FINAL
Present for the Board of Appeals and attending the meeting were: Bill Rossi, Chair, Peter Knight, Rodney Bunker, Chris Murphy, Barbara Armstrong and Chuck Hodgkinson. Absent: Frank LoRusso, Michael Halbreich and Wendy Weldon. Also present: Michael Vhay for Davies/Lochridge, Marcia Cini for Krause, Lenny Jason, Ralph and Marianne Krause, Barbara Kapp, Sharon Morris and Ken Hurd for Berler, Kate Warner for Kenney and abutter Gino Mazzaferro (Kenney).
Mr. Rossi opened the meeting at 7:00 PM with the following agenda:
- Abutters Davies/Lochridge vs. Krause – 22 Tilton Cove Way; Map 29 Lot 23
- Kate Warner for Kenney – 6 Jethro Lane; Map 4 Lot 20
- Barbara Kapp for Berler; 14 Gull’s Way; Map 30 Lot 4
- William Hart – 5 Chappaquoit Road; Map 24 Lot 208; Application withdrawn.
NEW CASES
MICHAEL VHAY FOR ABUTTERS DAVIES/LOCHRIDGE vs. KRAUSE: Michael Vhay, representing abutters Davies and Lochridge summarized his clients’ appeal to revoke Building Permit # 58 while pointing out that his clients are not opposed to having the Krause’s structure built on the site, they are just opposed to having it built at this time. They would like to see the property subdivided into two lots before building the structure.
Mr. Murphy commented that the Chilmark Planning Board’s Rules & Regulations allow multiple single-family houses on lots greater than 6 acres. Mr. Vhay commented that in his opinion, the town bylaw does not have a grand fathered clause that allows the approval process that was applied to this case. He continued by stating the Krause’s are building a second home in a coastal district and that two structures are not permitted in coastal districts island wide.
Lenny Jason presented a letter with supporting documents dated March 7, 2005. He opened by commenting that multiple structures in a coastal district are not an island wide restriction. Edgartown allows both a home and a guesthouse to be built within a coastal district. He continued by pointing out Chapter 41, Section 81Q states the Planning Board has the right to impose a limit of one structure and this therefore suggests they also have the right to allow more than one structure. He added the intent of the town’s density bylaw (Article 6) that requires three dedicated acres for every dwelling is to create lots for family compounds without subdividing a parcel. Mr. Jason continued by pointing out the Krause’s did everything properly and the Planning Board approved this plan back in 2000. This was later confirmed in a letter dated August 2003 from Tom Bracken and by the Town’s legal counsel.
Marcia Cini, attorney for the Krause’s followed and summarized Mr. Krause’s five-page letter. She reiterated that the Krause’s plan was fully vetted through the Planning Board and pointed out that Mr. Vhay should be aware that a subdivision is not possible because the Krause’s deed indicates they have agreed to not subdivide their property. She continued by pointing out the original subdivision plan that was approved by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) in 1976 specified that any further subdivision would have to be approved by the MVC and that the original subdivision allowed for seven single family dwellings on the entire parcel with an average of 5.5 acres per dwelling. There are currently six houses in the development because one of the subdivided lots turned out to be a
non-buildable lot. The Krause’s second home will be the seventh house in the development.
Mr. Krause then read his five-page letter to the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the record.
Mr. Vhay added that his clients would not hold the Krause’s to the covenant stating they will no longer subdivide their property if they agree to apply to the Planning Board for a subdivision before continuing the construction.
Mr. Rossi then read letters from several abutters and neighbors that were in favor of the Krause’s project. They were from Geoffrey Young, Gretchen Feldman, Candice Guittar and Helen Young. He then asked for other comments from the audience. There were none.
Mr. Rossi asked the Board for comments and summarized his opinion that there are two attorneys present with differing opinions on the appeal before the Board. He continued that this is a step in the established process to rule on these matters.
Mr. Murphy made a motion to deny the appeal to revoke Building Permit # 58. Mr. Bunker seconded. The vote was unanimous to deny the appeal.
CONTINUED CASES
KATE WARNER FOR KENNEY: Kate Warner reviewed the revised plans for the Kenney’s guesthouse by pointing out the shingled rail has been replaced with balustrades and a few of the posts that support the roof have been removed to provide a more open feel. The total interior square footage was confirmed to be 796 square feet and in compliance with the bylaw.
Mr. Bunker made a motion to approve the plans as presented and dated 2/22/05. Mr. Knight seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor.
BARBARA KAPP FOR BERLER: Barbara Kapp presented the plan for the Berler’s expansion and pointed out the number of bedrooms and bathrooms will be the same as in the current structure and that the addition, while non-conforming with the required setback of 25 feet, it is less non-conforming than the current structure. The setback increases from 9.6 feet to 13 feet from the lot line. Ms. Kapp continued that the raised deck would be less than 13 feet high as required.
Mr. Knight made a motion to approve the plans as presented and dated 2/10/05. Mr. Bunker seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Minutes from the February 8, 2005 ZBA hearing were reviewed. Barbara Armstrong made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Peter Knight seconded. The vote to approve the Minutes was unanimous in favor.
Mr. Bunker made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Armstrong seconded. The vote was unanimous.
Mr. Rossi adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, Administrative Assistant
| 
