WEST TISBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES APRIL 26, 2006
TOWN HALL 7 PM
PRESENT: Eric Whitman, Tony Higgins, Toni Cohen, Bob Schwier, Nancy Cole, Larry Schubert
ABSENT: Tucker Hubbell
ALSO PRESENT for All or Part of the Meeting: Barbara Paciello, Jim Neville, Rachel Neville, Bart Smith, Leeza Smith, Paul Garcia, Carly Look, Ann Maley, William E. Carroll, Ernie Mendenhall (Bldg Insp)
DISCUSSION 7:00 LCI: ZBA voted, at Ernie Mendenhall’s recommendation, to approve an amendment to Lambert’s Cove Inn’s Special Permit granted on February 15, 2006: to add a handicap bathroom. Due to the fact that the change would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and in fact because it is being enforced by the Building & Zoning Inspector and would be beneficial to the neighborhood and Town, the ZBA deemed it would not be a substantive change in need of a new hearing. The vote was made with the proviso that the LCI owners concur with this process.
HEARINGS:
7:15 An application by Jim and Rachel Neville for a Variance for height relief of 2’ 8”. Section 10-3.2 of Zoning Bylaws; Map 30 Lot 12.2; 50 Red Pony Rd; RU District. No Correspondence from abutters
(During a framing inspection, Ernie Mendenhall found the house to be 2’8” over the 30’ height limitation in West Tisbury, and told the applicants the only remedy to not taking down the height to 30’ would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. Under these circumstances and after communication with the applicants and a site visit, the ZBA agreed there were circumstances unique to the lot and structure as to be able to be heard under a Variance. The Zoning Bylaw does not provide the ability to apply for a Special Permit for height relief in this instance.)
The Board read and discussed the 2 letters submitted by Jim and Rachel Neville regarding their plight. Jim had been a Community Corrections Officer and Rachel is a nurse at the hospital, they have 4 children, and started building their house in January. Rachel Neville began by saying their mistake was very unintentional and they regretted very much they and their contractor (a friend from off-island) did not further investigate the Town’s height requirements, taking their contractors word for it that the limit was 35’. A circumstance unique to the lot was that they had to work with the abandoned foundation on the lot that was still there, one configured for post and beam, and with a high ceiling. Also, the foundation was on the highest contour on the lot, and during building, the roof pitch was changed from 10 to 12, increasing the height.
ZBA established that the house being built had changes from the plans approved for the building permit, particularly that it appeared the 3rd floor, the roof pitch coming to the floor, no knee walls, was divided into 2 rooms. ZBA also all agreed that the house is proportionally sound and good looking, and big, and that the mistake was honest and without malice. One abutter was in attendance, who said she was very much in favor of the Grant, and also was Rachel’s mother. The Nevilles said they’d talked to their neighbors, none of whom said they had a problem with it. The remedy, Jim said, would be to cut off and flatten the rooftop at considerable expense and would delay being able to move in. Larry outlined that denying the variance, the cutting off of the rooftop, would be more detrimental to the neighborhood; Bob agreeing that the look would be hard on the neighbors. After further discussion, the ZBA voted to grant the variance, and agreed to not condition that the 3rd floor remain open, with the following as part of their findings:
1. The remedy would be to cut off and flatten part of the roof, reconstructing it to be sound. The house as it stands now is a good-looking, proportional house. The flattening of the roof, and the possibility of a widows’ walk being added, possibly to a height greater than the existing height, would be more detrimental to the surrounding properties and neighborhood as a whole. In this case, the desired relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood or the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the purpose of the bylaw.
2. In this case, the literal enforcement and strict adherence to the height limit would impose on the owners harsh and undue financial and otherwise hardships not offset by contributing to the common good. The deviation is not substantial and the uniformity of land use is not violated.
3. The Board finds that owing to unique circumstances related to the building conditions and topography of the lot not affecting the district generally, the variance may be granted “without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by law”. (M.G.L. Ch. 40A Sect. 10. Para. 1). The granting of a variance would bring the structure into compliance without being detrimental to surrounding property.
7:35 An application by Garcia’s Deli Inc. at Back Alleys for a Special Permit to alter and extend a pre-existing, non-conforming sign located on the building, increasing the size and changing the appearance: To increase from 85” by 10” (5.9 sq ft) to 94” by 15” (9.79 sq ft). The sign is non-conforming in that it is over 4 sq ft and is a second sign for a premise in the VR District. Refer to 8.4-5A(b) for review requirements. No Correspondence
Heard Under:
Section 8.4-8B: An existing sign which was erected lawfully, but which does not conform to this bylaw may continue to be used. However if it is enlarged, redesigned or altered in any way it shall be brought into conformity with this bylaw.
Section 8.4-6: Signs of a number, size, location or height that varies from the requirements of Sections 8.4-2 or 8.4-3, may be allowed by Special Permit if the applicant can show that special circumstances exist due to the extent of frontage, distance of setback, or type of architecture, vegetation or topography, and the ZBA finds that such variation does not detract from the purpose of these sign regulations.
Section 11-1-3: Alter and extend a pre-existing, non-conforming structure or use.
Eric asked Paul Garcia why he wanted a bigger sign on the building? Paul’s answer, that now it was 2 shingles high, and he’d like to make it 3, and slightly longer, and change it from “Back Alleys” to read Garcia’s Deli and Bakery, as the current sign is misleading to customers and delivery people. The current sign close to the road, shared with the Bike rental, is small and unobtrusive so people don’t see it. He does plan to repaint this sign.
Paul plans to paint the enlarged sign the red and yellow colors of the Spanish flag and have black letters and plans to use a glossy paint. Members discussed that the larger sign might be ok, but not if the colors were too bright and didn’t blend in with neighborhood and other signage. ZBA voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit with the condition that ZBA member Bob Schwier would act as consultant and give approval in the matter of paint and color choices.
7:50 An application by Carly Look on behalf of Harrowby Property Co for a Special Permit for a 20’ by 50’ in-ground pool with spa and associated 8’ by 10’ equipment shed. Sects. 3.1-1, 8.5-4 of Zoning Bylaws; 245 John Cottle Rd; Map 6 Lot 7.2; RU District. Correspondence: 1) Abutter Timothy E. Guiney; 2) Doug Cooper letter to VL Surveying. Bd. Admin Julie and ConCom Admin Maria had each written letters to Dr. Guiney. Those in attendance were provided with copies and a copy of Doug Cooper’s letter.
Correspondence was read. Dr. Guiney objected to the issuance of a special permit specifically because of concern for his well going dry, and worry that a pool would negatively impact, in his words, “a running stream throughout the year” (in environmental parlance, a “perennial” stream) within 200’of the pool and therefore not allowable. His letter had been emailed via his brother-in-law, Atty William E. Carroll. A copy of Surveyor Doug Cooper’s January ’06 letter to Vineyard Land Surveying had been provided to ZBA and ConCom earlier in the day, and was also read. Doug found the stream to be “intermittent”, not perennial, and therefore not regulated by the Rivers Protection Act. (If a perennial stream, and pool within 200’ of it, a project would be reviewed by the ConCom. There is more protection for the 1st 100’ than the 2nd. The Conservation Commission could make a determination of whether or not the stream was intermittent or perennial if applied to.)
Bart Smith and Carly Look represented the application. Atty William E. Carroll attended on Dr. Guiney’s behalf. Carly Look presented revised plans showing the equipment shed to be built under the pool deck and the addition of a gazebo to the pool area. In answer to questions, Carly said they had looked at other sites over time and felt this one lent itself to the project and wasn’t an issue, plus there was an existing stone wall there. If they moved it away from the stream Dr Guiney referred to, they would be moving toward the Ziff property on the other side…they’d tried to center it in the middle of the lot. Bart Smith said they were restricted by the deed restricted building envelope, and the pool was within that envelope meeting all bound setbacks, Bd of Hlth setbacks, Wetland Act setbacks. He said Doug Cooper and Glenn Provost had reflagged the wetlands, Doug’s letter reflected what he found, and they believe they’ve placed the pool to be outside the buffer zone. His client shares Dr. Guiney’s concerns and they respect the opinions in the email.
It was presented that the pool area would have a 4’ high retaining wall; grey gunite pool; bluestone and grass deck area and 12’ in diameter gazebo. The plans had specs regarding fencing code requirements and lighting that meets ZBL requirements (on file with ZBA). ZBA said this was the first they’d heard about a gazebo, noting there was no plan for it. Carly questioned why it was any concern of the ZBA. It was explained that the ZBA looks at the complex as a whole. For instance, if someone applied for a pool only, the abutters might be ok with that, but then 4 months later a 2 story pool house is built that blocks their view and had they known, they might have objected to the grant of a pool permit. Ernie now refers people wanting to add to their pool areas to ZBA to apply to amend the original pool special permit.
Eric asked why the 2 stream opinions were so opposite to each other? One saying there’s a stream flowing year round and the other saying it’s dried up in the summer and so not under the Rivers Protection Act? Plus, the plans submitted did not show actual wetlands delineation, so the ZBA was unable to determine if the pool construction would be within 200’of the stream, and therefore should be reviewed by ConCom before a ZBA decision. (The ZBA considers boundary setback requirements of 50' from all lot lines; 100' from the front bound if the pool is in front of the house. This application meets these setbacks. The ZBA considers the 100' setback from streams draining into a great pond and requirements for the 500' Coastal District, which the pool is not in.)
Bart Smith said Doug was sure of his findings, he’d gone through his checklist. Eric said we have confidence in Doug’s report in the letter, but all we have is the letter. Eric asked, how about Dr. Guiney’s concerns for his well? Leeza Smith said they’d never heard about any problems with the Guineys’ well. Bart said the new Harrowby Property well pumps 45 gallons a minute.
Larry summarized, we don’t have a wetland survey plan; the applicants state it is out of the zone; the Guineys concerns are valid. Bart Smith said he would get a copy of the wetland delineation; Nancy moved to continue the hearing in order for the applicants and the Guineys to talk over their issues, and to have a wetlands delineation and gazebo plan at the next hearing. Unanimous to do so: Continued to May 17 at 7:50 PM.
8:10 An application by Henry and Berta Geller for a Special Permit to alter and extend a pre-existing, non-conforming (by setbacks) house: A 15’ by 22’ two-story addition, comprising of a 17’ by 15’ living room, 7’ by 5’ entry porch, 8’ by 5’ entry hall, and a 15’ by 15’ extension to the master bedroom above. To be 40’ from S bound. Section 11.1-3 of Zoning Bylaws; Map 37 Lot 14; 237 Vineyard Meadow Farms Rd; RU Dist. No Correspondence
The Gellers, who live in Vermont, did not attend the hearing. Their friend and abutter Ann Maley came on their behalf. The addition would not encroach any more than the original house, and the house is in the woods and not readily seen. No correspondence and no one else in attendance for the hearing. Finding that the adddition would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, the ZBA voted unanimously to grant.
BUSINESS
· Review of April 12 minutes was postponed until next meeting.
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
· MV Commission re Island Plan Steering Committee
· Copy of complaint letter from Jordan Ronson to Zoning Inspector
· Out: Julie to Dr. Guiney
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20.
Respectfully submitted, Julie Keefe, Bd. Admin.
3