Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-7-9 Minutes for July 9,2015,adopted Aug. 13 4 !,g;,,% ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CO lip 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 '.'o9P� � www.nantucket-ma.gov Commissioners: Ed Toole(Chair),Lisa Botticelli(Vice chair),Susan McCarthy(Clerk),Michael J. O'Mara,Kerim Koseatac,Mark Poor, Michael Angelastro,Geoff Thayer — MINUTES — Thursday,July 9,2015 Public Safety Facility,4 Fairgrounds Road,Community Room—1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti,Zoning Administrator;T.Norton,Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Toole,Botticelli, McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac,Angelastro, Thayer Absent: Poor Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: Botticelli, 1:44 p.m. A•enda adopted b unanimous consent I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 10,2015:Held by unanimous consent 2. June 18,2015:Held by unanimous consent II. OLD BUSINESS 1. 20-15 Shimmo Hills,LLC 10 North Road Cohen CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13,2015 2. 21-15 NHA Properties,Inc. 7 Surfside Road Kuszpa Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139-33A(1) to extend a pre-existing nonconforming residential use.The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing dwelling(secondary dwelling) to the southwest corner of the lot and to site a primary dwelling(moved from another property)upon the premises.The dwellings will be compliant with the intensity regulations of the bylaw.The exclusive residential use of this property,rezoned from Residential 10 to Commercial Neighborhood by virtue of a zoning change article passed at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting,results in a pre-existing nonconforming use.The proposed siting of a secondary dwelling upon the lot is an extension of that pre-existing nonconforming use.The property is permanently deed-restricted for the purpose of providing affordable year-round housing.The Locus is situated at 7 Surfside Road,is shown on Assessor's Map 55 as Parcel 254 and upon Plan Book 13,Page 55.Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1467,Page 6 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds.The site is zoned Commercial Neighborhood(CN). Sitting Toole,Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac,Thayer Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation Representing Ann Kuszpa,Executive Director Housing Nantucket—Asking for approval for two dwellings in a CN zone with two more in the future.Moved the driveway and expanded the guest parking and submitted a plan showing all four units.The structure existing is 1 bedroom. In September,will move on a 2 bedroom. Currently looking for another 1 bedroom&2 bedrooms.In CN,can have up to 8 bedrooms and 5 dwellings by right.There would be no more than 7 bedrooms when finished but expect the final number to be 6 bedrooms. Public Sallyanne Austin, 19 Surfside Road—Still a little worried about density of 8 parking spots and where guests would park.There is no room for extra parking.Suggested Ms Hill-Holdgate has a conflict of interest. Dawn Hill-Holdgate,2 Vesper Lane—Spoke in support of the plan as submitted.Assured that there is no intent for her family to donate a structure to the lot.She would support the limitation on bedrooms. Concerns (1:24) Toole—This plan meets the zoning requirements. Botticelli—This seems to be a nice solution.Asked if it is possible to cap the lot at 7 bedrooms. Antonietti—Yes. O'Mara—Noted that all the buildings will be donated,but ZBA doesn't care who donates them. Toole—The zoning bylaw doesn't normally take guest parking into account.Parking on the bike path and sidewalk is a police matter.There is the matter of right to put a 5-unit apartment building with up to 8 bedrooms on that lot. Discussion about limiting the number of bedrooms to either 6 or 7. Thayer—Believes limiting to 7 bedrooms is a reasonable compromise. Discussion on the motion. Motion Motion to Approve the application for the 2nd dwelling based upon the parking as shown on the plan and the overall lot limited to 7 bedrooms. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously Page 1 of 3 Minutes for ul 9,2015,ado.ted Au.. 13 III. NEW BUSINESS 1. 67-14 Giedrius Miksys&Kristina Ralkova,et a/as Owners,and Nantucket Properties,LLC&Trade Wind Cottages Condominium,as Applicants 40&42 Nobadeer Farm Road Beaudette CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13,2015 2. 23-15 John Ryan Smith And Patricia J. Smith 5 Sparrow Drive Alger Applicant is seeking Special Permit relief pursuant to Nantucket By-law Section 139-16.C(2) to validate the unintentional side yard setback intrusion of the dwelling.While a 2011 as-built showed the dwelling as dimensionally compliant,an updated 2015 survey plan shows that an addition,built in 2011 with ZBA approval,is sited as close as 4.8 feet from the easterly side yard lot line where a minimum five (5) foot setback distance is required.An air conditioning unit is also shown on said plan to be sited 4.8 feet from the westerly side yard lot line. The locus and structures thereon are otherwise dimensionally conforming.The Locus is situated at 5 Sparrow Drive,is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 68 as Parcel 530,and as Lot 254 upon Land Court Plan 16514-12.Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No.24264 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The property is zoned Residential 5 (R-5). Sitting Toole,Botticelli,McCarthy, O'Mara,Koseatac Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger P.C.—The property was rezoned to R5 after the structure was built,making the existing building non-conforming;an addition was permitted as close as 5 feet from the easterly side yard lot line. Construction of an addition was done as permitted and the as-built showed it to be conforming and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued.When the property was put on the market,the buyer had a surveyor do a new plot plan;it showed that the addition is as close as 4.8 feet from the line as opposed to 5 feet on the easterly side. On the westerly side there is an air- conditioning condenser(A/C) also at 4.8 feet.It turned out the original survey was done to the foundation,not the corner board.Want to move the A/C so that it is 5 feet from the line. Public None Concerns(1:08) Botticelli—The sheathing and corner board should be 1.5 inches;this is 4-inches difference.The A/C has to move. Toole—Need a letter in the file from Mr.Holdgate explaining the reason for the error.He doesn't see why the A/C wasn't dealt with properly.He would like a better understanding of the 4-inch differential. Discussion about how the discrepancy occurred. Toole—He would like the surveyor to also attest that the construction was done in accordance with the permit and plans and that it did not get bigger. Botticelli—Thinks it best to have 10 feet on the westerly side and make the easterly side the 5-foot setback side. McCarthy—Read the original decision. Clarified that one side of the lot has a 5-foot setback and one side has 10-foot setback; Alger—At time of construction the owner chooses which side will have the 5-foot setback. Toole—The zoning on the lot is 10 and 5;it is pre-existing,non-conforming on the westerly side. Botticelli—They got a special permit to go up to 5 feet on the easterly side. Alger—Asked if relief to put the A/C at 7.3 feet on the 10-foot setback side would be acceptable.Asked for a decision today due to hardship for her client.Explained the hardship.The problem was created by the surveyor and the builder. Botticelli—Feels it is ridiculous that two different surveyors come up with two different numbers.She would like more information. McCarthy—If the surveyor were here to discuss this,she would be willing to accept a letter at a later date. O'Mara—Made a motion to continue this till later in the meeting. Carried unanimously Reopened at 1:45 p.m. Sitting Toole,McCarthy,O'Mara,Koseatac,Thayer Representing Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger P.C.—The setting of the foundation didn't take into account the construction of the building. Suggested this board can decide the setback is measured from the foundation. Frank Holdgate,surveyor—The foundation was pargetted and built out which causes the inches beyond the 1.5 expected from.The pargeting is at least 1/4 inch. John Brescher,Glidden&Glidden—Attested that the contractor built it to the specifications of the plans. Public Pam Sosebee,2 Catherine Lane—Noted that on the side where the addition is there is a master bedroom,and there is no neighbor to that side. Discussion O'Mara—If a surveying mistake turns up after construction,that applicant is eligible for a special permit. Toole—It was put in at 5.1 and met 5.1,but the building once constructed didn't meet that. Holdgate—Explained how the construction created the difference and how different surveyors use different control points. McCarthy—Is willing to grant the relief. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested with the A/C at 7.3 feet. (made by:Thayer) (seconded by:O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously Page 2 of 3 Minutes for July 9,2015,adopted Aug. 13 IV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Discussion about setback intrusions. Angelastro—He believes this board should urge applicants to discuss with neighbors a land swap when there is an intrusion such as occurred at 5 Sparrow Drive. Alger—Said the east-side abutter is land-court property and they did think about it. Koseatac—Thinks the builder should be held liable. Toole—Does not agree with that as often it is out of the builder's hands.It is the homeowner who wants to have as much space as possible. McCarthy—One problem is this comes up when a homeowner is trying to sell a house.The question is who would be penalized,the homeowner or surveyor or builder.Feels in this case it was a mistake. Toole—In his opinion,the homeowner is pushing the architect to build up to the setback line. Discussion about who drives a construction that ends up in this position. Thayer—Suggested that perhaps a fine should be in place. Toole—The fine is"no"and to tear it down. Antonietti—It is built into the bylaw,such as in this case when it is due to surveyor error,it is allowed that this can happen.Noted that recently there was an application for which this board granted a variance.This board has the discretion to abide by the letter of the law or to deny or grant a request for relief.This application was based on a hardship and meets both conditions.A decision could be reached that the building was built based upon the foundation and then there is the overhang;this happens all the time. Toole—The real persuasion against this happening is that they don't get relief when they come in.They have the opportunity to comply. Frank Holdgate—In the bylaw,it is very grey;by the law,the surveyor can measure from either the foundation or the corner board.He has brought this to the attention of Andrew Vorce,Director Planning and suggested they rewrite the zoning to clarify from what the surveyor measures. 2. Discussion about how long an application can be continued. Angelastro—Expressed concern about applications that are continued for months at a time. Toole—In the past the reason the ZBA would get upset is because they could continue to operate a commercial business while the permit is still being heard.A general question is if the ZBA should set some limitations on continuances. Some have gone on for years. Angelastro—Reviewed a case that upset him.Over a long period of time,properties could change hands and new owners know nothing about what's going on. Antonietti—The ZBA can re-notice a continued application.Noted that even if abutters come to an agreement,the applicant has to come to the ZBA. Toole—A board member can make a motion not to continue and the applicant would have to withdraw and resubmit.It is best that an application,once put into the queue,should be heard and dealt with.If that isn't possible,an application should be withdrawn and resubmitted when the applicant is truly ready. Thayer—If any board member feels that something untoward is going on,he/she should speak up. Toole—He believes that commercial applications should not be allowed to continue ad museum. V. ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn: 2:20 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L.Norton Page 3 of 3