Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-November-3TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of the Meeting of November 3, 1989 The meeting was opened at 1:15 P. M. for the consideration of old business with Application 48 -89: William and Patricia Giles, Hull Lane William Sherman, Dale Waine, Michael O'Mara, Peter Dooley, and Linda Williams sitting. Ron Santos stated that the dispute had been settled and the permit granted. Withdrawal of the application without prejudice was approved unanimously. Application 47 -89: Nantucket Commons, Dave Street Linda Williams, David Leggett, Peter Dooley, Dale Waine sitting. William Sherman and Michael O'Mara excused themselves from sitting; David Leggett sitting with the other remaining members. Attorney Tillotson, for the Applicant, requested a further continuance of the hearing and agreed to submit a written 60 day extension of the 100 day deadline before its expiration. An agreement to resolve the matter was being prepared for signature by the Applicant, the Planning Board and the Building Commissioner. Tillotson stated that withdrawal of the application would be requested if the agreement is signed. The continuance was approved unanimously. Epple Suit 052 -89: Linda Williams, Dale David Leggett sitting. Sherman informed the with a stipulated consent were approved unanimously to be filed with the Town Waine, William Board that the judgment. The The decision Clerk's Office Sherman, Michael O'Mara, case was being settled terms of the judgment and attached plan were and with the Court. Application 059 -89: William Toner, Clifford Street Linda Williams, Dale Waine, William Sherman, Michael O'Mara, Robert Leichter sitting. Request for variance from the minimum lot size requirements of Section 139 -16A of the Zoning By -Law. Attorney Tillotson, for the Applicant, stated that the Applicant was the owner of two lots, Map 79, Parcels 77 and 128, both containing approximately 48,000 square feet. There is a dwelling located on Parcel 77; Parcel 128 is vacant. Tillotson indicated that the Applicant would suffer from severe financial hardship if the variance were not granted in that he would be unable to afford to build the more economical house he had planned for Parcel 128, and in which he intended to reside. Tillotson and the Applicant pointed out the following factors in favor of the application: (1) the Applicant purchased the first Lot in 1968 and the second Lot in 1980; (2) he could easily have put the second lot in another name but was not advised to do so; (3) Applicant is unable to acquire any additional land abutting the locus because of surrounding streets; (4) the Lots front on different streets; (5) the Lots have been taxed as separate lots at all times; (6) Applicant was willing to abide by all requirements for a secondary dwelling as if applicable to the proposed dwelling in relation to the existing dwelling, including the separation of the structures; (7) Applicant would agree to restrict each of the lots to one dwelling; (8) there were, in the same area, many other undersized lots which were either developed or which could be developed, and so the allowance of the variance would not have any adverse effect on the density of development in the neighborhood; (9) the only impact of the relief would be to permit separate ownership of the dwellings, since Applicant could have a second dwelling on the lots under the By -Law. Sherman stated that the Board had received eight letters in support of the application, none opposed; he also said that this same request had been before the Board approximately four years ago and had been denied. Messrs. William Haddon and Syd Conway spoke in favor of the Application. The Planning Board submitted a letter to the Board opposing the application on legal and precedential grounds. Waine moved to grant the requested variance with the following conditions: only one dwelling per lot; 12' minimum separation, front to back, between the dwellings; both lots being over 40,000 square feet. The motion was approved 4 -1, with Sherman voting against. Application 057 -89: M. Texiera /Harborview, South Water Street Dale Waine, Linda Williams, William Sherman, Michael O'Mara, David Leggett sitting. Attorney Tillotson, for the Applicant, after discussing with the Board various options for increasing the planting area to conform more nearly with the requirements of the original permit, such as widening the planting bed on Oak Street from 18" to 3611, suggested that the Board close the hearing and approve the plan conditional on Applicant filing a new plan showing greater than 400 square feet of plantings. Sherman indicated that if the Applicant submitted a plan with 450 square feet shown, the Board likely would approve such a plan, with the planting to be done in the spring. Williams suggested the hearing be kept open to permit the new submission to be received. Waine so moved to continued the hearing, which was seconded and and the motion was approved unanimously. Application 058 -89: Ernest L. Frank, India Street Linda Williams, Robert Leichter, William Sherman, Michael O'Mara, David Leggett sitting. Attorney Nichols, for the Applicant, requested a variance to permit the expansion of a pre- existing, non - conforming garage which intrudes into the setback, the expansion to be made in such a way as not to increase the intrusion. Three letters were received by the Board from neighbors in support of the plan, none opposed. The Planning Board recommended favorable action. Mr. Eugene Potter asked the Board to clarify whether conversion of the garage to a secondary dwelling would require further approval, and he was answered in the affirmative. Leichter moved the application be approved with the following conditions: the structure be used only as a garage or other uses ancillary to the main house, that no kitchen be permitted in the structure, and that the building be substantially in compliance with the plans submitted. The motion was approved unanimously. Application 061 -89: Sankaty Head Golf Club, Sankaty Avenue Linda Williams, Robert Leichter, William Sherman, Michael O'Mara, David Leggett sitting. Williams stated that her family had a long history of involvement with the Applicant, and Leichter stated that he had done some engineering work for the Applicant on unrelated matters. Attorney Hobart, for the Applicant, explained that the plans were new and had not been approved by the HDC. The plans were for employer dormitories, one new and one an addition to a pre- existing dorm, both for male employees. Neither dormitory is to have a kitchen, both to have one handicapped- accessible bedroom. In addition, Applicant would provide 11 off - street parking spaces with the construction of the new dorm. The dorm would sleep 14. The Planning Board recommended favorable action on the application if the access driveway were properly graveled. Williams moved to approve the application with the following conditions: that the driveway be graveled and the construction be completed in substantial compliance with the plans submitted. The motion was approved unanimously. Review of Litigation: Westmoor Inn The case is scheduled for trial on 11/30/89. The only matter in dispute is the carriage house. Application 060 -89: Robert & Gayle Greenhill, Hoicks Hollow Road Linda Williams, Robert Leichter, William Sherman, Michael O'Mara, David Leggett sitting. Attorney Philbrick, for the Applicant, stated that the requested employer dormitory would have no kitchen, would be for domestic employees, would be a one story structure, and would house at least two employees. The Planning Board recommended the Board condition its approval as follows: no further development of the lot to be permitted, or subdivision barred and conservation restrictions placed upon the undeveloped remainder of the lot. Leichter stated that he felt such conditions were not appropriate. Sherman, in response to a Planning Board request for more time to respond, requested the hearing be continued, with the suggestion that the Board submit a draft decision to the Planning Board for their comment. Williams so moved to continue the hearing until 11/14/89 at 4:00 P. M., and the motion was approved unanimously.