HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-6-10 Minutes for June 10,2015,adopted Aug. 13
.'' N `.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
%''r°- '`. 2 Fairgrounds Road
a ,i,'1 y �� Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
° - www.nantucket-ma.gov . _
��AAT�=
Commissioners:Ed Toole(Chair),Lisa Botticelli(Vice chair),Susan McCarthy(Clerk),Michael J.O'Mara,Kerim Koseatac,Mark Poor, , -'
Michael Angelastro,Geoff Thayer
— MINUTES —
Wednesday,June 10,2015 - -
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, O'Mara,Koseatac,Poor,Thayer
Absent: McCarthy,Angelastro
Late Arrivals: None
Early Departures: O'Mara 2:50 p.m.
Agenda adopted as amended by unanimous consent
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. May 14,2015:Motion to Approve. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by:O'Mara) Carried unanimously
II. NEW BUSINESS
1. 20-15 Shimmo Hills,LLC 10 North Road Cohen
REQUEST CONTINUANCE DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM
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).
Toole asked for a general discussion about the notion of special meetings:
Koseatac–He is opposed unless it is an emergency but not just to accommodate someone's schedule.
Thayer–He is in favor of in situation situations like this where it is the only way to ensure a quorum;otherwise he too is
opposed to them.
Toole–Suggested that everyone reexamine their ability to fulfill their commitment to the board in making it to the
meetings.
Sitting Koseatac (acting chair), Poor,Thayer
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Steven Cohen,Cohen&Cohen Law PC
Arthur Reade,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP
Public None
Discussion(1:06) Cohen–Because there are only 3 sitting at this time and four are required for a vote,this would go to the next meeting;
however at least one member sitting won't be able to attend. His client would like a 5-member board sitting on this and is
asking for a special meeting when all sitting board members can attend.
Thayer–In this situation,he is willing to attend a special meeting.
Poor and Koseatac agree.
Antonietti–If the hearing is opened,she will not have to re-advertise.
Reade–Asked for a specific date for the continuance,otherwise they have to re-notify the abutters.
Discussion about a date for this to be continued to:June 18 at 1 p.m.;location to be announced.
Motion Motion to continue this to be opened at a special meeting scheduled on June 18 at 1 p.m. (made by:Thayer)
(seconded by: Poor)
Vote Carried 3-0
Page 1 of 5
Minutes for June 10,2015,adopted Aug. 13
III. OLD BUSINESS
1. 76-11 Sachems Path,LLC Sachems Path 40-B Singer
Minor Modification to Comprehensive: Permit Applicant seeks determination that proposed non-physical, programmatic, and
technical changes to the Comprehensive Permit, issued in 2012 and amended in 2014, may be considered insubstantial, and as
such, may be authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals and incorporated into the Comprehensive Permit, as previously
amended.
Sitting Toole,Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac,Poor
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Andrew Singer,Law Office of Singer&Singer,LLC—Three Issues: technical changes,substantive issue,and process
question.Reviewed conditions with technical changes to language and reasons for those changes;this also includes
change to management of infrastructure,some of which are included in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant.Process
question:in some 40Bs the board imposed a covenant mechanism and some did not;in this case the board did not.
However,the board set conditions that effectively created a covenant mechanism.Until they receive final approval from
the state,they cannot proceed with house construction;also in order to get a building permit,they need to satisfy
conditions listed in the decision itself.Whether or not they need a covenant release came up in connection with starting
construction on the two model homes.He does not believe they do,but Condition 7 requires that prior to marketing of
any unit,the Zoning Enforcement Officer must make a determination that the model home provides safe access for the
public and can't be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy(CO)is issued for them.The substantive question is
changing the caliper of trees.
Edward Pesce,Pesce Engineering&Associates,Inc.—Today the project is approaching the end of Phase I;
infrastructure is in,minus the retention basin.Under final construction is the wastewater collection system pump station.
Landscaping will take place over the next couple of weeks.There is a problem acquiring 4"caliper trees and getting them
on the island;the landscape architect prefers using 2" to 2.5"trees,which survive and adapt better.
Public None
Discussion(1:16) Thayer—Ed Marchant said the ZBA can impose a covenant release if it wishes.
Antonietti—Can use the restrictions already in place.
Discussion about whether or not the ZBA should impose a covenant release.
Antonietti—The Building Department and Historic District Commission(HDC) are obligated to view a Comprehensive
Permit as a special permit and ensure conditions are met before issuing the building permit for individual lots.
Consensus is that there are plenty of safeguards in place already.
Discussion about the tree caliper,2-3" trees versus 4" trees: the board had been concerned about landscaping getting
short-changed and want the trees to have a chance to grow during the time of construction.
Pesce—Noted that the trees would not be planted until the fall,which is the best time.Phase I sign-off wouldn't include
that but there would be a bond issued to that end.
Consensus does not support a change in the tree caliper.
Discussion about technical language changes which shift responsibility for maintenance of the infrastructure to the
homeowner: the board prefers that responsibility remain with the developer until the completion of the project.
Singer—Housing Assistance Corporation(HAC)is asking for this change because financing is being done per Phase and
everything being completed by phase;one way to show that the Phase is complete is by owners paying into the association
for that infrastructure maintenance.
Poor—There was much discussion wanting the developer to be vested in the infrastructure for the duration of the project
and responsibility not to be transferred to homeowners association until completion of all Phases.
Singer—Noted that once the houses in Phase I are sold and Phase II construction is underway,the developer is still there.
He feels it is logical to have Phase I a completed project.The money that is going to be there will be there.This is control
of homeowners association to take active interest in and control of the subdivision they live in.
O'Mara—The success of Phase II has a lot to do with how Phase I looks and believes the developer will want to stay
active in the appearance of Phase I.
Toole—This was discussed at length,it was the notion that the developer stay involved and homeowners not bear the
responsibility of the maintenance of Phase I infrastructure while Phase II is being built.If Mr. Singer can provide a letter
from whomever is asking for this change,the ZBA will be willing to revisit it.
Poor—If heavy construction vehicles are damaging the roads in Phase I during construction of Phase II,the homeowners
should not be responsible for that repair.
Botticelli—Approving those changes would require specific language as to who is responsible for what during the
construction process.
Toole—Asked Mr. Singer to talk to the HAC about the ZBA's concerns with allowing that transfer of responsibility
before both phases of the project are complete.
Discussion about technical language changes in Condition 2.
Motion Motion to Approve the changes to Condition 2F and Condition 4G,not to include changes to Conditions 8,14,
18 and the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by:Poor)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 2 of 5
Minutes for June 10,2015,adopted Aug. 13
2. 10-15 Williams F.Bill Hunter,Vaughan,Dale,Hunter and Beaudette,P.C.of the 1908 Realty Trust
47 Monomoy Road Alger
Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Sections 139-30.A and 139-33.A to alter and extend a
relocated pre-existing nonconforming structure. In the alternative,Applicant seeks Variance relief pursuant to Section 139-32 from
the maximum height allowance of thirty (30) feet in Section 139-17 in order to validate a height of 32.6 feet for the relocated
dwelling. The structure is conforming in all other respects. The Locus is situated at 47 Monomoy Road, is shown on Assessor's
Map 54 as Parcel 295,and as Lot 5 upon Land Court Plan No. 14029-C.Evidence of owner's title is recorded at Certificate of Title
No. 23525 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.The site is zoned Limited Use General 1 (LUG-1).
Sitting Toole,Botticelli, O'Mara,Koseatac,Poor
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Sarah Alger,Sarah F.Alger P.C.—This is a house that was over 30 feet tall before it was moved.Board has asked for
substantiating evidence that the height of the structure was not altered.
Public None
Discussion(1:52) Discussion about a letter from attorney Peter Kyberg which references the presence of a retaining wall as evidence that
the topography altered.
Botticelli—The photos do not indicate that the structure was elevated in any way.
Poor—Looked at the Building Department and HDC files;the HDC application was not filled out to the level of detail
usually required,but the drawings measured the structure at 32 feet tall.The HDC had three other application when the
height issue could have been addressed yet they didn't.
Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested as it is a preexisting structure and no alterations were made to
increase its ridge height. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by: O'Mara)
Vote Carried unanimously
IV. NEW BUSINESS
2. 67-14 Giedrius Miksys&Kristina Ralkova,et alas Owners,and Nantucket Properties,LLC&Trade Wind Cottages
Condominium,as Applicants 40&42 Nobadeer Farm Road Beaudette
CONTINUED TO JULY 9,2015
3. 19-15 Susan A.Lynch and Thomas A.Lynch 4 Saccacha Avenue Reade
Applicant seeks Variance relief pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139-32 from the front yard setback requirements in Section 139-
16.A. Specifically, applicant seeks waiver to validate a front yard setback distance of 27.4 feet in a zoning district which requires a
minimum front yard setback distance of (35) feet. The dwelling is otherwise dimensionally compliant with the provisions of
Section 139-16. The Locus is an undersized lot of record situated at 4 Saccacha Avenue, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's
Map 82 as Parcel 108,and as Lots 26,27,28,and 29 on Plan Book 1,Page 95 and on Plan File No. 25-E.Evidence of owner's title
is recorded in Book 1296,Page 282 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds.The property is zoned Limited Use General
2(LUG-2).
Sitting Toole, Botticelli, O'Mara, Koseatac,Thayer
Documentation File with associated plans,photos and required documentation
Representing Arthur Reade,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP—Explained how the new addition ended up with an intrusion
into the setback.The width of the road in question is 33 feet and the traveled area of the road is well within that 33 feet;
as a result,a large amount of vegetation is actually within the layout of Saccacha Avenue. Submitted at the table a photo
showing the road and house.Noted that the abutter farther down the road submitted a letter of support.
Val Oliver,Designer—Read a statement into the record accepting responsibility for the error that caused the intrusion.
The corner of the porch has a 7'6"intrusion into the setback;but is 42 feet from the edge of the private way.
Tom Lynch,Owner—They know of no hardship imposed upon anyone and respectfully request the variance be
granted.
Paul Santos,Nantucket Surveyors
Public None
Discussion(2:04) O'Mara—Asked if there are any letters of opposition from neighbors. (No)
Toole—Feels he hasn't heard a compelling reason behind this request.To him the error was obvious and avoidable.This
is a porch and the mistake could be rectified without hardship.
Botticelli—It doesn't look any closer to the road than the neighbor to the east.Would like to see it put under a special
permit.
O'Mara—This is a small non-conforming lot.He is willing to support this because of the size and shape of the lot.
Reade—There is no provision in the bylaw that allows for a special permit in this situation. Noted that there is likely to be
no further development on this road that would disturb the vegetation.
Koseatac—Asked how much trouble it would be to adjust the porch.
Botticelli—This is not a programmatic hardship,but it is a financial hardship.There are a lot of criteria that have to be
met for the variance to be granted,and this doesn't meet those.
Lynch—If the porch comes off,the house will be ugly;if it had been designed properly,the house would look different.
Feels this was not a hardship that was self-created.
Page 3 of 5
Minutes for June 10,2015,adopted Aug. 13
O'Mara—This lot has 418 square feet(SF) of groundcover;he would make a motion this be approved under the
condition that any further construction that would increase the groundcover would require the building be moved to make
it conform.
Motion Motion to Grant the variance based on the fact this is a non-conforming site with a restrictive building zone
and no one wrote a letter or spoke in opposition and only one other residence uses this street and with the
condition that the building be moved to conform for any construction that would increase the groundcover.
(made by: O'Mara) (seconded by:Koseatac)
Vote Carried 4-1//Toole opposed
4. 21-15 NI-IA 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—Zoning of this area was changed in 2008 from R-10;request is
for a special permit to place a secondary structure on the lot. Housing Nantucket acquired the property in 2014 to be
used for affordable housing purposes.The most desirable design is for five single-family cottages and a shed on the lot.
This application is to allow movement of a second structure onto the lot.In the process of acquiring a Local Initiative
Program(LIP),there is a requirement which is part of the 40B law.This is a LIP,which means it is supported by the
local officials and the Housing Trust Fund.Today she is asking for permission to have two dwellings on the lot;she will
be back later for additional dwellings.Explained why this lot is desirable as a residential,affordable site.
Public Sallyanne Austin, 19 Surfside Road—The letter of concern submitted into the file reflects concerns of several neighbors
including her who abut this site.They feel they have not had sufficient information on the project.First there were two
structures,then four,now there are five;this will impact traffic.There are supposed to be animals buried under the tree
on the lot.
Ken Beaugrand,Chair Community Preservation Committee (CPC)—The CPC provided funding for this project;the
community is in dire need of affordable housing.This is in a location where infrastructure is in place,the bike path is
close,there is the ability to walk to town or connect with public transportation,and has town sewer and water.
Discussion(2:32) Toole—Noted there is a letter of opposition.
Antonietti—A second residential building is not allowed by right because the zoning was changed to CN.Noted this
board has previously granted a permit for a special permit for the lot on the corner of Surfside and Vesper Lane.
Toole—There are several commercial entities but many more residential structures in this area.He doesn't understand
why the zoning was changed.He would like to see a concept plan with all four dwellings and parking and screening and
how it will fit into the neighborhood;he does not think this should be done piecemeal.There is at least one neighbor
who has expressed concern.There is concern about parking and exiting onto Surfside Road.
Antonietti—The specific request before the board today is for the second structure.She is not applying for a 40B at this
time;she is just apprising the board that is her future intent.
Toole—He does not think this is a smart plan coming in with one aspect at a time;noted she might not get the four
units later on.
Kuszpa—She is willing to work with the neighbors to come up with a plan that works.NHA has the permits required to
move the structure;they have a safety plan to cordon off the site for the summer,and move the structure September 8,
2015.
Austin—Asked about the plan,she and the neighbors don't even know the size of the building being moved on.
Toole—He isn't ready to vote on this today.Suggested the neighbors review the HDC files or speak with Ms Kuszpa.
When this board grants relief,it should see everything that is planned for the lot at the same time.
Kuszpa—Noted that by right they could build an apartment building on this lot.That is the alternative if she can't get a
permit for the 4-unit plan.
Toole—The board wants more information to include: the final number of bedrooms,parking,and mitigating the
impact on the neighborhood.
Botticelli—Is not comfortable granting a relief with an incomplete site plan;she wants to know more about parking.
Further discussion about options for NI-IA's use of the property and LIP versus 40B.
Motion Motion to Continue to July 9. (made by:Botticelli) (seconded by:Koseatac)
Vote Carried 4-0//O'Mara abstain(left)
Page 4 of 5
Minutes for June 10,2015,adopted Aug. 13
5. 22-15 Michael M. O'Connor and Kathleen Kenny Sanderson,Trustees of The Ellen Mary Crecca Special Needs Trust,as
Owners,and Robert Wright and Suzanne Wright,as Applicant and Appellant
WITHDRAWN BY AGREEMENT per Town Counsel 40 Pocomo Road Wood
Appellant brings an appeal pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 139-31.Appellant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals enter
an Order annulling a Decision,dated April 14,2015,made by the Planning Board where separate driveway access was approved for
both a primary and a secondary dwelling. In the alternative,Appellant requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals enter an Order
directing the Planning Board to issue a revised Decision denying the Secondary Dwelling application. The Locus is situated at 40
Pocomo Road, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 14 as Parcel 37, and as Lot 12 upon Land Court Plan 6283-H.
Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 25581 on file at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court.
The property is zoned Limited Use General 3 (LUG-3).
V. AD OURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn:3:11 p.m.
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 5 of 5