Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-Sept-28:.1 BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 MINUTES of the September 28, 1984 Hearing: A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS was held at 1:30 p.m. on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1984 in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket. Present were: Lydle L. Rickard, Chairman, William R. Sherman, Eileen I. Cahoon, Regular Members, Andrew J. Leddy and Linda F. Williams, who, due to prior commitments was late in arriving. As Rickard was not going to be on island for two weeks he handed the chairmanship of the meeting over to Sherman and did not sit on any of the new cases, thus insuring that there would be all three Members on island to sign the decisions in two weeks. The Chairman introduced the Members present. NEW BUSINESS: Old Business was passed over for a short time as Williams had sat on those cases and was not present at that time. The first case was the Application of BRUCE E. EVANS AND JILL M. EVANS (064 -84) seeking a VARIANCE under SECTION 5 (intensity regulations - specifically ground cover) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicants wished to build a detached garage for the purposes of storage, work and laundry space. The property was located at ONE THURSTONS WAY. Members Sherman, Cahoon and Leddy sat on this case. Richard Glidden represented the Applicants and began by ex- plaining the change in zoning that had taken place after they had bought the property. It went iron 5,000 square feet to 20,000 sq.ft. They wanted to construct a garage of 26' by 24' and it had been HDC approved already and the Planning Board had given a favorable re ommendation. Sherman questioned the drive way entrance and said that he prefered to see it placed on Thurstons Way and not Appleton Road as it had been planned. There followed some discussion of that matter. There was then a discussion of Variance criteria and it was questioned as to whether there was anything unique about this lot. The limited space and small size of the lot was mentioned. Leddy asked to see the plans of the proposed structure and -L- Sherman expressed the sentiment that it seemed to be an elaborate design for only a garage. Mention of the toilet facilities and the laundry room was made at that point. There were no speakers-in favor or against. A disinterested party spoke up at that point, who was there for a different hearing, and said she was concerned that it would become an apartment next year. What was to stop the owners from doing that? Ms. Williams assured her that she knew the owners and they had no intention of doing that at any time. There was more discussion about zoning and set -back requirements with the main participants being Glidden and Sherman. Sherman pointed out that it would be very hard to get approval for an apartment in this garage structure, as it didn't meet any of the requirements for a Permit. There was more discussion among the Board Members, primarily about the size of the structure, pin - pointing the jog in the back corner of the buidling as being the most objectionable. The Board felt that there should be a reduction in the overall size of the garage. There was no second on a motion made by Sherman to pass with the necessary reduction of @180 sq. ft. and Glidden asked to have it CONTINUED, which was approved, UNANIMOUSLY, and put off til the next regular meeting. OLD BUSINESS: The first order of Old Business was the hearing of the Application of JAMES AND CAROLINE SHEPHARD (069 -84) that had been CON- TINUED at the last Meeting of August 17, 1984, Members Sherman, Cahoon and Williams had sat on this case. Glidden said that the Shephards were there and reminded the Board that they had not been present at the last meeting and could not speak on their own behalf. He felt that it was important for the Board to hear them at that time. Mr. Shephard explained that he was unable to attend the last meeting due to illness but thanked the Board for allowing him to speak now. He stated that it was not a willful violation of the permitting process and that his daughter, not a resident of the Island and thus not familiar with the processes here, had gone to the HDC and received approval for the shed. She was told, at that time, that she was "all set "and that was all she had to do. She assumed that her ;.; husband, a carpenter by trade, could construct the shed. He termed it an "unfortunate error." There was a short discussion am o ng the Board as to the precedents that might be set. Mr. Shephard said that he had been a summer resident of the Island for a long time and that he never dreamed of violating the laws. He further explained that at the time of the HDC approval his daughter was also ill and simply did not know that there was any- thing else to be done. He was upset about the fact that his name had been bandied about and that there were inferences made that he had tried to deliberately cheat the town and he wanted it on the record that at no time did he try to "pull the wool over anyone's eyes." Hereja letter to the paper was mentioned that was quite derogatory. Sherman said that he felt that most of the concern centered on the precedents that would be set if such a thing was allowed to be gotten away with! The letter from John Santos,in opposition,was read again, and Sherman pointed out that it had been read already. It was mentioned that the Planning Board was under the im- pression that it was an abutters' way between the dwelling in question and the nearest abutter,but it had been ascertained that it was not. More letters were read that Ms. Cahoon had had in her pa&es- sion before,but due to her absence from the last meeting,was unable to introduce into the record. Glidden said that the neighborhood was mostly residential and that his clients felt that the shed was needed to eliminate the sight of yard tools from view. He went on to say that it was not more detri- mental to the area then the current use. He clarified, and Williams concurred, that the shed does not extend into the abutterstway any farther than the house. Williams felt that there was no way any vehicle, emergency or otherwiseicould get through there as the back of the house itself would have to be torn off to do so. It did not appear to her that there had been any recent use of the area for through — traffic. Rickard expressed his reservations about this type of thing happening all the time and he did not want the Board to give the impression that it was at all in favor of people building without the proper permits and then coming in to get them when caught and say that they forgot or just did not know about them. It was agreed among the sitting Board Members that, if granted, there would be in the decision, a statement clarifying the Board's position on building without a permit, to be very strongly worded so as not to give the wrong impression. It was further agreed that the Shephards did not do this with full knowledge and that it appeared to be an honest mistake. On that basis, the Board GRANTED, by a UNANIMOUS vote, the relief sc ght. The next case heard was the Application of CHARLES AND PHYLLIS MAYHEW (062 -84) that was CONTINUED from the last meeting. Members Shermand, Cahoon and Williams had sat on this case. Sherman stated that the Board would accept any further testimony from the Public and the Applicants. It was here noted that one of the main proponents of the original request for the Continuance, Mr. Coe, was not present. There were no speakers for the Application but there were further comments from the Public against it. Rickard spokeas a private citizen, against the Application. He felt that the lot was too small to begin with and that he did not like to see all these things rented from the site, especially trucks of the U -Hall type. He also questioned how was it that there was con- struction going on on the site at that time. Mayhew responded that he had a legal Building Permit for a structure but needed the Special Permit to do what he wanted to do and to repair the items. He went on to state that he would eliminate the Ryder type trucks from his request if that would be amenable. Wayne Holmes, attorney for the Applciants, stated that the lot actually had more area than any in -town operation such as Youngs, and that it was approximately a quarter of an acre in size. At that point, Rickard stated that he objected to the moped and car rental aspect as well. Mayhew answered that he had no intention of renting cars at the moment, but it was a possibility for the future. Rickard said he did not know why, if they weren't sure about that part of the request, he didn't wait and come in later for it. Mayhew said that he had bent over backwards to appease the -5- Board through out all his dealings with it and all he wanted was fairness in return. He didn't want to have to come back to the Board again and have to spend more money and if the Board wanted to put restrictions on the Special Permit that was fine with him also. Leddy said that he thought it was a good idea, coming into get everything at one time rather then time and time again. He felt that doing as much in one hearing was time - saving and less trouble for everyone. Sherman said that the term "Motor Vehicle "was too broad and that the language should be firmed up and restricted to passenger vehicles only and not trucks, other than the owners own. It was also agreed that there would be only a maximum of twelve rental cars on the site at any one time. Sherman stated that it was very helpful that Mr. Mayhew gave a better picture of what would be going on there. The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY, to GRANT the SPECIAL PERMIT subject to all conditions discussed. The last item of Old Business was the hearing of the Appli- cation of PATRICIA WATERHOUSE (055 -84) that was taken UNDER ADVISE- MENT at the Meeting of JULY 13, 1984. Sherman chaired that hearing and Members Cahoon and Williams also sat on the case. There was a discussion among the Board Members about the hours R of operation, with several combinations being suggested. It was agreed that the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and that adequate screening of the premises all the way around would be provided and that the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee be adhered to as to the provisions for ingress and egress. It was voted on UNANIMOUSLY to GRANT the SPECIAL PERMIT subject to all conditions set forth. ww Y n NEW BUSINESS:" } The next case to be heard was that of EDWARD J. PIERING (045 -84) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT under new SECTION 4(A) (3) (year -round acces- sory apartments) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicant wished to have a year -round accessory apartment within a proposed dwelling located at HAWTHORNE LANE and zoned RESIDENTIAL -2. Members Sherman, Cahoon and Williams sat on this case. -b- Leddy stated, for the record, that this was a rehearing of this Application and that the fee should be waived; it was so voted. He Further stated, for the record, that he was apologizing for Piering's having to come back again and that the mistake lay solely with this Eoard's misinterpretation of a new by -law that had been amended at the Town Meeting of 1984 but said amendment was not in the pa63ession of the Board at the time of his original hearing. Sherman said that the Board would take testimony then and then read the notice and explained the nature of a rehearing. Piering spoke on his own behalf and showed the plans of the proposed dwelling and explained that it was going to be his family's principal dwelling but that having the accessory apartment would make the house more affordable and would also provide year -round rental housing. He had enough extra space to put an apartment in his upper floor. There was a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board that was read provided he complied with all of the requirements of the new by -law. Williams asked if the apartment was definitely year -round and Piering said it was going to be. Sherman said that if it w as approved and the Special Permit was issued, if the apartment was then found to be rented on a seasonal basis, the Permit would become null and void. There ensued a discussion of the requirements of the by -law and Piering assured the Board again that it would be year -round and that he had complied with the conditions. Sherman reminded Piering that he could not come back for a Permit for a second dwelling in the future. There were non to speak in favor of the Application but there were speakers against it. Carl Borchert, an abutter, was opposed for several reasons. He pointed out that the lot was undersized for the area and he believed that it should have been larger in order to qualify for the Special Permit. Piering said that he had bought the lot before zoning was en- acted and that at that time it was a buildable lot. -I- Borchert went on to say that the lot was only 14,000 sq. ft. and that 20,000 was the rule out there. He went on to further detail at lenghth his case about the lot size, showing maps and such and the discussion centered on this issue and the second dwelling restri- tions. The favorable Planning Board recommendation was again mentioned and the new by -law was explained again. Borchert felt that if a second dwelling was not allowed, why should he be allowed to have an accessory apartment. He objected to increasing the density in that area. Piering reiterated that he I%ad a large attic space and he could rent it,as is,to four unrelated people and the density would be the same as having one apartment, that was self contained, as he wanted. Leddy pointed out that Piering was entitled to the Special Permit. Williams seconded that by saying that when the original by -law was drafted, it was aimed at the "little old ladies" on Main street with the big houses that couldn't afford the upkeep but had all this extra room. It was also intended for just two areas to be allowed to have them but in the amended version the area restriction was eliminated as well as the section stating that it had to be an existing home. She said that the original denial to hear the case in July, was based on the pre- amended version and Mr. Piering did not fit that criteria. Now it appeared that he did. Leddy said that he was at the meeting where the by -law was drafted and agreed with Williams statement adding that there was no restriction of the size of the lot that could maintain the accessory apartment. He understood Borchert's sentiments and he did not want people to put in an accessory apartment and then come in for a second dwelling if they had a large enough lot. When they put in one they k.�.,.�. �...�. gave up the right to have a second dwelling. Borchert then went on about the septic , sewer and raiii`probl ems,° and the small lot size again. Leddy pointed out that it was not this Board's problem but that it lay with the Building Inspector and the Health Inspector. When Sherman again asked for comments from the public, Borchert again stated his objections particularly, the undersized lot problem. Sherman said that the Board had to infer that with the favorable recom- mendation of the Planning Board, that the septic problems had been dealt with satisfactorily already. Sherman read the only letter in the file and it was also in opposition to the Application. The author of the letter was Mrs. Leon Lancaster,Ill. There being no further comments the Board discussed the matter and voted UNANIMOUSLY to GRANT the SPECIAL PERMIT subject to all the requirements of the by -law. Ms. Williams had to leave the Island and left the Meeting. The minute taking was then taken over by Ms. Cahoon. The next case was the Application of the I.O.O.F. (068 -84) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 4 (B) (2) (a) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicant wished to construct and maintain their club house at the location which was situated at the CORNER OF BARTLETT ROAD AND CATO LANE and zoned RESIDENTIAL -10. Members Sherman, Cahoon and Leddy sat on this case. Richard Glidden represented the Applciant and he began by explaining the organization, its history and why it was forced to move out of where it had been for years and had to build their own club house. Bob LeicK er, the engineir for the project, spoke about the structure itself. Glidden pointed out that the land could be broken up and used for multiple housing and sold separately, but that his client only wanted to construct one building. He explained that the land had been purchased from Lorraine Reith and that the sale was to be contingent on the Special Permit being obtained. The Reis family was concerned that there would be increased traffic and noise and were concerned about the large size of the proposed structure. They had also heard that the hall would be rentedrt.� to outside parties. This brought forward comments from the Board about this particular aspect. No one wanted a Legion Hall type operation out in a basically residential area. The Hearing was CONTINUED at this point, to allow Glidden to obtain more information on the extent of the activities that were to take place there. [The Meeting was CONTINUED ON OCTOBER 9, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. New testimony was heard from Bill Burdick, an officer in the club. He explained that " J - the organization had not intended to rent the hall to outside parties and would be used exclusively for their own functions and meetings. He also submitted redesigned plans for the parking and it appeared that the problem of ingressing and egressing from and to Cato Lane, which had concerned the Reis) , had been solved by making the cars use the access on Bartlett Road only. He had spoken to Myles Reis and they gave a favorable vote to the new design. It was voted on UNANIMOUSLY, to GRANT the SPECIAL PERMIT, in light of the new plans.] The last matter heard that day was the Application of DAVID AND CHRISTINE VISCO (071 -84) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT or a VARIANCE from SECTION 71 (extension of a pre- existing non - conforming use) and SECTION 5 (3) (side -line set -back) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicants wished to expand a kitchen and family area to accomodate a growing family, in an existing dwelling located at #10 HELEN'S DRIVE. Members Sherman, Cahoon and Leddy sat on this case. David Visco represented himself and explained that he had a growing family and the present house was just too small to accomodate his wife and daughter. Diane Blease spoke as an abutter and she was in support of the Application. It was noted that there were other people present earlier, to spe-&k in favor4but that due to the lenghth of the Hearing, had to leave. Leddy pointed out that Visco was in a RESIDENTIAL -2 area and under Section 5 (3) the Board may reduce the side -line set -back in an R -2 district, from 10 feet to 5 feet by Special Permit. Visco would be allowed to encroach on his set -back by the requested 4 feet and with the reduction to a 5 foot set -back would then in fact be 6 feet and thus safe on the set -back. The Board felt that the placement of the ddition was the only logical one and voted UNANIMOUSLY to GRANT the SPECIAL PERMIT, noting i� the support of the neighbors. T re being no further busine s, 'Bo r adjo ed. � Dated: November 7, 1984 BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, MA 02554 Lydle L. Rickard, Chairman