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.