HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-Sept-14BOARD -OF APPEALS
D
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
MINUTES of the SEPTEMBER 14, 1984 Hearing:
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS was held at 1:30
p.m. on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1984 in the Town and County Building
Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket. Present were: Lydle L.
Rickard, Chairman, Willian R. Sherman, Regular Members, Andrew J.
Leddy and Linda F. Williams, Alternate Members, with Eileen I.
Cahoon being absent due to a prior commitment. The Chairman intro-
duced the Members of the Board that were present.
OLD BUSINESS:
The first matter of business that was delt with was the
Application of ISLANDS HOTELS, CO. (061 -84) that was taken UNDER -
ADVISEMENT at the last Meeting held on Agust 17, 1984. Sherman
chaired the previous hearing on this matter and as Cahoon had also
sat but was not present Leddy sat in her place as he had been
present at that hearing, for the decision process. Julie Fitz-
gerald, coucil for the Applicant, presented a copy of the previous
Special Permit that had been granted�of June 24, 1980 and a dis-
cussion followed. The matter was subsequently GRANTED, by UNANIMOUS
vote with Rickard, Sherman and Leddy sitting on this matter.
NEW BUSINESS:
The first order of new business was the hearing of the
Application of LENORE MARTIN (070 -84) with Members Sherman, acting
Chairman, Leddy and Williams sitting on this, as Rickard had a
conflict of interest. The Applicant was seeking a MODIFICATION ..
a SPECIAL PERMIT (021 -84) that had required three parking spaces
as specified in 6B (parking spaces) of the Zoning By -Law. The
Applicant wished to be able to reduce the required spaces to two
and preserve an existing garden. The property was located at 43
CENTRE STREET and zoned RESIDENTIAL OLD HISTORIC.
The notice was read and Robert Martin spoke on his wife's
behalf. He explained the logistics of the parking and its
-z-
relationship to the garden. They felt that maintaining the garden
was very important for many reasons mainly aesthetical and that
it was possible to have two spaces but that the third would require
the destruction of the garden. They also felt that it was a hard-
ship and that they neededthe relief.
A letter was read from The Jared Coffin House, signed by
Phil Read, that was infavor of the Application. It pointed out that
"
most of the guests in the house #1 wouldn't bring cars anyway.
Leddy asked if it was currently being used as a guest house,
and Martin said that it was and that rooms have been rented for
at least twenty years but that the reason for the increase in the
required parking spaces was because they wanted to increase the
number of rooms that could be rented. He further stated that their
lisence for the extra rooms was content on whether they received
a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals.
There were no speakers for or against present.
Chelcki, the Building Inspector, said that at that time,
when the original permit was granted, the policy of the Board was
to make the Applicants adhere to the requirements and put the
spaces in and that now there was a little more leniency, especially
when dealing with property located within the Old Historic District.
Leddy observed that guest houses use very little space
with respect to parking spaces and he hated to see a garden des-
troyed for one space.
There followed some discussion of the merits amoung the
sitting Board Members, with Sherman mentioning that because the
Applicant had not complied with the previous Special Permit, the
time had expired on it and that this Application should be classi-
fied as a new Application for a Special Permit for two spaces.
The Planning Board reccommendation was read and it was
unfavorable, as their policy on parking spaces is that the Appli-
cant should be required to adhere to the requirements if there is
a physical capacity to do so.
Sherman stated that a condition, if granted, would be
that if the garden was not maintained then the third space would
be required.
There ensued a discussion of the feasibility of conditions
with Rickard being against.
-3-
The matter was passed UNANIMOUSLY with Sherman explaining
for the recordothat this had become a new Application due to the
expiration of the previous one and that the condition would be as
stated above, and the required spaces being put at two.
At this point
17, 1984 Meeting and
Waterhouse (055 -84),
were passed over and
had sat on those and
be present for the c
the cases that had been heard at the August
schedualed for that day to be heard,ie.
Undenadvisement, and Mayhew (062 -84), Continued,
reschedualed for the next meeting as Cahoon
the Board was in agreement that she should
ompletion of those hearings.
The next case heard was that of ROXANA VIERA (067 -84) who
was seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 4(A)3 (year -round acces-
sory apartments, exception) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicant
wished to have an accessory apartment in her proposed new house
located-at DOC RYDER'S DRIVE and was zoned RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL 2.
Members Rickard, Sherman and Williams sat on this case.
Viera spoke on her own behalf. She explained the details of
the proposed dwelling and the apartment and said that there would
be adequate off - street parking and would only be rented to year -
round people. She further added that it would help augment her in-
come and help support the house for her family.
Rickard mentioned that it had to be in the proper area.
Williams then pointed out that when the new by -law was amended
at Town Meeting the designation of area was eliminated for all
intents and purposes and that the area question no longer was
relevant.
Viera here submitted a detailed copy of the new by -law --
and her deed to her property. Ms. Viera's father spoke on her Onoo- °
behalf and said that all the people in the area of the proposed
s
house were for it. Another abutter, Brectschnieder, also spoke
on her behalf and said he had no problem with it.
There ensued some discussion of the appearance of the
dwelling and Sherman mentioned that it had to comply with all of
the conditions of the by -law.
Attorney Richard Glidden speaking as a private citizen,
said that he thought that this was the type of situation the by-
law was written to address, that those people who live here year -
round would have a means of owning their own house and have it
be affordable.
Mr. Driscoll, Ms. Viera's attorngt) said that he appreciated
Mr. Glidden's testimony on behalf of his client and further added
that Ms. Viera had complied,to the best of his knowledge, with the
requirements of the by -law in question.
There were no speakers that spoke against the Application.
Sherman moved to approve subject to all the conditions of
the by -law and the Application was GRANTED by a UNANIMOUS vote.
The next matter, and the last,was the Application of JAMES
AND CAROLINE SHEPHARD (069 -84) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT under
SECTION 5 (intensity regulations) and SECTION 71 (extension of a
pre- existing non - conforming use) of the Zoning By -Law. The Appli-
cants wished to be able to add a storage shed to their property
which was located at 9 BROADWAY, SIASCONSET and was zoned RESIDEN-
TIAL-1. Members Rickard, Sherman and Williams sat on this case.
The notice was read and at that point Norman Chelecki pointed
out that the shed was already constructed. Mr. Glidden then got
up and said that he was representing the Shephards. He stated that
yes it had been partially completed but that when they found out
that they were in violation they immediately stopped work on it.
Norman there added that they had been "Red- Tagged" and that com-
pelled them to stop construction.
Glidden asserted that the Shephards' son -in -law did not
realize that anything more than HDC approval was needed to build
the small shed, roughly 8' by 30 ", and that that HDC approval had
been gotten before they had started construction. He went on to
" explain that the shed was not free standing and that it was attach-
ed to the main body of the house. It had reached the stage where
all it neededwas a door. He stated that it does not violate the
set -back requirement. Here ensued a lengrh y discussion about
whether it does or does notlin fact,encroach already on the side-
line set -back requirements between Chelecki, Rickard, Glidden and
Williams. No one seemed to be sure if it did or not.
-5-
There were none to speak in favor of the Application when
the Audience was asked. However, there were several against and there
were several letters in opposition.
Joan Porter ( ?) was the first to speak. She was an abutter
and as a resident of Broadway can sympathize with the need for a
storage shed but could not go along with the idea that the Shephards
had gone ahead and built it without a proper permit and then said
that they just didn't know. She added that there seemed to be alot
of this "we didn't know" stuff and that credibility was being "shot
down" and she was sad about that.
Rickard mentioned that he really had a problem with people
who did things without permits and that it did not appear to be
an aesthetic problem but was also worried about others trying to get
away with it if a precedent was to be set at that time. He mentioned
Snug Harbor as an example.
Letters against were read, ie. S'conset Civic League, John
Santos.
It was here pointed out that there was a road that was no
longer used that appeared to be between the house in question and
the nearest abutter and a discussion ensued about the question of
this issue. More letters were read with the general consensus being
that they objected to the lack of a proper permit not the aesthetics.
The Planning Board reccomendation was unfavorable and their
concerns were mainly about the public safety if the access way was
blocked by the shed as emergency vehicles should be able to get
through there.
It was motioned and passed to CONTINUE the hearing to the
next regular meeting to give the Board time to view the site and
get more input from the parties involved.
There being no further busiftss the Meeting was adjourned.
Dated:November 6, 1984
Nantucket, MA 02554
Ly�ile L. Rickard, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS