Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-August-17BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 MINUTES of the August 17,1984 Hearing. A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS was held at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, August 17, 1984 in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket. Present were: Lydle L. Rickard Chairman, Eileen I. Cahoon, William Sherman, Regular Members; Andrew J. Leddy and Linda F. Williams, Alternate Members. The Chairman introduced the Board Members and asked that speakers keep their testimony brief and non - repetitive. OLD BUSINESS: The first matter of Old Business was the Application of PATRICIA WATERHOUSE (055 -84) that was continued from the last regular meeting on July 13, 1984. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams had sat on this Application. The notice was read and the reasons for the continuance were explained and further comments from the public were asked for. There was no one present to speak in favor. Walter Knott showed his maps and discussed the suggestions made by the Traffic Safety Committee at their last meeting. He mentioned the fact that there was no sidewalk there and stated that there should be one but no one knew the status of any future sidewalk plans. Mr. Rickard suggested that a granite walk way be put in to help establish the driveway. Mr. Strojny stated his opposition again on the same basis he had at the previous meeting. There were no further comments and Ms. Williams mentioned that she had not heard back from Mr. Oliver of the DPW as to his feelings about the Washington Street sewer line that the proposed establishment would be tying into. There being no further comments it was voted on to take the matter UNDER ASVISEMENT. It was here mentioned that BARRY THURSTONSApplication had been WITHDRAWN the previous day, as there were several people pre- sent that had an interest in this case as well as the previous one. -2- NEW BUSINESS: The first order of New Business was the Application of the DOWNEYFLAKE, INC. (060 -84) seeking a VARIANCE or alternately a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTIONS 71,7H,7F,6Bj5 (expansion of a pre- existing non - conforming use). The Applicant wished to add a second floor dwelling unit and increase the ground cover with the extension of a pre- existing non - conforming side line set back. The property was located at 23 Federal Street and was zoned RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Sherman sat on this case. The notice was read and Ms. Fitzgerald with the assistence of Mr. Karsten Reinimo spoke for the Applicant. They showed the plans and Reinimo exptoined the proposed alterations to the building that would add approximately 57 square feet. There followed a discussion of the one living unit that was planned for the second floor. Mr. Reinimo said that it would only be used for employees of the Downey - flake Restaurant, such as the cook and baker, It would not be a dorm type unit but a self contained apartment. Mention of the problem with the sideline set back was made by Ms. Fitzgerald and she went on to say that there would be one on -site parking space provided. Ms. Williams asked about the planned first floor use. She was told that A -1 Realty would remain there. It was mentioned how nice the plans were and it could do nothing but improve the neighborhood as the present building was one of the worst ones on that block and the others are now being renovated also. Williams further mentioned that it was the only one -story building on that street and was told that a basement would be added also. Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out that there ups substantial hardship and theretfts a problem with encroachment on an existing street that only applies to this piece of land and she felt that her client had sufficient grounds for a Variance. In fact, her client wanted to decrease the non - conformity by moving the building back from the lot line. She further pointed out that the Applicants were "okay'on the parking requirements. -3- There were no speakers for or against and the Chairman read the Planning Board reccommendation which was favorable. No one needed a viewing as all the members were familiar with the site and it was passed UNANIMOUSLY. The Application of ISLAND HOTELS CO. (061 -84) was heard second. They were seeking a Variance under Section 5.1 (intensity regulations) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicants wanted to cure a technical zoning violation which adversely affected the marketa- bility of title to the property which was located at 5 Sea Street and vAs zoned Limited - Commercial. Members Sherman, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application. Ms. Fitzgerald represented the Applicants. She explained the problem , and in response to Ms. Williams' question as to whether this was a "Kevin Dale Syndrome" example, she agreed and further explained the situation with all the attendent hardship points. Mr. Sherman, the acting Chairman on this matter, mentioned that there was an extensive letter in the file detailing at great length the situation. Mr. Garneau from the Brass Lantern Guest House and an abutter did not understand the notice and it was explained to him. Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out that the owners had planned no further expansion or alteration to the premises and she stressed this fact. Mr. Cahill, another abutter, wanted to know what the premises were being used for at the present moment and Fitzgerald responded that it was being used as a dwelling unit. Mr. Cahill wanted to bring to the Board's attention that he felt that the lot was illegal and could not be built on in the first place. He explain- ed the situation as he knew it when the owners had come into the same Board for permision to build the present building a few years ago claiming hardship. He stated that the building was subsequently sold to the present owners and was not being used as a dwelling but as an adjunct to the Harbor House Hotel complex. Mr. Cahill wanted to -4- make sure that the Board was aware of all the problems as he saw it. Ms. Fitzgerald said that the Board had given a Special Permit to the previous owners to convert a garage into a dwelling. Ms. Williams questioned the change in use and pointed out that the Board did not have the power to change the use and the building should not be being used as part of the guest house. Ms. Fitzgerald stressed that the building was still being used as a dwelling as far as she knew and further pointed out that the property itself was still elligible for the technical relief being sought. There was further arguing between Mr. Cahill and Ms. Fitzgerald and more discussion of the pre -1955 status of the building in question and whether on not the technical relief can be granted on a pO%T•1955 building. There was some discussion of this fact by Ms. Williams and other members of the Board and other lawyers pre- sent in the room. Andrew Leddy said that this was the first time that a post -1955 building had come before the Board and it was unclear about the bearing of the post -1955 status on the decision. Mr. Oickard said that it was not a matter before the Board and "was not our problem now" as it was approved in due process in 1980 and was converted with that approval. He further added that the Board can not redecide the other Permit. There was again further discussion on the case by Mr. Cahill and others. Here it was pointed out by several members of the Board that if the building was being used improperly that it was then a matter for the Building Inspector and not a responsibility of this Board to police that. There were no speakers for the Application and Mr. Sherman asked for a motion. He wanted to see the specifics of the previous Special Permit and a short discussion ensued as to who the previous owner had been and to where the information might be. The matter was then TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. - 3- The third matter that was heard was the Application of CHARLES AND PHYLLIS MAYHEW (062 -84) seeking a Special Permit under Section 4 C 2, Subparagraph C•7 and 12 of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicants wanted to construct and operate a business consisting of renting cars, trailers, pick -up trucks, mopeds, bicycles and house- hold maintenance tools. The Applicant also wanted to sell mopeds and bicycles as well as store and maintain said items. The property was located at 125 Old South Road and was zoned Residential - Commercial 2. Members Sherman, acting Chairman, Cahoon and Williams sat on this case. Wilfred Rock, Sr. wanted a point of order corrected. He stated that the address was incorrect and that he was 123 Old South Road and that 125 Old South Road was not next to him. Ms. Fitzgerald represented the Applicants and started by showing the map and went on to explain the various uses. She pointed out that at the time Mr. Mayhew could not maintain and repair at his in -town location and this had been restricted by this Board when granting him his previous Special Permit. She said that the public would not at the moment have access to the property as he only wanted to maintain his mopeds and bikes but that they applied for the all- .encompassing Permit to make sure all the bases had been covered for the future. He did not want to have to come back to the Board again. He speculated that some of the uses were purely option- al and might not occur at all. Mr. Rickard, speaking as a private citizen and not as a Member of the Board, said that he owned property out there and he objected to The Ryder Trucks or ones of that type that would be parked there. He" flat out objected to it all." Mr. Sherman asked for those who wished to speak in favor of the Application first and Mr. Rickard refrained from further comment. Ms. Fitzgerald showed the Board the elevations of the proposed building and went into the exact specifics of the first and second floors saying that the second would have office space that would be rented out at some point. She pointed out that they had allowed for more parking spaces than were required and had worked S-M previously with the Planning Board on the design of the area. They wanted to keep as much of the land open as possible. Ms. Williams asked about the operating hours. Mr. Mayhew said that the intended hours would be from approximately 8:00a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. He was amenable to noise restrictions. He could see that he had a problem in town and wanted to expand out of town in an area that was mostly commercial and was zoned properly. Ms. Fitzgerald raised the point that the structure was in harmony with the area and not in violation of 6B of the Zoning By -Law. There were no speakers for the Application, however there were several against. The first to speak was Mr. Coe. He said that he was a direct abutter to the property in question and that he had not been notified by mail. He want -ed to know why he had not been notified and asked that the matter be postponed so that he could have time to study the issue. There followed a lengthy discussion about the merits of a defect of notice and the Assessor's practices of certifying the abutters' lists. Leddy suggested that there seemed to be a problem with this and thought that Ms. Fitzgerald should be certain that there would be no question in the future that might jeapardize the decision. There was more arguing between Mr. Coe, Julie, Linda and Eileen. Mr. Sherman asked about the storage of petroleum products on site and Fitzgerald said there would be no storage of hazardous wastes on site just gasoline in 5 gallon containers. Wilfred Rock said that he was worried about the gas and did not see how Mr. Mayhew was going to service the items without the fluids necessary. Mayhew reiterated that there was only going to be enough to service the lawn mowers and the like. Again there was more discussion of the notification pro- blem. Rock read off a long list of his objections and launched into a disertation on the hazzards of moped riding and the attendent pro- blems. He further mentioned his concerns over the added traffic. He then presented a petition from the local residents objecting to it particularly on the grounds of added cars and mopeds. -7- George Allen, an abutter was concerned with the noise and stated that he could loose his rental property income from the disturbance. He felt that it was one step below an auto repair shop. To this Ms. Fitzgerald responded that it was not nor would it ever be an auto repair garage and Ms. Williams added that the Board could always put restrictions on the Permit that would prevent that type of expansion. There followed various discussions on such items as the repairing and renting of mopeds, traffic flow, office renting and the like. It was also made clear that Mayhew was not to fix anyone - elses'mopeds etc.lonly his own on the site. Rickard said that#he had his foot in the dooroso to speak and in S years he'll have a whole fleet in there. He stated his feelings about not being able to police any of the restrictions on the decisions. Rock mentioned that the Airport was near by and was concern- ed about the interferance. There was more ta1K of Mr. Mayhew's previous permit and its history. Mr. Sherman mentioned that there was a letter from the Airport Commission stating that they were opposed though no reason had been given. The Planning Board on the other hand had reccommended favorable action with volu* ary limitations on the ingress and egress to the property. There was still more discussion on the merits of Mr. Coe's request for a continuance and Ms. Fitzgerald concurred with the request after a discussion with her client so that they would have time to check with Mr. Lockley as to the validity of Mr. Coe's claim that he should have been notified. Leddy stated that if it was continued and the list turned out to be faulty the Board would send out new notices. Joan Craig, speaking as an interested citizen, suggested that the Board sit down with Mr. Lockley and try to work out the problem of notifying the proper abutters as this problem keeps cropping up. Mr. Sherman stated that for the moment we were stuck with it. There being no further non - repetitive discussion this matter was CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR SOME OTHER TIME SET IN THE FUTURE. -8- The next item before the Board was the Application of MILDRED W. GIEG (063 -84) seeking a Variance from the requirements of Section 5.1 of the Zoning By -Law (minimum lot size requirements). The Applicant wanted to cure the non - conforming size of Lot 2 in order to make it a buildable lot. The property was located at 104 Surfside Road and was zoned Limited Use General -2. M -tubers Rickard, Cahoon and Sherman sat on this case. Richard Glidden spoke on behalf of the Applicant and started by showing the Board the plot plans of the area in question. He expLqined the surveying and technical problems chiefly pertaining to paper roads running along the lot lines. It was a lengthy presenta- tion on this problem. Mrs. Gieg then spoke and gave alittle more of the history and how she came to own the property without knowing about the defect. The new buyers were the ones who had found this. There were no speakers opposed. However, Rickard had a problem with the lot numbers as there seemed to be some difference depending on which pLwn he looked at. He Wanted to make sure that relief, if granted, was granted on the proper piece of land. the Planning Board had reccommended favorable action and the Board agreed that it was a surveying error and posed a hardship to the owner and did not affect the area in general the Variance was GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY. The next case was that of HELEN SIBLEY MERTENS (065 -84) seeking a Variance from the requirements of Section 5 and or Section 7 I (4) of the Zoning By -Law (intensity and merger regulations). The Applicant wanted to be able to cure a technical zoning violation which advcrsely affected the marketability of title to property located at 2 Gardner Street and was zoned Residential -1. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Sherman sat on this case. Mr. Rickard read the notice and spoke on the 4Kevin Dale Syndrome 4and pre -1955 subdivision laws. Richard Glidden represented his client and explained the situation at length. The elder Mrs. Sibley had bought 2 separate pieces of property and they had been taxed as such but as they were in contiguous ownership the law of merger took affect. The daughter, Mrs. Mertens wanted ment for her elderly to the house wanted. different owners and There were GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY. -9- to sell the big house and keep the garage apart - mother. He explained that there was no alteration The lots were,in fact,even purchased from two thus had been treated as separate. no speakers for or against and the Variance was The final matter to come before the Board was the Applica- tion of DONALD AND PHYLLIS VISCO (066 -84) seeking relief from Section 71 (alteration of a pre- existing non - conforming use) by a Special Permit. The Applicants wanted to be allowed to convert property used for a construction business to a retail custom -made furniture and drapery business. The property was located on the corner of Old South Road and Gold Star Drive and was zoned Residential -10. Members Sherman who acted as the Chairman, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application. Richard Glidden represented the Viscos. He explained that his clients were under a purchase and sale agreement with the Kariotakis with the provision that the present owners be able to obtain the proper permit. He went on to explain the type of operation that currently had existed there and what kind of business that the new owners wanted. The building elevations were shown as well as a plot plan. The uses for the various floors were discussed at length. It was also shown that the proposed use would be less detrimental to the area and would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The pLuns also indicated an apartment upstairs and the Board was told it would pro- bably be used by an employee. The Planning Board reccommended favorable action wanting to keep the access on Gold Star Drive. With this disclosure there ensued a long debate on the merits of the different ingress and egress possibilities. Susan Manning the direct abutter, wanted to know about the screening for the parking area and stated her objections to the access being kept on Gold Star Drive. There was more talk on this matter with none of the parties agreeing. It was suggested that the matter be sent to the Traffic Safety Committee for a reccommendation. Mr. Rickard mentioned the time factor on the Application and the purchase and sale agreement and asked that the Board decide -10- at that time. I` ' ' ^ °a �^ rRaNT RELIEF UNA��i�T v �t_b-je,*o t- f►e_- ree- c� ©mendairon cif the- $r€ii-- �$8��' C`nmmi Y tpa nn tlto. -nbz'ess and._e r -e-s, ._..It was here mentioned that most of the abutters had been in favor and John Meilbye and Maxi Ryder had expressed their approval on the Application. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. L dle L. Rickard, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS