HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-November-13MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOVEMBER 13, 1987
At 1:25 p.m,, prior to the regularly scheduled Public Hearing of old and new
Applications by the BOARD OF APPEALS held FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 139 1987, in the
Town and County Building, Nantucket, Chairman William R. Sherman opened the
hearing, with Regular Members Andrew J. Leddy, Jr. and Dorothy D. Vollans,
the only others present. Upon motion made and passed to go into executive
session to discuss proposed settlement of pending litigation, the Chairman
summarized status of the Bralower suit in Nantucket Superior Court No.
2074 and Town Counsel's letter of 11/5/87 on Bralower's proposal of a dis-
missal without prejudice. Finding the circumstances appropriate for such
disposition, Leddy moved and Vollans seconded a motion that counsel's
settlement recommendation be accepted. Passed UNANIMOUSLY thereupon. Upon
motion made and passed the executive session was ended, with report that
settlement discussions were concluded. Further public proceedings are
separately reported.
Dated:
Nantucket, MA 02554
/J
Z,t-/�e_,�
William R. Sherman
AML tW ,: , y
Andrew J. Leddy, Jr.
Dorothy D. Volans
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 1987
Following the hearing of the last Application, Sherman, Vollans and
Beale discussed need for legal guidance from Town Counsel. Upon
motion of Beale, seconded by Vollans and passed, Sherman was author-
ized to request Town Counsel's opinion with respect to:
1) Whether an application with less than 4000 SF of interior
commercial space is a Major Commercial Development if interior SF
plus exterior SF exceeds 5000 SF but some or all of the exterior
commercial use is in the required off - street parking and /or off-
loading areas? Example, Westender 016 -87;
2) With less urgency, whether an MCD can be found when the
proposed uses or structure are on more than one tract separated by
street? Are they "contiguous "? Example: Harborview 114 -87, with
Planning Board litigation on MCD;
3) Whether variance relief can (assuming the otherwise required
findings) properly be granted validating one of two undersized
adjacent lots, each with a residence and lot- layout predating our
zoning ( "lots of record ") and held in common ownership only for the
first 3 years ('72 -'75) of zoning during which each was then under-
sized, e.g., was there a "merger "? Example: Maslow 121 -87;
Dated: 1.v; fi, 087
Nantucket, MA 02554
XAYK
Vi'lliam R.—Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS
l
ac"
Dorothy D. Vollans
C_ _NrL__M f.-, L. �� I -
C. M rshall Be e