HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-July-13BOARD OF APPEALS
Nantucket, Massachusetts
MINUTES of the July 13, 1984 Hearing.
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS was held at 1:30 p.m.
on Friday, July 13, 1984 in the Town and County Building, Federal and
Broad Streets, Nantucket. Present were: Lydle L. Rickard, Chairman,
Eileen I. Cahoon Regular Member— s�Andrew J. Ledd , Lima Williams, n
Alternate Member and William Sherman, the new �a Member -Elect
that was subsequently sworn in during a break in this meeting by the
Town Clerk. 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
KEVIN MCGARVEY (046 -84) that was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT at the last
regular meeting. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this
case and discussed their views on this matter. They had all taken a
viewing of the property in question but disagreed on their opinions.
Rickard and Cahoon were in favor and Williams expressed some reluctance
in light of the testimony presented by Mr. Reed at the last meeting,
to vote in favor. She felt that the grace period for the lot had
expired and did not qualify for relief.
After more discussion it was agreed to pass this Application
and GRANT relief UNANIMOUSLY.
The second matter of old business was the Application of
RAYMOND DECOSTA (048 -84) that was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT at the last
regular meeting. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this
one also. A lengthy discussion ensued with the same split of opinions
that existed on McGarveys with Rickard and Cahoon discussing their
points and Williams reading a prepared statement of her views. Her
basic points were: that Variance Law was very explicit in stating
that financial hardship alone was not a criteria for relief, the
problem had to run with the land, ie. topography, set back and
affecting only thatParticular pi ce and not the zoninR district in
general, as related in Section7H(1); the Building Cap was voted into
the Zoning By -Law without any provisions for relief thus the Board
1_ - - - ..,.._,.... .-. ..,... __p t ni A rn1 ; -f ; h - ni - t - A —i1- tT,ot'
-2-
July 13, 1984
the covenant had relief provisions: the Building Inspector felt
very strongly about preserving the integrity of the Building Cap
and that the Board would be opening acan of worms, so to speak if
relief were to be granted.Everyone would be in to try and get relief
for allsorts of reasons, some not legitimate. This view was further
bolstered by Mr. Leddy,,who stated that he had received several in-
quiries about this. Ms. Williams went on to state that she felt that
no matter how much everyone disliked the Cap, it had been voted in
at Town M- 2eting by an obvious majority and that we were all stuck
with it in the form written for the duration of the Cap. She further
pointed out that it did not have favorites such as native or non-
native, rich or poor, but that it applied to everyone. She closed
her statement by saying that she could understand the DeCostas' plight
as she had had to move several times in twelve years and had knowr%the
Applicants for twenty years and was sorry that it had to work out this
way but that she felt that the Cap should be maintained and that
they did not qualify for relief from this By -Law. After the reading
of the statement, Rickard recinded the call to vote, ostensibly to
give the DeCostas time to withdraw the application so that they did
not have to be subject to the two year ban on applying again once
it and been turned down.
The time limit for making a decision on a Variance Application
was discussed at length and it was then suggested that a letter be
drafted informing the DeCostas about the problem with the Application
and informing them that there was a good possibility ghat it would
be turned down and would they consider withdrawing it without prejudice.
The matter was then again taken UNDER ADVISEMENT with a decisional
meeting to`tset up some time in the near future.
The third matter of old business was the Application of
W. GODFREY WOOD (1052 -84) with Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams
having sat on this case. Minimal discussion ensued with Mr. Leddy
pointing out that this was a legal problem and that the Board had
had several _Applications of_ this_ type_ before it _ -aAa that—c.o_n_s_i_stency
was definitely needed as most all of them are identical. He further
stated that the Board was creating all sorts of problems by not
-3-
July 13,1984
being consistent. Ms. Cahoon expressed her reluctance about voting
in favor and Rickard and Williams expressed reasons for doing so in
the affirmative. After some clarification from 1.1r. Rickard it was
GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY for relief.
NEW BUSINESS:
The first order of new business was the Application of PAUL
AND JACQUELINE BIXBY OF BEHALF OF PAMELA MCKINSTRY (058 -84) seeking
a Modification of a Special Permit (020 -83). The Applicants wished
to extend the operating hours of a business known as the 'Sconset Cafe
from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. located at the corner of Main and Elbow
Lane in Siasconset. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this
matter.
Jackie Bixby spoke on behalf of herself and her husband. She
explained the past business practices and pointed out that there had
been no complaints in the past year since their purchasing of the
establishment.
At this point several letters were read with the most prominant
being one from the Siasconset Civic Assoc. that was in favor of the
Application, as were all the letters. However the letter mentioned
the closing time of 9:00 p.m. and not 9:30 p.m. that the Applicants
were requesting. Mr. Buckingham discussed thisisaying he had been
one of the drafters and said that it was a typographical error. He
pointed out that there were over 60 signatures on that petition in
favor and the signers encompassed both winter and summer residents.
Mr. Charles Getz also spoke in favor of this matter at this point.
In response to the Chairman's requesting of those to speak
against this Application there was no response.
Ms. Cahoon mentioned that when the Applicants first came to
2r,as a'Sconset resident and a Member of the Board of Appeals the
ime mentioned was 9:00 p.m.and not 9:30 p.m. Mr. Denato speaking
or the Cafe said that they now prefered 9:30 p.m. There ensued a
ound -robin discussion about the time difference between Ms. Cahoon,
- - - - - -- - - - -- —
r. Buckingham and Mr. Denato, with Mr. Denato pointing out a letter,
-4-
July 13, 1984
that was present in the files,from the previous owners of the store
that stated their business practises and hours.
A motion to approve was made and seconded and it was also
mentioned that the Planning Board had reccomme+d Favorable Action
on this matter. It was then voted on to GRANT relief UNANIMOUSLY
for the 9:30 p.m. closing time.
The second matter of SHERBURNE ASSOC. ON BEHALF OF ROBERT
MITCHELL (057 -84) was held over til latter in the day as there was
a conflict of interest with one of the Board Members and Mr. Sherman
had not been sworn in yet. The matter was ultimately postponed til
the next regular meeting as no representation was present at the
meeting and the Board did not want to hear it unless there was.
The third matter that was heard was the Application of
THOMAS V. AND LILLIAN B. LEFAVRE (056 -84) seeking a Variance under
Section 4(A) (1) (b) (2) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicants wished
to locate a guest cottage within 12(twelve) feet of a rear building
line because of the topography of the lot located on Gardner Road in
Shimmo. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application.
Attorney Robert Mooney represented the Applicants. He ex-
plained the particular circumstances of the house, garage and proposed
new guest cottage,using plans to support his claims. Due to the
unusual topography , namely a sharp drop -off behind the house the
cottage could not be situated twelve feet behind the garage which
was attached to the main haouse. The new Cottage, however, would be
situated more than twelve feet behind the main house.
There were no speakers either in favor or opposed to this
Application and the Planning Board had reccommended Favorable Action
on this. It was voted to GRANT the relief UNANIMOUSLY.
The fourth matter to be heard was the Application of J. BARRY
AND CHARLENE THURSTON (054 -84) seeking a Special Permit under Section
6(F) (5) of the-Zoning-By-Law.-The Applicants wished to operate an
-5-
July 13, 1984
auto rental agency on premises presently containing a retail shop,
located at Sparks Avenue on the west corner of Hooper Farm Road.
Members Sherman, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application, with
Sherman having been sworn injafter this matter had been originally
passed over due to a conflict of interest with a Board Member.Mr.
Sherman was the Acting- Chairman.
Barry Thurston spoke on his own behalf. He explained that
he was interested in renting four - wheel -drive vehicles as an adjunct
to his fishing tackle shop which was also situated at this location.
He pointed out that it was within his rights to run a retail shop
there and wanted to rent up to ten jeeps from there.
Williams asked Richard Glidden abootthe requirements of
the parking spaces by -law and whether a business had to have approval
from the Planning Board for more that a certain number of spaces. He
felt that the Planning Board had to be shown the plans and be advised
about the design and provisions for entering the street etc.
Wally Knot said that he reccommended no parking near that
corner, Hooper Farm and Sparks Avenue, and described it as one of
the worst areas for traffic on the Island and that this turning and
traffic problem would only be exacerbated by parked and speeding
vehicles.
Mr. Leddy pointed out that if there were more than 5 spaces,
the cars were not allowed to back out of the parking area, When
questioned by Williams,Mr. Thurston was only able to produce a plot
plan of his buildings and no parking plan.
Mr. Sherman stated that in order to consider this Application
properly the Board would have to have a parking plan and if necessary
one approved by the Planning Board.
In response to the Chairman's request for speakers in favor
of the Application, there warenone. However, there were several
against.
Mrs. Strojny, a direct abutter, objected strongly and said
that the corner was already very bad and she objected to being able
-t-a -- see - -RI I — the- -3- e- eps - -f-ro ether s the- pess-b1e --
disruption to the neighborhood.
-6-
July 13, 1984
Williams asked about the provisions for the customers' cars
that had to be parked when they went off in a rented jeep. Thurston
reFied that it was the problem of the renter and not his and that
they could park in the First National Parking Lot. This raised several
shouts of disapproval from the audience. Mrs. Strojny said that the
people would not park all the way down there and Michael Kane said
he didn't see that there was enough room for nine to ten jeeps to
be parked there let alone all of the customers cars.
At that point Mrs. Strojny read an ad that had appeared in
a past issue of the "Inquirer and Mirror stating that Thurston was
renting jeeps already. He replied that that was what he had intended
but that he was not renting at this time.
Mr. Knot asked if everyone on Hooper Farm Road had off street
parking and if they didn't then they should get that rectified at the
next Town Meeting.
(there was a tape change at this point)
The Acting- Chairman stated that there were no letters in the
file and that the Planning Board reccommended Unfavorable Action and
that they felt that the i__ ffi n+ normal traffic flow would be
severely interrupted.
Leddy suggested that Thurston get a copy of the Article 1.1
(eleven) and work with the Planning Board and :.!-:e Traffic Safety
Committee before coming in again. The matter was then voted to be
CONTINUED to the next regular meeting.
The fifth matter heard was the Application of the NANTUCKET
COLLABORATIVE ON BEHALF OF KENNETH C. COFFIN (050 -84) seeking a
Special Permit pursuant to Section 4(C) (2) (c) (11) of the Zoning
By -Law. The Applicant wished to operate a borrow pit only, on premises
located at Old South Road. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Sherman sat
on this Application.
Edward Coffin represented his company. He expUined his firm's
need for a new palce to do business due to the limited materials
le�-t at the present location in Siasconset._ They had looked at several
places and this was the best being Residential- Commercial and away
from most residences. He further pointed out that it was not in the
,-,,4 F- - r,rntonti nn �nnA o n A 4-In- r fi1-,nrn ," ""III A nni- 1kn , " , , c „1-, +.onf- i n
-7-
July 13,1984
noise level increase as the property in question abutts the airport.
Maps were shown and some discussion of same ensued /with
Mr. Coffin stating that eventually they would like to move the whole
operation out of Siasconset, but for now all they wanted to do was to
have use of the area as a borrow pit.
Leddy commented on the screening and Coffin said that the
Planning Board had worked with them on that and had requested 75
(seventy -five) feet of it.
There was no response for or against this Application and it
was mentioned that the Planning Board had reccommended Favorable
Action.
It was made perfectly clear by all concerned that this was not
an Application for an asphalt plant and that there was no future
plan for one. The Board expressed their strong concern that the
Applicants not try to come in in the future and try to get an asphalt
plant on the grounds that this borrow pit constituted a pre- existing
non - conforming use etc.
It was suggested that this be taken under advisement but
Cahoon said she wished to vote then. Subject to all Planning Board
conditions it was voted to GRANT the Special Permit UNANIMOUSLY.
The sixth matter brought before the Board was the Application
of MARIE LOUISE BLAIS (049 -84) seeking a Special Permit under Section
7(I) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicant wished to enlarge a kitchen
of a dwelling which was presently non - conforming under Section 5(3)
of the Zoning By -Law. The enlargement would be in line with the
existing dwelling and would not further encroach upon the sideline.
The property was located at 32 Pine Street. Members Rickard, Cahoon
and Williams sat on this case.
Mrs. Blais represented herself and exptoined that currently
she had a 2 (two) foot setback on the main house which was a pre-
existing non - conformity and that she was not asking to increase this
2 foot setback but simply extend the kitchen down that line.
There was no opposition and there were a few letters in the
file that were in support of the matter. It was voted to GRANT the
Variance UNANIMOUSLY.
July 13, 1984
The Meeting was then adjourned for a brief respite at
2:20 p.m. with the Chairman again explaining that there was still
a problem with the swearing in of Mr. Sherman, the new Alternate
Member of the Board of Appeals.
The seventh and final matter that came before the Board
was the Application of PATRICIA WATERHOUSE (055 -84) seeking a
Special Permit under Section 4(C) (2) (a) of the Zoning By -Law.
The Applicant wished to operate a laundromat as a neighborhood
service establishment on premises located at Sparks Avenue. Members
Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this matter.
Richard Glidden represented the Applicant and began by
pointing out that the area was zoned Residential - Commercial and
serviced by town sewer and water. It qualified for a neighborhood
service establishment not exceeding 3,000 sq. feet status. He
said that there were two existing structures on the property and the
owner proposed having a retail lobster sale store in the front
building as well as the laundromat in the rear one. They wanted to
add an annex onto the rear building to give more space for the
equipment and he mentioned that there was a possibility of up to
30 washers and dryers. He reiterated that this type of establishment
should be in this type of area and further stated that there was
already considerable commercial developement in the area in question
and added that there were only a few residences left.
The Planning Board did not reccommend action as they felt
that there was insufficient information on the impact on the sewer
line for Washington Street and they were very concerned about the
overusage of that line. It was not approved by the DPW as yet and
could not make a decision on it at that time.
Williams asked about the size of the lot and their proposed
operating hours. The owner was willing to discuss that but did
not come up with anything concret except to say that
they did want some evening hours to accomodate the public.
Rickard mentioned the problems that Preston Manchester was
having with that sewer line and that this addition might be hazzard
ess. The plans were shown and more discussion of the sewer line
ensued and mention of possible use of holding tanks was made.
July 13. 1984
No one spoke in favor but there were several people present
who wished to speak against it. Wally Knot was the first to speak
as Chairman of the Traffic Safety Committee. He asked about the en-
trance and exit from the parking lot and asked if there were any
provisions in the F ns at the time. Mr. Glidden said that the current
access would be used and improved on. Mr. Knot was worried about the
possibility of backing out onto a public way which was forbidden by
law. He said his Committee was only asked to review the Application
two days prior to the Meeting, by the Selectmenjand did not feel that
they had had sufficient time to go over and make reccommendations
on the plans.
Earl Mayo was concerned about the discharge into the sewer
line.
Michael Kane, a direct abutter, said he has never seen tie owner
take care of the existing property and its structures. He questioned
whether they would maintain the property when converted. He went on to
say that his well was only 10 feet from the property line and ques-
tioned the need for any more traffic with the First National and the
Fire Department in the same area. He also pointed out that the
current level of traffic was bad and expressed concern for his deaf
child.
Pat Strojny stated she was opposed for the same reasons and
pointed out that there were state developement plans for that area
that indicated restrictions there and she asked why did there have
to be a disruption of those plans.
Edward Strojny explained the state map as being part of
the Phase II Road Work Project in which Sparks Avenue would be paved
and totally redone in the fall. He said that the Town was spending
millions on road construction and new people come in and rip it up
again. He expressed concerns about overflow parking on the street and
stated that people already are abusing the parking restrictions. He
stated that the area had only been recently zoned R -C and wondered how
that had occured without his knowledge. He was flatly opposed to
any new developement in that area.
The Hearing was CONTINUED til the next Regular Meeting in order
to give the Traffic Safety Committee time to review the situation as
Y11 7/ ,7U i1 1 F1,rT i bpr ! em tiTnnnv was
-10-
July 13, 1984
permitted from the general public on this matter.
There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned.
L dle L. Rickard, Chairman
Chairman, BOARD OF APPEALS