Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-July-6BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, Massachusetts MINUTES of the July 6, 1984 Hearing. A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS was held at 1:30F.m• on Friday, July 6, 1984 in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket. Present were: Andrew J. Leddy, Jr., Chairman, Lydle L. Rickard and Eileen Cahoon, Regular Members, Linda Williams and C. Harold Taylor, Alternate Members. The Chair- man opened the meeting and introduced the members of the Board and proceedeato step down as the Chairman stating reasons of health as his explanation for this decision. Mr. Leddy commented that there would be no tape- recording of the meeting as the recorder was not available. Motions were made, seconded and voted on unanimously for new appointments to Board positions with Mr. Rickard becoming Chairman, Ms. Cahoon,the Clerk and Ms. Williams, The Secretary. Mr. Rickard then assumed the Chairmanship of this meeting and re- quested that all testimony be kept brief and non - repetitive. The first matter to come before the Board was the Applica- tion of KEVIN MCGARVEY (046 -84) seeking a Variance from the requirements of Section 5 (intensity regulations) of the Zoning By -Law. The Applicant wished to build a dwelling on a non- confor- ing, currently unbuildable lot. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application. Richard Glidden represented the Applicant and he proceeded to explain the complexities of the problemsrelating to the lot in question. He stated the Planning Board had given approval for the subdivision shortly before The Zoning By -Laws were enacted in 1972. Subsequent to this approval the zoning affecting the allowable lot size in the area was changed from 5,000 to 20,000 square feet thus making the McGarveys' lot non - conforming as it was only 9,000 sq. ft. They felt that they were entitled to a 3(three) year grace period for ANR lots created prior to zoning and proceeded to give the lot to their son Kevin, with the lot having to be used in the same manner that it was at the time of -_ zoning: - S equen -to - tKis,, —the -S-t to Supr-eme— eaur- t- ra-nde-"awn- t, -2- July 6, 1984 a decision reinterpreting the law, stating that the grace period applied only to changes in use not to lot size, thus the McGarveys were left with aI` useless piece of land. If they had known the status of their rights before then,they would have subdivided the land differently, having a building on each parcel. Mr. Rickard asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this Application and there was no response. However, there was opposition and the first person to speak was Mr. Arthur Reed who represented the Thomas Bisphams, the direct abutters, having bought the old McGarvey house on Lot 4. He pointed out that there were no &( dwellings"on the property and termed what was there as sheds and barns, and that the lot did not conform to area or frontage requirements, further stressing the under -sized aspect of the lot. He stated that there were substantial technicalities involved with this lot's non 'U ormity and he felt that the in- tegrity of the Zoning By- Law ^be upheld. The Bisphams were opposed for many reasons, cheifly that the lot was believed to be within the aquifer protection zone and they, for aesthetic reasons also, did not want to see the intensity of the area increased.A letter from the Bisphams was mentioned as being in the file. Mr. Reed went on to explain at length about the facts relating to the grace periods given to lots created prior to zoning citing Chapter 808 several times. He believed that the grace period was five years but that the lots had to conform to standards set up in 1976 not 1972 as the McGarveys did and that any exerif.ion they might hQu2 had )expired in 1981 thus leaving them with theAuseless piece of land Vagain. He added that Section 10 of Chapter 40A of the By -Laws pertaining to Variances required that hardship criteria for that applied to the land and not to the owners personally. He concluded that they created their own hardship and that the Board had no basis for granting a Variance. -3- July 6, 1984 Linda Holland was opposed for reasons primarily relating to the aquifer protection area. She mentioned a study done last year that concluded that lots should be no smaller that 50,000 sq• ft. and she further stated that she did not feel there was any reason to allow a substandard lot on a septic system next to the water fields. Jean Crapsy from the Sconset Civic Assoc. said that their members were concerned about protecting the water and that they were in the process of drawing up a proposal for the protection of same. At this point Mr. Rickard paraphrased the Bispham letter for the audienc4s benefit. The Planning Board did not reccommend either favorably or the opposite for lack of information on this matter, and it was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT pending further study by the Board. The second new Application to come before the Board was that of STUART AND DONNA COMPTON (047 -84) seeking a Special Permit under Section 7(I) of the Zoning By -Law (change or extension of pre- existing non - conforming use) and a Special Permit under Section 4(A) (3) (year -round accessory apartment unit). The Applicants wished to convert property with a commercial first floor use and a residential apartment second floor use to a use whereby the first floor would become another apartment. Mr. Compton represented his family and explained that it was formerly owned by Tom Curley who had used it for his shop. He stated that the changes to the building had already been ap- proved by the HDC and he showed a plan to the Board Members sitting on this case; Mr. Rickard, Ms. Cahoon and Ms. Williams being those members. There was no opposition nor was there anyone who wished to speak in favor of the Application. It was further pointed out that there were no letters in the file either and that the Planning Board had reccommended favorable action. In voting for the Appli- --- c-atiorr UNANIMOUSI;YY, --it-- was - -no-t d- -tltthe - Compto s would comp y with all regulations pertaining to the new by -law regulating secondary apartments. -4- July 6, 1984 The third matter to come before the Board was the Applica- tion of RAYMOND DECOSTA (048 -84) seeking a Variance from the provisions of Section7(C) of the Zoning By -Law (Building Cap) in order to construct a second dwelling on his premises. Members Pickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application. Mrs. DeCosta spoke on her family's behalf and explained the circumstances that prompted their Application. Her husband's parents who were on fixed incomes and basically retired were having their rent raised to a sum they could not afford and she and her husband wanted to build a cottage in their backyard for the parents to live in year - round. When they went to get a building permit they found that there was a ten month wait for the permit and their parents were going to have to be out of their place sooner than that. there was no response to Mr. Rickard's request for objections or supporting testimony and there were no letters from abutters that raised any objections. Mr. Leddy asked The Building Inspector, Norman Chaleki if he had any views or suggestions on this matter. He said he was worried primarily about the potential flood of people trying to get out of the Cap and thus making it useless and unenforseble and generally more of a "hassle" for everyone let alone the Board as it would, he felt, tie the Board up for months. He stated strongly that he felt that the integrity of the Building Cap should be preservedg and added that there was no problem with the ground cover and that it was their decision to build a separate dwelling instead of an addition which then put them under the Cap instead of having been able to get a permit much sooner for the addition. P0. Mr. Sherman, a ^new member of the Board, asked The Building Inspector to please reiterate what he had said about the length of time involved and Mr. Chaleki repeated that it was approximately ten months. He also repeated his fears about a possible stampeed f or- -5- July 6, 1984 There ensued a lengthy discussion about the dangers and the implications of allowing such a Variance. Allen Holdgate supported the DeCostas and said he could understand their problem. This prompted Mrs. DeCosta to speak further and she pointed out that it was her understanding that the Board of Appeals was there to take each individual case on its own merits and was able to grant relief and take the harshness out of the BY -Law where justified. Mr. Leddy stated that during his tenure as Chairman, many inquiries came in to him regarding the possibility of getting relief from the Building Cap on the grounds of personal hardship etc. His response was to tell them that the Building Inspector felt very strongly about preserving the Cap as is and that financial hardship was not grounds for a Variance. He further pointed obt that no one had tried to bring this up before the Board til now. He surmised from that that no one thought it was a viable possibi- lity and was really quite useless to even try. It was here noted that they were on town sewer. The Planning Board reccommended favorable action on this matter, and it was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. The fourth matter on the agenda was passed over due to the fact that there was no representation for the Applicant. However, the Notice was read and some discussion ensued as there were people there who had an interest in this matter. This was as Application of MARY GLOWACKI ON BEHALF OF A. PRESTON MANCHESTER (051 -84) seeking a Special Permit under Section 6(F) (8) of the Zoning By -Law employer dormitories). The Applicant wished to construct and maintain a dormitory -type housing unit for his employees in connection with the operation of a motel - hotel. Allen Holdgate said that he was not necessarily opposed as it would increase his property values on the land he owns behind the proposed complex but that he was concerned about the noise from M July 6, 1984 Ms. Williams, a relative of the Applicant, assured Mr. Holdgate that as far as she understood the proposed complex, it was to be on town sewer and that there was supposed to be a supervisory adult on the premises to regulate the employees. It was further pointed out that it was a condition imposed on the Applicant by the Planning Board that he get approval for the dorms and that there were several other Boards and regulatory bodies involved before construction could begin. There was further discussion of these issues and Mr. Chaleki added that this was precisely the type of thing the town by -law was written for. Further discussion and a formal hearing on the matter was postponed til representation for the Applicant could be present. The fifth matter that was heard was the Application of, W. GODFREY WOOD (052 -84) seeking a Variance under the requirements of Section 5 of the Zoning By -Law (intensity regulations). The Applicant wished to cure a technical zoning violation which adverse- ly affected the marketability of titleto his property. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this Application. The Applicant was represented by Richard Glidden. He ex- plained that his client had bought one of the Moby Dick cottages a few years ago and now he wanted to sell it. It was a pre- existing pre -1955 building that was part of a legally subdivided area, but the lots that were legally created were then illegal in the eyes of the Zoning By -Laws. This left the owner with a defect of title. He added that this problem was given new meaning by the Kevin Dale decision as the Board was all too aware of . In response for those to speak in favor of this Application, John Shay, who lived across the street from the lot in question, spoke for it and said that they had all bought the cottages in good faith and should be allowed to sell them. The owners weren't as,:iiig to make any changes. There ensued a lengthy discussion about the "Kevin Dale Syndrome" and it was pointed out that the Board had to be consistent -7- July 6, 1984 in their decision making on this issue and Mr. Leddy suggested that a previous Applicant that was denied this relief be allowed to re- apply as it appeared that the cases that fit into this mold should be approved consistently til there was a remedial amendment put forth in the next Town Meeting. A discussion of the conflicts created by the Planning Board approval of these subdivisions that then became illegalewsuec4. Mr. Glidden pointed out that the State Subdivision Control Law gave the jurisdiction to the Board of Appeals to grant this type of relief. The Planning Board reccommended favorable action, and it was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. The sixth and final matter taken up by the Board for the day was the Application of MARILYN (COCCOLUTTO) BERTHELETTE, ET AL (053 -84) seeking a VARIANCE from the requirements of Section 5 of the Zoning By -Law (intensity regulations). The Applicants wished to cure a technical zoning violation which adversely affected the marketability of the title to their property. Members Rickard, Cahoon and Williams sat on this case. Richard Glidden represented the Applicants and stated that this was the same issue as the preceeding one. He pointed out that a few months ago he hctd come in to get relief for Lot 2 of this same subdivision and that relief had been granted. It was through an oversight on his part that he had not asked for relief for the other lot as well,,as the same problems applied to that one also, which was Lot 1 on the Plat Plan. There were no speakers for or against this !application. A short discussion took place about the inadequacies of the Subdivision Control Law between Board Members and the Building j Inspector. It was generally agree ht a change was needed and a by -law for the next Town Meetinglbe drawn up to rectify this i problem. It was further pointed out that the Board should be careful as to how they appl14the relief as it should only be I - done -f -ar- voj ellings- a-nd -- Trot -for examptia—, - -a-1'rouse- end a ga e. -- The Planning Board reccommended favorable action on this matter, and it was voted on UNANIMOUSLY for approval4r4 -�r'- -8- There being no further business, the meeting was ADJOURNED. cam-• �Z2" A L dle L. Rickard, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS