Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-6-18 Minutes for June 1,2015,adopted Aug. 13 4 e,„ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � , SPECIAL MEETING •• ; 2 Fairgrounds Road y Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 - ti �iOS �°9p- = www.nantucket-ma.gov Commissioners:Ed Toole(Chair),Lisa Botticelli(Vice chair),Susan McCarthy(Clerk),Michael J O'Mata,rKdritn Kd'seatac,Marl Per Michael Angelastro,Geoff Thayer MINUTES — Thursday,June 18,2015 2 Fairgrounds Road,Conference Room—1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:06 p.m. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti,Zoning Administrator;T.Norton,Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: McCarthy (acting chair),Koseatac,Poor,Thayer,Angelastro Absent: Toole,Botticelli, O'Mara Late: None Adoption of agenda by unanimous consent I. NEW BUSINESS 10 North Road Cohen 1. 20-15 Shimmo Hills,LLC Applicant seeks Variance relief pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139-32 from the maximum height allowance of thirty(30) feet in Section 139-17.To the extent necessary,Applicant is further requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Sections 139-30.A and 139-33.A to alter and extend a pre-existing nonconforming structure.The locus contains a 1,593 square foot pre-existing nonconforming historic dwelling sited three (3) feet from the northeastern side yard lot line where the required setback is ten(10) feet. The locus and the structure are conforming in all other respects.The Locus is situated at 10 North Road,shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 43 as Parcel 81,as Lots 102 and 103 on Land Court Plan 11461-V.Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 23759 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The property is zoned Limited Use General 1 (LUG-1). Sitting McCarthy,Koseatac,Poor,Thayer, Angelastro Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen,Cohen&Cohen Law PC,for contract purchaser—Believes this is simple, straightforward textbook justification for a variance.Position of existing structures is at elevation 35;the property drops to about elevation 8 with significant wetlands and boundaries for a coastal dune and bluff.The Historic District Commission(HDC) did preliminary review,in which they expressed a desire not to move the existing house from its prominent location. Submitted at the table a letter dated June 17,2015,from Ms Linda Williams,HDC chair,explaining that board's views. The addition will come out the side at elevation 10 to 15 feet lower than the existing structure.The foundation to the ridge of the original structure is 28 feet;but calculating in the height of the addition,it breaks 40 feet from that foundation to the ridge of the existing structure.His client is asking for a variance due to topography,history,shape of the lot and soil.Noted that the massing proposal in the ZBA packet is only a concept;they have tried to mitigate the height as much as possible through the design.The legal standard for a variance is not whether or not the lot can be developed without the variance;the question is whether or not the literal interpretation of the bylaw creates an undue hardship. Here where no part of the structure exceeds 30 feet and calculating it to be 40 feet and over makes no sense. Contends there is still a 10-to 20-foot differential in the calculated whether addition goes west or south.Noted that his client is trying to respect the historic prominence of the structure by leaving it in place and cascading down the hill. Asked the variance be granted. Arthur D. Gasbarro,Blackwell and Associates Inc.,for both owner and buyer—The bylaw reads there is only one highest point for a structure and that measurements are taken 4 feet off the structure at the existing grade and the proposed to determine average mean grade.His measurement is taken at the point of mean grade to the highest point on the structure. Arthur Reade,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP,for owner of record—His client has owned the property for 50-60 years.The buyer is applying for a technical variance.The existing structure is not going up;only because the additions are coming down the slope results in the technical definition of height being exceeded.If we were dealing with new construction,this would be different.In his opinion,it is clear the calculation of height as written in the bylaw is to prevent people from putting a tall house on top of a high point.This is already on top of a high point and it isn't getting higher;only the calculation of height is getting higher.That is where the bylaw language regarding variances as to the literal interpretation of the bylaw comes directly into play.The bylaw relates to shape,soil conditions and topography of the land and structure;that is existing.This is a very rare case where it is Page 1 of 3 Minutes for June 1,2015,adopted Aug. 13 abundantly clear that the conditions of the variance have been met;he believes it would be an irreversible error not to grant variance.The height of the intermediate portions don't come into play in the calculations. Public Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger P.C.,for the owners s of 5 North Road,which has same amWalsh opographical problem and Pond s dealing —Stated that she has also heard from the contract it through construction;hlo objects dtto the lettderrfrom Ms1Williams,which heshadn't seen she or received a copy of;also stated it contract buyer she a it is inappropriate for her to be that 3 such a letter because members would like the HDC rminutes ated in place and 4 members(submitted at okae" table),which were adopted,stated with moving the existing structure on sol lot.TI' applicant ht restriction.This situation is not uncommon;eited other know if something properties could area facing the that properties in the area facing the same problem.a telescopess other locations the slope;this where causing the problem.could be built.They are proposing only one solution granting this variance would set a bad precedent.Don't think the soil,shape,topography,or financial hardship meet the criteria for a variance.Asked this variance be denied.Clarified the locations of her two clients and 5 North Road. Ray those cases ses Botticelli he&Pohl—He has g zoning at the property fo the height.He has approached the site with additions on the old of those cases has he considered getting g house without violating any regulations;with spectacular s; pviews.The grade omathe house west drops precipitously;quite goaing south the ground cover on the lot and wgh has less of a slope.If the addition goes n how much there de is involved.There are other solutions How hat do not require nZBA pulled out from the building depends o grade Discussion(1:06) Angelastro—Asked what the maximum height is of any structure from grade. (30 feet.)Looking at the plan,going parallel with the bank there is more of s drop ot being obscured rwithsthe State he doesn't it understand goingnd the objections of the abutters in the back;their view g McCarthy—Got clarification about how much groundcover there is in relation to the building envelope. Poor—Asked what percentage of the lot is impacted by wetlands. (At least one-third.) Pohl is If the additions are pulled out Noted that that HDbuilding,s never approved a stnictu e out of Town at 30 only fee0t on its there h fax less of they an issue with grade. Cohen n is certain o the would othing,they the additions conform and feet, that literal interpretation would create an undue financial Cohen—If they doh g hardship given the zoning in that area. McCarthy—This is based upon ansked if the HDC ructuxe discussion. and something omething else put this limitations d iltleonform. actually impose on this structure.Asked —The question shoe mof ight what is if being ZBA can grant a conforms;riance for a feature.Does ot believe the HDCewill permit the Poor—The question might b design as e at says we're board is r ar a°¢nce so that the ZBA is being maydbe 2 feet taller variance nd exceeding the 30-foot language that says we're looking for we're not getting that component. Cohen— at is driving this is not how tall the peak of the pieces will be.What drives it is the foundation,low point. Pool—There is an allowance for fill. Cohen or-- is board could grant relief,average between the existing and final grade in design still has to go through the HDC review eview p height. that relief is Poor—This board gr quantified.He's not comfortable with a blanket relief on a variance because of topography. McCarthy—She would like to see something from the HDC;agrees a decision would be made without knowing what it is actually about. zoning says about ou He doesn't ding not exceeding 30 feet from finished grade feet. He believes measured his property qualifies for a zoning says about the building variance. Poor—Sees no hardship in denying the variance. Cohen—They are asking othe m ZBA ass which is the zoning based on the Going through foundation. to apply for s me something say each non- conforming is to be submissive to conforming is a huge waste of time and money. Poor—Years ago the bylaw was changed essentially s�f can adjunctg o that;gigots suggested changing lots, the zoning bylaw to calculation of an element to go up to 32 feet.This acknowledge lots with this sort of topography as opposed to doing it as an independent feature.He thinks the bylaw should be rewritten in how height is calculated. Reade—He believes it should be individually considered and a precedent set so that variances with similar situations could be granted. Page 2 of 3 Minutes for June 1,2015,adopted Aug. 13 Cohen— at is being requested is not a windfall to have a rambling house following the topography.The intent of the bylaw is to prevent pieces of a house that are 3 for 4 stories tall. Poor—The massing study in these documents isn't rambling down the hill.His problem is that he doesn't want someone saying the ZBA gave them the opportunity to do this kind of massing. Thayer—Doesn't see precluding granting some sort of variance which is appropriate,but at this point he's not prepared. Koseatac—He is having trouble seeing who would the hardship be on,the owner or the buyer. Cohen—He believes both.The literal interpretation of the bylaw would restrict development and have millions of dollars of impact on the owner. McCarthy—Asked how not granting the variance would limit construction on the property when others are building without a variance and there is room for a second structure on the property. Reade—Existing house is an"albatross";if a new owner could knock it down and started from scratch,this property would have sold for much more much sooner. Poor—The bulk of the house is within 25 feet of the top of the bank,so due to Conservation Commission regulations,if it were torn down they would not be allowed to rebuild in the same spot. Cohen—This has an extreme slope;most properties on Island are mostly flat.The bylaw was designed for square house on a level lot.It needs to be changed. Discussion about the need to change the zoning bylaw in calculating height. Alger—She doesn't think being able to build out 10 or 15 feet is a hardship;that is not a modest addition;normally people come to this board with plans;here we have blocks on the ground and don't know what the ultimate height will be.`What this board is being asked to do is give this applicant carte blanche to build what they want;she feels the bar should be set higher.Talking about hardship,the question of an alternative comes into play;the hardship they are arguing is that they can't put the biggest possible house on highest point of property.Doesn't believe that is a right or hardship.Reads the variance provision of bylaw.She believes it would derogate from the intent of the bylaw and nullify the height restriction. In terms of underground connections that make it one structure,there is something in the bylaw addressing underground connectors making it one structure. Discussion about underground connectors. Antonietti—Cited Warrant Article 64,the definition of breezeway that excludes"sub-grade structures",which was passed at 2015 Annual Town Meeting. Cohen—There is no material difference as to whether it is connected above grade or below grade in regards to impact on the public.Don't have a fixed design because they have not submitted a formal application;what they are asking only involves the foundation in determining height.His client is asking the variance to say that the ZBA doesn't care that foundation of this piece and ridge of that piece mathematically make this too tall. Poor—Believes doing that would leave the ZBA wide open for other applications citing this as a reason for granting their relief. McCarthy—At this time there are not the four votes needed to pass. Cohen—Asked if there are four votes for some form of variance relief. McCarthy—Would like to see more details.Don't know what this board would be saying yes to or how to limit it in order to protect the board.The drawings given this board have nothing holding the client to that design. She is not prepared to vote on any variance. Poor—He would like to see the bylaw changed.He will keep an open mind for a design with more detail.Pointed out there is not a proper foundation under the house. Angelastro—It would be good to show the board what happens with various options. Koseatac—He will keep an open mind to granting a variance after seeing more details. Discussion about possible design changes that might alleviate the need for a variance and need for better HDC impact. Cohen—Asked for continuance to August regular meeting. Motion Motion to Continue to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 13,2015. (made by:Poor) (seconded by: Angelastro) Vote Carried unanimously II. AD OURNMENT Motion to Adjourn:2:18 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L.Norton Page 3 of 3