owner is asking for special permit relief for the deck as is. The above - ground propane tank is a 150 gallon tank and therefore is considered a structure; it is adjacent to the deck and 2 feet from the side boundary. Also asking for relief for its present location. Explained that the prior owner who extended the deck said it would end 5 feet from the boundary and wouldn't need special relief. It was not so constructed. Public None Discussion Toole — There is a letter from the immediate abutter. The tank should meet code; it could be replaced by two 120 -gallon tanks. McCarthy — When the property changed hands, there was an open permit. Toole — Asked to see a copy of the building permit application. Guay — Believes that the original tank was replaced with the present tank. Discussion about what permits and processes are involved when an above - ground propane tank is replaced. Also question how the property changed hands with an open permit. Botticelli — The board could grant relief contingent upon the deck space never being converted into living space. Discussion about the deck as approved by Historic District Commission (HDC) in 1995, the original Certificate of Appropriateness indicates the deck would be 19X8.7 feet. Consensus is to see the HDC approval. The tank would not be approved by the ZBA. Motion Motion to Continue to October 9. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 8. 50 -14 Janet L. Steinmeyer, as Trustee of Nawthorne Family Trust 114 Main Street Perkins Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief to allow the change of use of an existing garage structure to a residential use. Applicant proposes to relocate a portion of a pre - existing nonconforming shed, currently sited within the westerly side yard setback, to be attached to the rear of the pre- existing nonconforming garage, sited 1.9 feet from the easterly side yard lot line. The resulting structure will be converted into a second dwelling and will not be any closer to the side yard lot line. Applicant further requests, to the extent necessary, Minor Site Plan Review. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Angelastro, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Erik Lauritzen, Twig Perkins Inc. for the applicant — Change of use to human habitation; move shed out of setback and attached to the garage. There is no change in the garage structure. Public None Page 4 of 6 Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 Discussion Angelastro —The house already has two dwelling units each with a kitchen; zoning allows for only two kitchens per lot; a new dwelling would require a third kitchen, which cannot be granted. Lauritzen — The house would be renovated to have only one kitchen, but he doesn't have those plans on hand. Toole — Asked if any excavation work is proposed for the garage. Lauritzen — Lift it up and replace the sill; do not see a foundation being constructed. Toole — If the garage is being jacked up, it could be moved 3.1 feet out of the setback. The main building would be one dwelling and the garage would become a new dwelling 1.9 feet from the lot line with a shed attached out of the setback. Angelastro — There are no architectural plans in the file and he would like to see that. Review of the architectural plans provided by Ms Antonietti. Botticelli — There is vertical expansion within the setback. Toole — This board needs to be consistent and asks applicants to provide every bit of information available. Ms Antonietti fortunately had the architectural plans available. There is no request for relief of vertical expansion within the setback. The applicant either needs to withdraw and reapply for that with proper notification or eliminate the dormers. Angelastro — No plans were submitted with this application; questions whether or not a particular elevation is being changed. The shed is being moved and will be right on the setback; if there is a mistake, the applicant will have to come back. Antonietti — Suggested it is best to withdraw and to resubmit with proper notification for the vertical expansion. Toole — This board would not be approving the plan submitted at the table, only allowing the change of use of the garage. Botticelli — That relief would be granted with no vertical expansion within the setback and that the 2nd dwelling with a kitchen in the main house be removed. They should come back separately for the vertical expansion. Koseatac — Would prefer to wait for more information before making a decision. Toole — Has no problem with the garage becoming a second dwelling. Botticelli — Would like more information though she has no concerns about the second dwelling. Discussion about whether or not one applicant can have to applications for one property open with the ZBA at the same time. Lauritzen — Would prefer to continue than withdraw if he can't get a decision today. Asked for a continuance. Motion Motion to Continue to October 9. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Botticelli) Vote Carried unanimously 9. 51 -14 Robert Reiskin 34 Codfish Park Road Brescher Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief and, to the extent necessary, Variance relief for a waiver from intensity regulations. Applicant proposes to alter and expand the pre - existing nonconforming dwelling and renovate and relocate the pre - existing nonconforming shed. The proposed changes and relocation will decrease the existing northerly and easterly setback intrusions and create lesser intrusions into the southerly and westerly setback areas. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Angelastro, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing John Brescher, Glidden & Glidden — (not using microphone, hard to hear) The lot is undersized in a zoning district requiring 5,000 SF. Groundcover would increase to 1,486 SF for the main dwelling with setback no closer than 3.5 feet. The shed will be reduced in size and relocated 5 feet from the rear lot line and 2 feet from the side lot line. In the process of getting the HDC approval for this work. There is an abutter concerned about parking; no parking is proposed on site. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — If there is no foundation, the shed can go over the leach field. The house will remain with just a crawl space. Mark Poor, for the applicant — Constrained by the septic and Conservation Commission. Public Albert Lussier, 36 Codfish Park Road also represents the five other residents — Objects to the statements that the changes decrease the intrusion. The addition on the northwest corner is a 2 -story addition. The shed on the property line is of no concerns in its present location. There is concern for on -street parking as this is a rental property; parking on the way is not possible. The shed should be designated not for human habitation. Discussion Toole — Questions why the shed is remaining in the setback. The house itself is slightly into the setback; the shed is largely in the setback. Poor — Making the north intrusion less and moving it south where the septic comes into play. Toole — Asked if the board wants to wait for the HDC plans. Poor — That process just started. The proposed changes take the roof up higher for more 2 °d -floor space. Toole — This board just asked the last applicant to come back with complete information. Feels they should be consistent. Typically they would like to see everything that is going one in regards to the structural changes. Thayer — Stated he could live with the existing foot print of the house. He's not comfortable about the shed. Botticelli — Moving the shed 3 feet north would move it out of the setback. Toole — The building is getting better. Motion Motion to Continue to October 9. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried unanimously Page 5 of 6 Minutes for September 11, 2014, adopted Oct. 9 10. 52 -14 Brian Rice and Robert Goldrich 41 Crooked Lane Alger Action deadline December 10, 2014 Applicant is requesting Modification of previously issued Special Permit by substituting a revised as -built site plan showing the addition sited 15.7 feet from the front yard lot line. Zoning Board of Appeals Decision 054 -12 granted relief allowing the alteration and extension of the preexisting nonconforming structure on the premises and specifically allowed the addition to be "no closer than 15.78 feet from the front yard lot line." In the alternative, Applicant requests a new Special Permit. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Angelastro, Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. — There was a prior request for alteration on this pre - existing nonconforming lot. One corner was supposed to be 15.78 feet from Crooked Lane. The work was done. An engineer did a site plan, which was submitted to the building department, showing the comer sited 15.68 feet from Crooked Lane. That plan was rejected. The measurement was redone at 15.70 feet off the line. Off .96 of an inch of the original proposal. On this lot there is a wetlands constraint. Public None Discussion Toole — No concerns; it is only the comer. Motion Motion to Grant relief as request due to its deminimus nature. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Thayer) Vote Carried unanimously OTHER Election of Officers: Chairman (Ms McCarthy appointed chairman pro tem — Ms Botticelli nominated Ed Toole and seconded; Mr. Angelastro nominated Kerim Koseatac and seconded. Vote: Toole by majority vote. Vice Chairman — Mr. Koseatac nominated Lisa Botticelli and seconded. Vote: Botticelli unanimously Clerk - Mr. Koseatac nominated Susan McCarthy and seconded. Vote: McCarthy unanimously V. WJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn: 3:49 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 6 of 6