Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-13Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket- ma.gov Commissioners: Ed Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim,ll tiseatdc,14ark-Nor, Michael Angelastro, Geoff Thayer �-- MINUTES — Thursday, November 13, 2014 f '� Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —12:00 p.m. ,A c© f Called to order at 12:06 p.m. t-D cS� Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Board Administrator; K Bradford, Interim Minutes Taker r� cS� Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Angelastro Absences: Thayer Early Departures: Koseatac at 2:29 PM Agenda adopted by unanimous consent APPROVAL 1. 1. October 9, 2014 — Motion to Approve. MP/KK Carried unanimously 1 BUSINESS 1. 037 -14 Nantucket Islands Land Bank, as Owner, and Lynn G. Silverman et al, Applicant/Appellant Codfish Park Road Sutton Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Andrew Sutton, Esq. — Applicant has asked for a continuance due to ongoing settlement negations with the Land Bank Commission. Communications have been between Client and Eric Savetsky, director of the Land Bank, who intends to bring the negotiations to the Board at their next monthly meeting, and applicant believes they are close to an agreement. Appellant is highly offended at Mr. Reade's insinuations that they are abusing process to delay this project. Appellant is well within their rights and they are focused on the issue that is before the Board. The issue as to whether or not you should overturn a determination that this is the preservation of a lot in its natural condition, and thus that a park is a preservation of a lot in its natural condition and that a playground is an accessory to that, including a gazebo is preservation to a lot in its natural condition. Reminds the Board that this is a legal issue and not a political issue, and that is why this Board is appointed, so that it can be immune from political issues, such as numerous letters and support when it comes to a legal issue, such as this interpretation of the language of your own bylaw. The facts of the other appeals that are ongoing, do not bear on the determination at hand, they do not benefit or take away from the impact of your determination as to this particular zoning enforcement officers decision, and how that impacts Nantucket. With respect to our response, the appellant did not want to authorize me to send a response as they were in the process of negotiation, and I was waiting on the request of the appellant. The response was based on the initial request for a continuance and the counter- request that we appear — so that you would have that information and grant a continuance and that Town Counsel would have time to reply. There is clearly some confusion on the status of settlement negotiations. I have seen some of the communications from the Land Bank and it is not clear from Eric's communication to my client, that we have reached an impasse. Details have been agreed to be kept confidential, per request of the Land Bank, but it seems like something can happen here. We are asking you to simply enforce the language of your bylaw, and overturn a determination that is clearly incorrect. That this playground is clearly not the preservation of a lot in its natural condition, as discussed at length in the July meeting. Now, there has been an effort to continue to distort the bylaw and push the bylaw in a direction that it doesn't go, to allow this playground to go in unfettered. Your determination here does not kill the playground. It is our opinion that the Land Bank is trying to force your hand to make decisions that increase the ambiguity of the interpretation of the bylaw, which increases the likelihood of presidential issues coming before you in the future. States he is troubled by the statement of the Land Bank regarding settlement, and being bound by the confidentiality that we have agreed to, it's very difficult to rebut this in a public forum since they specifically asked us not to report to the ZBA, and also stated in an email from their attorney that they were not asked by the ZBA to settle, or that they were not required to provide any information to the Page 1 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 ZBA. It was not communicated to us that there is this impasse, and we feel a bit blindsided by this. This was deliberated on in executive session, so it was impossible for us to monitor what was said. We were not invited to appear before them. Lawyers were prohibited from being involved, in any of the discussion. If the Land Banks position is they don't want to move forward at all, that's fine — but it's inappropriate to categorize this as being the sluggishness of the abutter, because that's anything but true. States he is troubled by his brother counsels approach, and that the question before the Board is whether or not the planned project is preservation of the lot in its natural condition. Believes that Marcus' was right in stating he should not make an opinion on the municipal issue and that it is correct that you should not make a decision on the municipal issue. I request that you vote to overturn Marcus' determination if you don't grant a continuance. Requests the Board to recall the July meeting, that the municipal use was raised by Attorney Reade, and brought to Marcus' attention by Attorney Reade. There's nothing in the bylaw for a playground of this type. Every other playground on Nantucket has been created by the Town of Nantucket themselves. The number of play structures versus the other playgrounds is much more intense. Land Bank legislation says they can build recreational facilities. This is what that would fall into if they are allowed to do this by their own enabling legislation. His determination is tied to a broad interpretation and Ms. McCarthy's recognized that this is an extremely broad grant of power, the determination that this is a preservation of a lot in its natural condition is also an extremely broad grant of power which could effect an exemption in its own right, from zoning. Believes that it's a third party issue, whether an independent stat entity is allowed the same municipal exemption, because it clearly is not the Town of Nantucket. To wholly grant the same exemptions the Town of Nantucket enjoys under the municipal use exemption, is a double jump, and it's just not there. Other issues haven't been vetted here, and it's not the Town of Nantucket — it's a developer here — and that's why we feel that a special permit process would be appropriate here. So if you determined that a special permit was needed it would just go to the Planning Board, which doesn't mean that the project is dead, it just means that it is reviewed by people who have the Town of Nantucket at heart. Nantucket does not control the Land Bank. We asked that they apply for a Special Permit and Marcus' response is in reaction to this. The Zoning bylaw allows for us to do this. This is a decision that is on file with the Town, and if left in place the Land Bank could get a permit based on its natural condition. Asking you to make a decision to require a special permit because it's a recreational facility. According to the bylaw, natural condition is land without manmade interference, and we know by that definition that this is a stretch. You can see what natural condition is just by looking around on Nantucket. We've simply asked you to overturn Marcus' letter and make additional finding that it's subject to Special Permit. Public Arthur Reade, Esq. — Attorney for the Land Bank. Land Bank vigorously opposes any continuance on this matter, and request it go forward at today's meeting. States status is that there are no pending negotiations. The Board met weeks ago and voted unanimously not to proceed with settlement discussion on this matter as we feel that it would be irresponsible of the Land Bank, as a public entity, to be entering into any settlement that would be limiting its ownership of the property. States this is just one more attempt of the appellant to delay and interfere with the public process as far as this property is concerned. To review, Seventy (70) `Sconset families have pledged money to the Land Bank to enable the construction of this improved playground for the use of the children of the community. The appellant has appealed from the Land Conservation Commissions decision of approving the project. That appeal was first of all, to the Superior Court, under the local bylaw, in which the Superior Court determined the appellants had no standing to pursue such an appeal. The appellant has now appealed the Superior Court decision, to the Appeals Court. The appeal of the Conservation Commissions decision to the DEP, has resulted in a super ceding order, being issued by the DEP, confirming the approval of it by the Conservation Commission. This decision has now been appealed by the appellant with an appeal within the DEP. This request that to Marcus for ruling, by the Appellants, was done for the purpose of delaying the DEP process, by a misreading of the rules by DEP, that they considered would result in the matter not being able to proceed within the DEP, if local approvals hadn't been obtained. That ruling was contrary to them as made by Marcus. In the last meeting at which this was discussed, you asked for an opinion from Town Counsel, and he gave you back in August, a very detailed opinion setting forth that the proposed activity is exempt from zoning and the requirement for a special permit for recreational use on the basis that it is a municipal use. That opinion was given to the Board back in August and Sutton has had since August to respond if he wanted to. Reade suggests the Board adopts opinion by Town Counsel. Confirms there are two (2) members of the Land Bank that can corroborate what has been said, that there was a unanimous decision by the Land Bank commissioners, not to proceed with the settlement proposals that have been made. States rules for park would only come into play if they were seeking a special permit from the ZBA. Marcus' letter stating there is no special permit required for a recreational use, is correct. This is not a matter of a letter from each counsel; you don't have a letter from me. Confirms he is okay to continue for one (1) month, for the sole purpose to give Town Counsel the opportunity to respond to Mr. Sutton; Municipal use is the only issue here. Marcus has ruled that no special permit is required. It goes without saying that an determination that is overturned by Marcus, will be appealed by us. The Land Bank is deeply offended by Mr. Sutton's statement that the Land Bank is a developer. Again, we are dealing with a public elected body with statutory responsibilities toward the people of Nantucket. It is certainly our position that we would be able to proceed, go forward and wouldn't be before ZBA without the appellant's application. We Page 2 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 have HDC approval for the project, we have ConCom's approval and in any event, we would proceed with the construction of the project. As a result, with the request from Marcus result in decision being entered, we couldn't ignore and we'd have to appeal. The issue is to sustain or not sustain Marcus' action. States the Board does have to act on the appeal. Alan Reinhardt, Chairman at Nantucket Islands Land Bank Commission — It's hard to know where to start with this as it all started as a very innocent project to develop a playground in `Sconset where there is no existing facility. As far as the negotiations that have been referred to here, the Land Bank has discussed at length the situation. We did authorize Eric Sevetsky to speak with the Appellant regarding negations, all of which were done by telephone. Every insistence on part of the appellant was to demand they have a say in what we do with this property. Originally they requested 100 years and narrowed it down to 30 years; we decided unanimously that we're making no progress. We felt that giving a neighbor the authority to dictate what we do and don't do on our property, is something that we just cannot tolerate. We feel we have come to the end of the line. We have been in discussion with the appellant for over a year, and feel that it is the effort of the appellant to simply not have the park there. We feel there is no possibility of a resolution. Neil Patterson, Nantucket Land Bank — We are an elected Board of officials, who oversee public land for the use of the public, for recreation and for everything else. This is becoming, in my mind only, to be a watershed case. It's about public rights and public land. To me it's that simple. We've tried to negotiate, and it's pretty unusual for us to be unanimous. I would respectfully ask for a vote today, because my own personal feeling is that it would be some kind of progress. Julie Jordin, Park Designer — Would like to point out that the park is an old building lot full of invasive species. The only thing they did was fill in the old foundation and slap a swing set in; it is not in its natural condition. There are not native species there, its fallow. It has been developed before and is not in its natural condition now. It would be more in its natural condition with native species planted and children playing in it, than as it sits today. Concerns Toole — Fine to hear Arthur's confirmation that the Land Bank was unanimous and doesn't need to hear members of the Land Bank to confirm the decision. Has a problem determining that Land Bank land can be used for municipal use. The hope was that the two parties could get together and spare the courts of further appeals, etc. We've certainly heard from one side that that is not going to happen, and that they've dug their heels in. States we can't impose any conditions and that we are looking at the narrow issue of Marcus' letter and his determinationlopinion that the park is in an appropriate use of the preservation of a lot in its natural condition. The municipal issue, the hours, etc. are arguably not on the table. Marcus' letter made the determination that a park is consistent with the preservation of a lot in its natural condition. The nub of the issue for us to determine, is whether or not we agree with Marcus. Comfortable not dealing with the municipal issue, unless everyone on the board wants to get into that. Doesn't feel the issue is municipal. Marcus' letter said park is appropriate conservation of lot in its natural condition — the only way to continues is if both sides say there is "hope ". Asks Sutton what he thinks the Land Banks next step would be if the Board votes and overturns Marcus' interpretation. Doesn't seem to be in need of a continuance. My opinion of what we're looking at is to appeal Marcus' letter. Thinks the next step is whatever the appellant or the Land Bank wants to take. Doesn't know if the Board wants to dictate the next step. O'Mara — Hasn't heard any answers about zoning/use. We don't have a list of rules, hours, etc. Antonietti — States Town Counsel recommends the Board overturn the Appeal, as it was an incorrect evaluation of status. It's definitely unusual, but they are allowed to be here according to the bylaw (cited bylaw). McCarthy — If parties appeal and go in front of a judge and want to have that larger argument, I think this will open the door — and don't think we need to take on the municipal issue, as this needs more discussion and research than a simple letter from each counsel. Questions Reade if the letter to Marcus came about because of Sutton's clients who asked for a determination. Can't this move forward without a vote due to the powers the Land Bank has anyhow? Doesn't know if they need to be the one to make a determination. There was no violation. They did go to HDC, ConCom and will have to go to the Planning Board. Marcus didn't make a determination on municipal use and there's been no action taken where he has acted on his further explanation of the preservation of a lot in its natural condition. The question is; what's the definition of a park vs. a playground... The other option for us is to overturn/disregard/disagree with Marcus' decision and say the Land Bank already has the right to do as they want. Doesn't think that the Board needs to define what a park is and no one is comfortable defining a municipal use determination. This is not our purview. Botticelli — A park is a space with a couple benches etc., where as a playground has gazebos, etc. Motion Motion to sustain the appeal regarding the use of the park as an appropriate preservation of a lot in its natural condition. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Poor) Vote 4:1 (Poor: abstained) Page 3 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 2. 046 -14 L. Dennis Shapiro, Trustee of Dionis Realty Trust 73 Eel Point Road Reade CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 11, 2014 3. 051 -14 Robert Reiskin 34 Cod Fish Park Brescher Sitting Toole, Botticelli, Koseatac, Angelastro, McCarthy Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing John Brescher, Esq. — (mostly inaudible) Applicant requests special permit relief to make the shed comply with setback regulations from 29.8% to 30% allowed by right. 6.77' from rear lot line, 120sq.ft. in structure setbacks with alterations of 20 sq.ft. setbacks. Public Mark Poor — The Septic setback causes the encroachments, 5' parallel to the septic trench. Concerns Botticelli — Questions, if the building is being picked up and moved, why can't it just be moved out of the setback. Motion Motion to grant relief as requested according to the MWP design Plan dated 11/6/2014 — entered as Exhibit A. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 4. 053 -14 Tack 3, LLC 26 Washington Street Reade Sitting O'Mara, Botticelli, Koseatac, McCarthy, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Esq. — Existing building on Washington street, water side and looking to increase the height of the building due to major work and requirements due to changes in FEMA. We also have to go through Chapter 91 and licensing for this project and that is an issue where we don't have the answer to whether that's going to be permitted or not. Confirms the plans shown by Webster are HDC approved. Based on Land Bank, wonder if we should continue to work on parking. Comments that we should continue for release of a new plan. Arthur Gasbarro — Clarify plan Board is looking at is schematic in nature, and is basically a line diagram. Pick structure up and confirm to a "velocity zone" elevation of 12.4, to confirm with building codes. The existing structure is not HDC or ConCom approved. The modified plan is asking for 1.75' above to comply with HDC and Building with Nantucket in Mind. The I P is clear space for the flood zone. Parking is not proposed for the 11' clear space. Wasn't looking at this as a parking lot — abundance of parking is available. 12' in parking space. We left the gap space between garage and structure and doesn't disagree that it's not tight. Chip Webster — The drawing on the front page is what has been approved by HDC, the second page is what the structure would look like raised. Roof walk is an addition to make 37.7, roughly 38' in height. Space above the garage is for ancillary storage. Public None Concerns Botticelli — The plan helps to clarify the application. The site plan looks really tight between the parking space and the garage and doesn't think it's the proper aisle width. Appears that the parking spaces would be impossible to use, and that applicant is probably looking for a waiver. Thinks it looks very tight. Those two (2) spaces can't be considered as part of the parking as they are unusable. Intensity of front of the lot is too intense. Angelastro — Questioned what goes in the I V space below. Questioned if you could you park under there (11' space). It appears you are retaining 960 sq.ft. Thinks it's too intense. O'Mara — Questions if the roof walk is an addition. The '92 the building was approved for office space. Thinks this is a terribly intense plan. Doesn't like the height, intensity and parking waiver. Looks nice ... retail customer... if they have to walk, they're not going to park elsewhere. Willing to support the project without the garage. Believes you'll need an aisle width waiver — even with garage removed it is too intense. States he still doesn't see anything in special permits allowing retail use. McCarthy — Agrees about the garage. Koseatac — Questions what kind of retail... we don't know. Would have to see visually on the plans and then decide. Motion Motion to Continue to 12/11/2014. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Angelastro) Vote Carried unanimously 5. 058 -14 Mark D. Forsyth and Suzanne J. Forsyth 8 Gull Island Lane Stover CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 11, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 111. NEW BUSINESS 1. 060 -14 Susan S. White and Lindsay White, as Trustees of the Susan S. White Revocable Trust 14 D Street Brescher Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Nantucket Zoning Bylaw Section 139- 16.C(2) or, in the alternative, relief by Variance pursuant to 139 -32 from the side yard setback requirement in Section 139 -16, in order to validate the unintentional setback intrusion of an existing bunkhouse sited approximately 9.64 feet from the rear yard lot line in a zoning district which requires a ten (10) foot rear yard setback. The Locus is an undersized lot of record, having approximately 14,742 square feet of lot area in a zoning district that requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. Locus is pre - existing nonconforming as to ground cover ratio, having 10.9% where a maximum of 10% is allowed, as to frontage having 50.52 feet of frontage where 100 feet of frontage is required, and as to rear yard setbacks with the bunkhouse being sited as stated above and the main dwelling being sited 3.4 feet from the rear yard lot line where a ten (10) foot setback is required. The Locus is situated at 14 D Street, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 60.2.1 as Parcel 1, as Lot 104 on Land Court Plan 3092 -R and as Lot 87 -A on Land Court Plan 3092 -T. Evidence of owner's title is registered as Certificate of Title No. 21705 in the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Village Residential (VR). Sitting Toole, O'Mara, McCarthy, Koseatac, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing John Brescher, Esq. - (mostly inaudible) Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief. The survey done in 2000 shows the lot line. Confirms he does not know if it is foundation or piers. States it is the same owner just trying to clean it up. Public None Concerns Toole — Questioned if there was evidence of the John Shugrue survey that shows he did the work. States the 10' things are not Shugrue, and he would assume that is from the corner and from the corner. Doesn't buy the argument that it was so long ago, it was only 13 years ago. That would set the precedent that you can do whatever you want then come back 10 or 15 years and ask for relief. Said he can hang his hat on the fact that it's better than it use to be. States he agrees with Angelastro in making a situation much better. Antonietti — States the plans the Board is reviewing were plans she found in the 043 -00 decision. O'Mara — Questioned if it was foundations or piers. McCarthy — It was something that was done so long ago and they're just trying to clean it up. Has no problem with it. It appears they intended to do it at 10' and missed the mark. Thinks it's unintentional because if it was intentional it would be more than 0.36'. Angelastro — They're all unintentional. Questioned how this one is unintentional. Motion Motion to grant relief. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 2. 040 -14 Nantucket Island Resorts, LLC 20 Cherry Street Beaudette Appellant brings an appeal of a "Notice of Zoning Code Violation and Order to Cease, Desist, and Abate" issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer on May 5, 2014. The "Notice" asserted a violation of Section 139 -33.A of the Zoning Bylaw with regard to the alteration of a pre- existing, nonconforming commercial use without the required special permit. In the alternative, Applicant requests modification of prior Special Permit to allow commercial storage on the premises by Nantucket Tents, the current Lessee. Sitting Toole, O'Mara, McCarthy, Koseatac, Poor - Angelastro (recused) Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Richard Beaudette, Esq. — (mostly inaudible) States he is present to request a continuance. States he submitted a letter last month to request a continuance to February. States he spoke with Andrew Vorce and he made recommendations to him... Suggested we continue this out far enough so that we have an opportunity to see what will happen, and not waste the time of the Board. The lease expires in May. States he doesn't think the neighbors are year - round. States that he requested for the hearing to not be opened. Public None Concerns Toole — Questioned when the lease expires. Questions the Board if they are comfortable with a continuance. Confirms with Beaudette that the hearing is open at this point. In the past, we continue ad nauseam, and the behavior continues. It appears we don't want to give you a continuance. You should tell your client that Susan's gone by there and there's activity. It's not going to bode well if others go by there and there's continued activity. O'Mara — Questioned if the neighbors were year- round. Thinks it is best to proceed. Angelastro — States there are a lot of good letters in the file from neighbors — good meaning they did a lot of research — concluding this cannot be anything more than a greenhouse. States Koseatac just reminded him back in October when this matter was first heard, he had a conflict and although he can't remember what it was, he is going to recuse himself. Page 5 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 McCarthy - States she is comfortable with a continuance based on the information from last time that the building wasn't in use, it was dormant, etc. She gets that the season is over, but she drove by and the garage was open, there was a truck parked there and it seems that there was a violation. If we continue it, there's something that Marcus thought was enough to issue a violation — I'm hesitate to continue if the violation is going to continue to drive the neighbor crazy. There's a tenant where there's an order to cease & desist. Antonietti — Marcus said he will not pursue action while an appeal is ongoing. Motion Motion to continue to December 11, 2014. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 3. 061 -14 Don Allen Auto Service, Inc. 10 Polpis Road Evens Applicant is requesting Modification of prior Special Permit relief, granted in three decisions, to allow for exterior display of sales vehicles as shown on a Revised Site Plan. The first two decisions (File No. 105 -06, modified by File No. 03 -12) granted relief for alteration and expansion of a pre- existing nonconforming commercial use to allow for the inspection, detailing, and sales of vehicles. The most recent modification ( File No. 38 -13) granted relief to reduce the open area requirements and to increase the driveway width. The Locus is situated at 10 Polpis Road, is shown on Assessor's Map 54 as Parcel 124, and as Lots 12 and 17 on Land Court Plan 10937 -B. Evidence of owner's title is recorded at Certificate of Title No. 18875 on file at the Nantucket Registry District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Village Residential (VR). Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Angelastro, Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Eric Evens, Applicant — (mostly inaudible) In March 2012 we were approved for 13 parking spaces. We got a letter from Marcus Silverstein that we were in violation by parking display cars in the parking lot. I don't have anywhere else to park display cars and am here today to propose parking display areas along the lot. Another proposal is that I put two over here, where it says display area. The letter that I got said I was parking cars in the inspection lanes, and I did have a few parked down in this lane [here]. Public None Concerns Botticelli — Questioned if the display area is along the building and the public road, and if these are the three spaces that existed. So essentially, you're reducing the amount of parking spaces you have. Clarifies that they only use two lanes. States the lanes create flows. States that we can allow him to modify exhibit A, and he can show where he's going to park the cars, and relocate the two (2) parking spaces that he needs. Questions if spaces are tandem. Suggests he find two more legal spaces and puts them on the plan. Toole — Confirms that this is what is up for discussion; can you park a display car in a parking space? — he doesn't know, we're going to talk about it. Questions why can't they put these three spaces on the plan elsewhere — or two, you only need two. States that the spots shouldn't go in the display area as stated on the plan because it blocks the other spots, that it should be where the plan reads lots 12 & 17. Doesn't know why the Board needs to delineate or bless the display area. Questions if someone complained. Questioned why Marcus took action. Confirms that they only require twelve (12) spaces. States that whoever prepared this survey, he should go back to and work with them to modify to allow display and make sure they comply. Doesn't think he would be willing to waive this — you have to show the minimum amount of parking spaces. Ideally, there are no spaces that are tandem. States Marcus is referencing the pragmatic use and not the plan. Angelastro — Comments that he thinks what they did over there looks very nice. There's nothing that says he has to have lanes. McCarthy — Marcus made that part of the violation — that he was parking cars in the lanes. Questioned if we had Marcus' letter. States she doesn't know if he needs to delineate what's display and what's not. Antonietti — Confirms there was a complaint. Proposed display area is so he can park cars in exterior ancillary to parking spots. Confirms people can call in a complaint. Confirms applicant is just trying to rectify the problem. Motion Motion to continue to December 11, 2014. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried unanimously Page 6 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 4. 062 -14 Steven L. Cohen, Trustee of 62 Walsh Street Trust 62 Walsh Street Cohen Applicant is requesting relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139 -32 from the intensity regulations in Section 139- 16. Specifically, applicant is seeking a waiver from the maximum allowable ground cover ratio of 30% to allow for the construction of a 32 square foot addition to the existing primary dwelling which would yield a ratio of 30.2 %. The Town of Nantucket has approved the Taking of the remaining portion of Dix Street and is in the process of disposing of it through the Yard Sale Program. The Applicant is the only abutter to this portion of Dix Street, and will automatically be awarded the winning bid. Once conveyed from the Town to the applicant, the merging of the Dix Street parcel with the existing premises would yield a compliant ground cover ratio of 27.9 %. The Locus is situated at 62 Walsh Street, is shown on Assessor's Map 29 as Parcel 85, and as Lot 37 on Land Court Plan 10887 -M and as Lot 3 -A on Plan File 02 -17. Evidence of owner's title is recorded at Certificate of Title No. 24892 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court and Book 1400, Page 92 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential 1 (R -1). Sitting Toole, O'Mara, McCarthy, Angelastro, Poor Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Esq. — States essentially what we have is an application for a variance related to ground cover. The proposed second dwelling — the foundation has been poured — the applicant would also like to include a bump out in the front that goes all the way down to the ground. This house was granted a variance before except for this little nub as it was part registered and unregistered land and the Town is in the process of fixing this through the Yard Sale program. Applicant is asking to go over ground cover by 30.2% which is basically 0.2% and is equal to 16 sq. ft. Trying to add this on later would be much more expensive for applicant. Clarifies that the applicant is the only abutter for the Yard Sale, and that the only other abutter is okay with it once the Yard Sale happens as long as they get their land. After all is said and done, clients ground cover would be 27.9% and would be within the ground cover. States the original variance was given for the side -yard setback. Confirms he is confident in the measurements. Client confirmed that they want the floor in the bay area. Confirms he is happy to include the language that they must acquire the land or they will have to remove the floor system, as a condition to make the ground cover under 30 %. Requests that they are allowed to go to 28% ground cover. Public None Concerns Antonietti — 64 Walsh is in favor of this. O'Mara — Questioned what the original variance was given for. Questioned the reasons as to why zoning in different districts are different. Suggests holding/hedging at 27.9 %. Thinks that they should acquire the land first. Poor — States you can have a bay without a floor system and it doesn't count as ground cover. Confirms Michael is saying that they'd be limited to 27.9% ground cover moving forward. States the bylaw is that you need to prove a `hardship'. States he can see it O'Mara's way. It's unusual, but he wouldn't normally embrace something like this. McCarthy — Suggests that the client would get what they wanted and not take the Yard Sale land. States the hardship would be walls, electrical, etc. costs should they have to do this after — either in removal or addition costs. States she likes O'Mara's idea, but if we limit them to 27.9 %, they are just going to come back. Toole — Inclination is to wait the year until the yard sale is over and then add in the bay floor system. In reality, he doesn't feel it's a hardship to have to wait, they have time — it's a plywood shell. Angelastro — Thinks they can come back. States he is not in favor under any conditions. Motion Motion to grant relief by Variance with conditions of acquisition of the Yard Sale land and total ground cover after land acquisition only allowing 28% ground cover. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Poor) Vote 4:1 — ( Angelastro: opposed) Page 7 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2014, adopted Dec. 11 5. 059 -14 Preserve ACK, LLC 15 Meader Street Alger Applicant is requesting Modification of prior Special Permit in File No. 83 -13 which granted relief to alter and extend a pre - existing non - conforming use (multiple dwelling units). Specifically, the applicant seeks to submit a Revised Site Plan which shows an increase in ground cover ratio from the previously approved 29.9% to a revised 32.8 %. As a result of a recent zoning change from R -1 to ROH, approved at the 2014 Annual Town Meeting, the locus has been made conforming as to all dimensional zoning requirements. The Locus remains pre - existing non - conforming as to use, with multiple (4) dwelling units approved in prior decision, and as to driveway access and parking requirements, with two (2) curb cuts and six (6) on -site parking spaces approved in prior decision. The Locus is situated at 15 Meader Street, is shown on Assessor's Map 42.2.3 as Parcel 45, and evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1401, Page 340 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. At the time of the prior decision, the site was zoned Residential 1 (R -1), but has since been placed in the Residential Old Historic (ROH) zoning district. Sitting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Botticelli, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Esq. — Provided substitute exhibit plan to the prior granted Special Permit issued on March 27`s. Reason being the ground cover didn't get reduced as much as we had planned. In the meantime, our zoning changed and our property is completely conforming dimensionally and ground cover -wise, and remaining non - conformities are the five (5) pre - existing buildings and the unusual parking curb -cut configuration. Public None Concerns No concerns or comments. Motion Motion to accept new Exhibit A. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried unanimously ■ George S. Frazza and Marie L. Frazza EMERGENCY HOUSE MOVE 21 Sheep Pond Road Alger Applicant is requesting a Temporary Permit pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139 -26.H in order to allow for an emergency relocation of the structure on the premises which is threatened by severe coastal erosion. Applicant will be submitting an application for relief by Variance pursuant to Zoning Bylaw 139 -32 for a waiver from all setback provisions in Section 139 -16 in order to relocate the existing structure away from the eroding coastal bank. Structure may be relocated across property lines and within land owned by the Applicant and under the Applicant's control through a pending license agreement with the Town and/or County of Nantucket. The Locus is situated at 21 Sheep Pond Road, is shown on Assessor's Map 63 as Parcel 19, and as Lot 2 on Land Court Plan 35142 -B. Evidence of owner's title is recorded at Certificate of Title No. 16963 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Limited Use General 2 (LUG -2). Sitting Toole, McCarthy, O'Mara, Botticelli, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Esq. — Request for an emergency permit and will be coming back with an application for December. This building is hanging off the land and only has about three (3') feet left. Toscana is about to lift it and move it back. We were granted a license by the County to put the house in the unused portion of Sheep Pond Road, and at their request we had to amend our proposed plan. They want to maintain the road portion. States that there is nowhere to go `after'. Public None Concerns No concerns or comments. Motion Motion to approve temporary permit. (made by: Angelastro) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously ■ Approval of 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule January 8t', 2015 — MO, LB & SM will not be here January 15'', 2015 — SM & MA will not be here Board agreed to discuss schedule via email. V. ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn: 3:22 p.m. Submitted by: K Bradford Page 8 of 8