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