HomeMy WebLinkAbout010-04
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: t---eJDruOr^~ W , 2001'
To: Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.: 0 (0-- 0 if
own~AP0~~~;~ ~~~Q~V1~ ~:~~ ~:-
Concflom 1'()/0r1J T VUsr
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the
complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
(20) days.
~~(~~~~~b~
f)C{ , . C){,e\l)>; Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND V~RIANCES HAVE A TIME
LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING-TO NANTUCKET
ZONING BY-LAW ~139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS); ~139-32I (VARIANCES)
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Map 21
Parcel 76.3
R-2
36D Sesachacha Road
Plan File 50-Q, Unit 4
Book 538, Page 156
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing ofthe Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, on Friday,
February 6, 2004, at 1:00 P.M., in the Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following Decision on the Application of
DOUGLAS H. KENNEDY, OWNER OF UNIT 4 OF THE QUIDNET BEACH
CONOMINIUM TRUST, c/o Rhoda H. Weinman, Post Office Box 1365, Nantucket,
Massachusetts 02554, File No. 010-04:
2. The Applicant is seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket
Zoning By-Law Section 139-33A(4), (5), and (9) (alteration or expansion of a pre-
existing non-conforming structure/use), and relief by VARIANCE from Section 139-16A
(Intensity Regulations - Ground Cover and side and rear yard setbacks). Applicant
proposes to demolish one of four individual condominium dwelling units (with two being
the maximum allowed on one lot in this zoning district) situated upon the subject
property, and construct a new dwelling unit in substantially the same location. The
existing structure has a ground cover of about 876 square feet, and the new structure
would have a ground cover of about 969 square feet. The existing structure is non-
conforming as to side and rear yard setbacks with Unit 4 being sited as close as about
0.66 feet from the northerly lot line, and at zero feet from the easterly lot line in a district
that requires a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten feet. The new structure would
be sited no closer to those lot lines than the existing structure. The Locus is also non-
conforming as to front yard setback with Unit #1 being sited as close as about 2.10 feet
from the lot line along Sesachacha Road in a district that requires a minimum front yard
setback of 30 feet; and as to ground cover ratio with the Lot containing about 16.7% in a
district that allows a maximum ground cover ratio of 12.5%. The result of the
construction of the additional ground cover would increase the total to about 17.1 %. See
also BOA Files Nos. 112-98, 092-99 and 088-02 in which relief was granted by this
Board to alter and expand two ofthe units and in the third case, demolish and reconstruct
the dwelling unit.
The Premises is located at 36D SESACHACHA ROAD, KNOWN AS
"GAM, QUIDNET, Assessor's Map 21, Parcel 76.3, Plan File 50-Q, Unit #4. The
property is zoned Residential-2.
3. Our Decision is based upon the Application and accompanying materials,
and representation and testimony received at our public hearing. There was no Planning
Board recommendation, on the basis that no matter of planning concern was presented.
The owners of the other three condominium units submitted letters stating that they had
no objection to the proposed project. A previous owner of the property submitted a letter
of support, also stating that the four separate dwelling units were present prior to the 1972
enactment of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. There was no opposition presented at the
public hearing nor were there any letters in opposition.
4. Applicant, through counsel and personal testimony, represented that this
Board had previously determined in the Decisions in BOA File Nos. 112-98, 092-99 and
088-02, that the Locus consisted of a conforming lot area containing four separate pre-
existing nonconforming dwellings. Three of the four structures on this lot, including the
subject structure, predated 1926 as shown on a 1926 and a 1938 aerial photograph of the
lot, with the latter contained in the Town records. The subject dwelling was shown to be
in the same configuration and location since a time prior to 1972, including the deck that
was currently sited over the easterly lot line and roofed over porch area, as shown on the
above mentioned aerials as well as others contained in the Town records, thus making the
structures validly grandfathered for zoning purposes.
Applicant was proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling
and reconstruct a new dwelling substantially on the same footprint. There would,
however, be an increase in ground cover from about 16.7% to 17.1% (876 square feet of
ground cover to 969 square feet of ground cover) due to the enclosing of an existing
attached covered porch on the southerly side of the structure in order to gain additional
interior living space. This porch area was currently not counted in the ground cover
calculation as it did not contain walls, but did have a platform under the roof. The
maximum height of the new dwelling was to be about 24.2 feet, which was considerably
lower than the existing height of Unit #1 of about 28.9 feet, and most of the proposed
structure was lower than the ridge height of Unit #2.
Applicant, through counsel, stated that his family needed more living space
due to his growing family. He was single when he purchased the property, and he now
had a wife, two children and one on the way. Applicant further stated that two of the
three condominium units had been partially demolished and rebuilt, and the third one was
totally demolished and rebuilt, with relief by Variance having been issued for the latter.
Additionally, Unit #1, the largest of the structures, was allowed to go up in the setback by
a grant of Special Permit relief, and had the largest impact as it was located closest to the
traveled ways. Applicant's unit had the least impact upon the neighborhood as it was
located the farthest point away from the road layout. Nantucket Historic District
Commission had issued Certificates of Appropriateness in Nos. 43,045 and 43,046
(demo) to demolish and build a new dwelling unit as proposed before this Board.
Applicant, through counsel, represented that the dwellings were separated
into four condominium units with exclusive use and designated parking areas. There were
no options for moving the structure out of the setback areas or back further to the west on
the lot given the locations ofthe other structures and said exclusive use area and parking
designations. Unit #3 was sited close to Unit #4 on the south and restricted any
conforming expansion of the structure to the south other than into the patio area.
Applicant further stated that the nonconforming uses on the lot, i.e., four separate
dwellings units, would not change. There would continue to be a maximum of four and
the setback intrusion of the subject structure would continue with the new structure but
would not be increased.
5. Based upon the foregoing facts, a super majority of the Board finds that
allowing the new dwelling to be replaced substantially on the same footprint, without
coming any closer to the lot lines on the north and east then the existing structure, would
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the By-law and that owing to the
physical condition, soil conditions, and topography of the lot and the nonconforming
dwelling (including ground cover, setbacks and number of units on the lot) and especially
affecting the Locus but not affecting generally property in the Residential-2 zoning
district in which the Locus is situated, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
Zoning By-law would cause a substantial hardship upon the Applicant, financial and
otherwise, and desirable relief could be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the purpose or intent of the By-law, especially as there would be a
benefit to the public with the upgrading of the property and the use would remain
unchanged. The Board further finds that the additional ground cover would be de
minimus and given the constraints ofthe property in precluding any other options, a grant
of Variance relief could also be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the purpose or intent of the By-law. The Board notes that a small portion (less
than two feet) of the existing structure and the deck are sited over the lot line on the
property to the east. The Board fmds that it has no jurisdiction over those portions of the
dwelling that are so sited. In addition, the Board finds that a grant of Special Permit relief
to demolish and reconstruct a new single-family dwelling would not constitute
abandonment of the nonconforming use on the property of four dwelling units. Therefore,
the Board finds that there would be no intensification of use and the demolition and
reconstruction of a new single-family dwelling would not be substantially detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. The Board also fmds that under
the provisions of By-law Section 139-33A(9), the removal and replacement of the
existing ground cover would be allowed by Special Permit and would not be substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood either. The above stated Variance relief is for the
increase in ground cover from the existing about 16.7% ground cover ratio to about
17.1 % with the enclosing ofthe porch area within its present footprint.
6. Accordingly, by a vote of four in favor (Sevrens, 0' Mara, Waine,
Sanford) and one opposed (Loftin), the Board GRANTS the requested relief by
SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), (5) and (9) to
alter/expand a pre-existing, nonconforming structure/use and relief by V ARIANCE under
Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-16A (Intensity Regulations - ground cover and
side and rear yard setbacks) to demolish and reconstruct the dwelling unit as proposed.
Relief is hereby conditioned upon the following:
(a) The siting of the new dwelling (Unit #4), including the additional
ground cover where the patio area is currently shown, shall be
done in substantial conformance with the "Quidnet Beach
Condominium - Plan of Land", dated March 9, 1997, done by
Charles W. Hart, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit A;
(b) Said work shall be performed in substantial conformance with the
Certificate of Appropriateness No. 43,045 and 43,046 (demo), as
may be amended;
(c) No material exterior work related to this project shall be performed
between June 1 to September 15 of any given year; and
(d) Relief granted pertains only to that portion of the structure that is
sited entirely within the lot lines of the Locus and not for those
portions sited outside of the lot to the east, with the Board's
acknowledgement that its jurisdiction is limited by the lot lines.
Dated: ~ ~ aexs4
~
-1-
C)*
:E=:
~
;;":
,.,
('T'J
=
N
o
c-:
1--
j'-'-
~
~
N
w
.. Q
~ Z< ~
~j~ ;
~ Q ~
S ~Za:t ~ '~
i Z ~ ~~ ~ l5
o -< 0-4 ~,< g ::!E
to) ~ ~~ ii:
=: f:l.ca~~ .,;
'~ ~~;~ ! :=
~ ~~ ~ ~ VI,
~ ~z Fe ..
So, ~ e c:
'QZ ~ ~
z.... ~ ~ Q)
~,8 ' a 1 ~
f~i! t:111f~1; -~Jill- J1'
~ lIt.,.l 'Ii :i R gill I
111jitjJ r1lti1i.i:tjr!
ij1 U J 5 "B Ire ~1'1!111 ,g"
iJaiJilljili.g!1, JI I g
jlit!5:aIIJi'II~,h,~d~ 'j
fIJ~~Jl~ ~1~~~I'ilh~ i
~ 12
" g Cl i'&
o lF9'w~
Y.l J_~oo
<(1)='>'-
~ ~i;~.i
:t: ::;l 0 ~ Iii Ii)
~ ~a:lllrs~
~ m~~~
~ ~cn z
is 0.
,I ~~
t ~N
II ' >>'1
~ ti 2 ~A'
lJJ "1;'0:
&1 : ~ . ~
~ ":'c .e
I ~i~i
..
:.~:;~ ~ ~~
~ ~ \t ~f.r) ~:;~
~ ~~ ~~ ~~;
~ ii ~i ~i j:e
~_'1$ ~I~ii."{i~' .
::> ,.e o~ - J 0 ..
~,2'_h.g.~~ 2'J~.~i
t::;gJt-3! "t:::g -:!Z1i
'~~.!1~di;B~d! ~di.:l
<t:
.~
-9
,..J
~
'-V
"I f [.Iale of
, 'habel <fforaoss
"
$
i
<I>
"
..
I
'"
u:
g ~
~
t-
-
-
"
+
~
..
r
..,2
S
SESACI{A.Cii10.....<;.~$..e: <T,..
I,OA.D
."OJ,
/1<<;,30 (At)
I ,,,,,.., .,,/. O,~ ~'.'.11i
~ ) ~/f . ~
. 'ti::::~ ~
l'- ~II>OON
l'- ql'-I"l--
ell 0
l!! N,'. '
ttN : . .
--...:;
i
!
~~ ~j~l.
J
~I
~
i ..
:;:
~
~" . l: '
bl !l.. ~ ~
g~"O~,
:~llii
l'-
Ol
Q:!
......-,..--..-.
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
PHONE 508-228-7215
FAX 508-228-7205
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS will be held at
1:00 P.M., FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2004 in the Conference Room, Town Annex
Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of the
following:
DOUGLAS H. KENNEDY, OWNER OF UNIT #4, OF QUIDNET BEACH
CONDOMINIUM TRUST, FILE NO. 010-04: Applicant (Kennedy) is seeking relief
by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), (5) and (9)
(alteration/expansion ofa pre-existing nonconforming structure/use) and reliefby
VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-law Sections 139-16A (Intensity regulations -
ground cover and side and rear yard setbacks). Applicant proposes to demolish one of
four individual condominium dwelling units (with two being the maximum allowed on
one lot in this zoning district) situated upon the subject property, and construct a new
dwelling unit in substantially the same location, The existing structure has a ground cover
of about 876 square feet and the new structure would have a ground cover of about 969
square feet The existing structure is nonconforming as to side and rear yard setbacks
with Unit #4 being sited as close as about 0.66 feet from the northerly lot line and at zero
feet from the easterly lot line in a district that requires a minimum side and rear yard
setback of ten feet The new structure would be sited no closer to those lot lines than the
existing structure, The Locus is also nonconforming as to front yard setback with Unit #1
being sited as close as about 2,10 feet from the lot line along Sesachacha Road in a
district that requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet; and as to ground cover
ratio with the Lot containing about 16.7% in a district that allows a maximum ground
cover ratio of 12.5%, The result of the construction of the additional ground cover would
increase the total to about 17,1%, See also BOA File Nos. 112-98, 092-99 and 010-04 in
which relief was granted by this Board to alter, expand two of the units and in the third
case, demolish and reconstruct the dwelling unit.
The Premises is located at 36 D SESACHACHA ROAD, KNOWN AS "GAM",
QUIDNET, Assessor's Map 21, Parcel 76.3, Plan File 50-Q, Unit #4. The property is
zoned ResidentiaI-2. /fl..' J 1?e ,. '
( tI ~\4l ~AA/)--
Nancy 1. Sevrens, a rman
THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT OR OTHER
ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION.
FEE: $300.00
CASE NO(jJ0--- (jLf
APPLICA TION FOR RELIEF (!qrzCJJ.n
Owner's name(s): Dou2las H. Kennedy - Q ~ If' c9 VUlt j8<2S1~ ~ v-reJ5.V-
Mailing address: c/o J.P.K. Enterprises Inc. 500 Fifth Avenue. Suite 4700. New York. NY 10110
Applicant's name(s): Dou2las H. Kennedy cJCV'N2Y' d..p ()ht1- 1-
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
Mailing address: same as above
Locus address: 36D Sesachacha Road Assessor's MaplParcel: 0021-0763
Land Court PlanIPlan Book & PagelPlan File No.: Plan File 50-0 Lot No.:
Date lot acquired:.2.J 29/1997 Deed Ref./Cert. of Title: 538/156 Zoning District:~ -- L
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None-X- Yes (describe)
Residential: Number of dwellings-.4- Condos_ Apartments_Rental Rooms
Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72? yes
Building Permit Nos:
Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: \ \1... - ~ I () ~'l ....0 '& ( C)q L - C{ 1 '
or
C of O(s)?
State below or on a separate addendum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Appeal), Section of
the Zoning By-law, and supporting details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any existing nonconformities:
See addendum attached hereto and made a part hereof.
d
~ ;0
'- ,..n
~ :')
N 1
w r,,,,
:::2
'.J
~,'l ,}
\D
I certify that the inf ation contained herein is substan . l.lY comp~~e 7d true to the best of my
knowledge, under ea. nd penalties of perjury. . 7""~ 7)/
._ J) plicant AttorneY/AgenK
(If not owner 0 wner's attorney, pleas enclose pr f of agency 0 bring this ma er before the Board)
FO FICE US
Application received on:LllLlct4 By: Complete: ~eed copies?: Y.. /f}~
Filed with Town Clerk:-Li l3/ Q1Pla' : 30!L-
Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:L/z3/o~ By aiver requested?:_Granted:_/~_
Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:J;lb /114 Mailed:LP tl/- I&M:-/----Z.2jCJ!/-& IJ2Jjd.f-
Hearing(s) held on:_/_/_ Opened on:~_/_ Continued to:_/_/_ Withdrawn?:_/_/_
DECISION DUE BY:_/ _/ _ Made:_/ _/ _ Filed w/Town Clerk:_/ ~ _ Mailed:_/ _/-
DECISION APPEALED?:_/_/_ SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03
Applicant is seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-
Law Section 139-33Al~alteration or expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming
structure), and ~ t}:l ltlm~ by VARIANCE from Section 139-16A (Intensity
Regulations - Ground Cover). The applicant proposes to demolish one of four individual
dwelling units situated upon the subject property (the "Locus"), which individually has a
ground cover of about 876 square feet, and replace with a new dwelling unit that would
have ground cover of about 969 square feet. It should be noted that there is no actual
increase in the footprint as there is a foundation that is covered over presently but not
calculated as ground cover because it is not enclosed (although it was previously
enclosed). Our locus is non-conforming as to setbacks on the northerly side which at its
closest point is 0.7 from the lot line, and on the easterly side, we have 0 setback in an area
that requires a ten foot side yard setback. Our front yard setback is conforming, and our
southerly side is conforming. The setbacks will remain the same, and will not further
encroach. Unit 1 is sited about 2.10 feet at the closest point from Sesachacha Road, with
the minimum required front yard setback being 30. The lot area is a conforming lot,
having a lot area of about 22,065 square feet, with minimum lot area in this Residential-2
zoning district being 20,000 square feet. The Locus is non-conforming as to use,
containing four pre-existing dwelling units, which are condominiums, with the
maximum number of dwelling units permitted being two per lot. The existing ground
cover ratio upon the Locus is about 16.7% with the maximum permitted in this district
being 12.5%. The result of the proposed alteration will be a ground cover of about 17.1
All parking requirements will continue to be met. The Locus is situated at 36D
Sesachacha Road, is shown on Assessors Map 21, Parcel 76.3., is shown on a plan
recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan File 50-Q, and is situated in a Residential-2
zoning district.
I Jt 5,f)o
Town of Nantucket
RECEIVED
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
DEe 3 0 2003
TOWN OF
NANTUCKET, MA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THE MATIER OF THE PETITION OF
PROPERTYO~ER...l{~'f'."ZJ~
MAILING ADDRESS.,..............,....,..,..:.........,.,.........................,.....
PROPERTY LOCATION,.,.., ....;1.~.,j).....k~,Rd
,; :z / -' '71 ..~
ASSESSORS MAP/PARCEL......... ...... ,.,.', ... "";~"')~' .." ,.. ..,..., '.,.. ......
APPLlCANT",."."..,.~,...,0!..~
SEE ATIACHED PAGES
I certify that the foregoing is a list of persons who are owners of abutting property, owners of
land directl~ opposite on any public or private street or way; and abutters of the abutters and all
other land owners within 300 feet of the property line of owner's property, all as they appear on
the most recent applicable tax list (M,G.L. c. 40A, Section 11 Zoning Code Chapter 139.
Section 139-29D (2) "
,iJJdC:,..~ .~,.,' ~1,1!3
/) -, a~
r~....",:,,,
DATE'
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
l!l
Z
~~
CI)
H
H8
Cl)t!
ll'.CJ
rill:>
88
g~
~
" Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii!
] ..a ..a t:i t:i Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! : e e
.. u u u y .. .. [;! t:i t:i
~ e::i~..aeg~~~~~~~
.... .... C) ca H H .... tQ tQ
...-t tQtQHHPOOlMI1J1
41 IilIi1WW::>bOlOl CI){/]
2 cnCl]Ct)CI)OlOloN~IllU
iU O\t""lJ'IP"ICDOOO \DID
P. NNNNCOO'....1""f P'lP"I
'"
...
r-
III
I
P"I ..,. ('I') ., .... 0\ r- N
r-- Ul r-- III .... .., 0 0
Cl. f"-U"Ir--U'lOUlOCD
.rot rtN...-tNOOOri
N 0000........<\1....
~ ~~~~~~
.. ..
~ B ~ B ~
o t:> 0 i ><
t' !i~!i ~
(j ::1 li!l::1 [;!
'"
"
"
G>
~
t>
"
'...
...
j
Ii!
o
li!l Ii! ~
go Ii! ~
o tIl
..
~ ~ ~
r-
.. III
tIl
10: 1l
III
o
III 0
o
l"1 Co
~
..
E-i E-t E-t E-i CJ
" ~;~;~~
: "'~"'~~g
.lJ ~ ~ 0
~ g~~~~;:
Ii!
9
li!l
"
I
~
G>
~
gj
I
~
Ii!
2
"
.,
III
o
"-
U
o
U
!~!~ !
i ~ i ~ ! I
~ :!:!~:ig
.. &1 H &1 H i ~ '"
: ~S~5~~:fll
I <....(.J (J 0 U PI1 0
~ ::i~,::i~~~~
~ ~ li!l.iL )l ., tIl
.,
o ....NLnIDO....M...UlIDID
H MMM....r--r--r"'-t""r-r-r--
a ~~~~~~~~~~~
.. 0 0
III ... ...
III 0 ...
'" 01 0
0......
~a ~
o
~ ~ ~ B ~ ~
I ~ ~ i ~ i
Ii! Ii! 5
..
~ ~ ~
s !;l '"
()I ~ ..
H III
~ '" 0
o 0
III III
tIl
.,
tIl
~
~
, .,
5:'10:
e~
~ ~~J
~ l!
U U
tIl
"
li!l
H
~
tIl
~
.,
"
~
.,
z
.. .,
o ~
., H
~ .,
.. ..
tIl
., H
H
H H
~
tIl
H
tIl
li!l tIl
~~
tIl !il
aLl
o
...
r-
...
H
H
., a
!i! U
fll )l
In:
Ill_ ~
~ r:l
... '"
Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii!
~ e e e t:i Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii!
~ t:i e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
tIl Y 4 4 4 " " " " " " "
M ; ~ tQ 00 H H H H H H H
tQ W Ii1 Ii1 W P ::> p p p p p
UlUlU)CIlOlClOlOlOlClOl
~ 0 CD .., CD ..... CD 0 .., 0 CD t""
M P'I N N .... \D CD 0\ 0\ 0\ co \D
CD .... r- CD .., 0 .... 0\ .., ~ .... ....
ID .., U') U') U') ~ .... .., U') . .... 0
N .... ID \D U') U') .... U') Ul ~ 0 ~
\D M .... .... N N 0 0 N 0 0 ....
o \D CD CD 0 0 .... .... 0 .... ~ N
o 0
U U
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
I I i
H H
~ ~
o 0
U U
E-t (f.l E-t {J) CIl
B ~ ~ :;J B :;J ~ ::1
E ~ >< ~ E ~ >< ~
~ .. ~ !f ~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ "
:i! gj ~ or;
" '" ~ go ~
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
CI] 0 Eo! U C!) lQ
ril il :: tIl li!l ~ '"
:;J :l x " t-< '" ~
2 2 ~ ~ ~ g
'" 0 0
III \D 0\ 0\ 0
f"'o III I""f I/) .... ....
Ii! z
Ii! go ~
" 2 z gj
or; ~ g ..
E-I lQ CJ CI1
[;! '" ~ ~
" ~ '" 2
S 0 ~
01 tI) i a:
l"1
o l"1
"lP 0 0'1 co
O'l r-l .... ....
Ii!
I
j
H
'" '"
...
r- '"
.. '"
... ...
..
tIl
~
~ ><
., ..
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
o "
"- H
U "
gj ~ gj
~ ~ ~
~ :i ~
Co tIl Co
.,
~ ~ ~
Ii! Ii!
2 " 2
" .. "
fll III fll
o tIl 0
~~~
o
"-
U
~
OJ
Co
&l
..
~
tIl
Co
&l
~ ~
H
~ S
.,
..
~ ~
..
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ., ~
4 fll ~ fll
~ ~ I ~ I ~
~ i ; : I : ~ : I
I ~ : i ~ ! g ! " 5
~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ = ~ ~
~ c:r; U IZI Ii;l
~ ~ i I ~.~ i ~ ~-~
b H HUH IZI H U 0
()I" "t~ "t.l '"
..
... l"1
. U'J r- CD 0\ "II
~ CD 0\ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0.0 0 rl
~ ~ ~ CD CD CD rl ~ rl rl " "
" " " " " " " " ~ " " "
N N N N N N N N N N N N
Q)
tJ'
'"
'"
----------~
~
N
'"
rl
"'
rl
rl
o
N
"-
a
'"
"-
N
rl
~,
~~?
+
~;
57
9.0 AC.
n
... & .Ie.
'.
'.AI:. ...A<
SESAlCHAlCHAl
". \ \
.~'\\
"
:" ~ 24-3
}P([J)ND
(1(Hlllt-V of
..
DKET
sett~
..0
S,~HOFIELD BROTHERS, INC. C::=>_
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
w
'<
Z
o
o
o Z
'..J 0
:l:N
"'w
~::;O
w>- Z
"''''<(
:J ~
I '"
U -
<(
'"
'"
<(
:l:
~'
:i')~
-----r;:.,
(lj/ rL1 1& .fjJ 1 \f
I
I
I
I
-..
Oc/
'0
1--('
..A __
I
J
o
o
o
...
'"
I<:
W
~
SHEET NO,
SHEET INDEX
~
~"
~ 7 12
I
93.9 13<1 ' 33 32 31 30 29 28 3 I
35 36 3 38 39 40 .41 . 1
6' 59 58 57 56 55 5' .9
62 63 6' 65 66 67 68 73 J
8' 83 81 80 74 ]
85186,871
, .
1
~ ~
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSEITS 02554
Date:
December 17 ,19 99
To: Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.:
092..,.99
Owner/Applicant:
ARTHUR W. WRIGHT AND MARILYN K. WRIGHT
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the
complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
(20) days.
~
v/ f. H--'~'~~
William P. Houriha~ Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
'PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND V~RIANCES HAVE A TIME
LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED,UPON ACCORDING'TO"NANTUCKET
ZONING BY-LAW D139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS); ~139-32I (VARIANCES)
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET 'ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
37 Washington Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Assessor's Map 21, Parcel 76
36A Sesachacha Road
Residential-2
Book 538, Page 193
Unit 1, Quidnet Beach Condominium
Plan Files 47-Mand 50-Q
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals, on Friday, October 22, 1999, at 12 :00 P.M., in the
Conference Room, Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following decision
on the application of ARTHUR W. WRIGHT and MARILYN K. WRIGHT, c/o
Sarah F. Alger, P.C., Two Union Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts
02554, File No. D92-99:
2. The applicants seek a Special Permit under Nantucket
Zoning By-law ~l39-33 .A(4) (a) and ~l39-33 .A(5) (alteration or
extension of a pre-existing nonconforming structure), including a
finding under Mass. Gen. Laws c.40A, ~6. The applicants propose
to alter a said to be pre-existing single- family dwelling, the
westernmost dwelling of the four (4) situat~d on the Locus, by
expanding the structure in an upward direction with changes in
the roof line, roof pitch, and fenestration within that portion
of the existing footprint that lies within the required westerly
side yard setback area, with other changes (including, but not
limited to, widening a porch and adding a roof on the conforming
southerly and easterly side of the dwelling) not affecting zoning
compliance. In the alternative, and to the extent necessary, the
applicants are seeking relief by Variance under Nantucket Zoning
Bylaw ~139-l6A to undertake said alterations. The Locus is
nonconforming as to front yard setback with the subject structure
(Uni t #l "Sea Mist") being sited at 2. lOI feet at its closest
point from the westerly side yard lot line along Sesachacha Road
in a district that requires a minimum side yard setback of ten
(lO) feet; as to side and rear yard setbacks with Unit #4, "Gam"
being sited at 0.66I feet at its closest point from the rear yard
lot line and at zero feet from the easterly side yard lot line,
in a district that requires a minimum rear and side yard setback
of ten (10) feet; as to ground cover, with the Lot containing in
excess of the allowable maximum of 12.5%; and as to number of
dwelling units on a lot, with the Locus containing four (4)
dwelling units when the By-law allows a maximum of two (2) on one
(1) lot.
The Premises are located at 36A Sesachacha Road,
Quidnet Beach Condominium, Assessor I s Map 21, Parcel
Files 4i-M and SO-Q, and are zoned Residential-2.
Uni t # 1 ,
76, Plan
3. Our decision is based upon the application and
accompanying materials, and representations and- testimony
received at our public hearing. The Planning Board indicated
that this matter was not of planning c'oncern. There was no
opposition presented at the public hearing, personally, by
representatives, or in writing. The Board received a number of
, '
.
letters in support of the application, and all of the unit owners
of the condominium assented to the application.
4. The applicants propose to alter and extend their pre-
existing, nonconforming single-family dwelling by rebuilding and
expanding the second floor upward and by changing the roof line,
roof pitch, and fenestration within the portion of the existing
footprint which lies within the required westerly side yard
setback area, and by making other changes (including, but not
limited to, widening a porch and adding a roof on the conforming
south and east sides of the dwelling) not affecting zoning
compliance. The Nantucket Historic District Commission has
issued Certificate of Appropriateness No. 34465 for the
applicants' plans. The subject dwelling is one of four on the
premises, which form a four-unit condominium. The four dwelling
units were constructed and used prior to the July 1972 effective
date of the Nantucket Zoning By-law and have continued to be so
used without interruption since that time. As such, these
dwellings constitute pre-existing, nonconforming uses and
structures within the meaning of the By-law. The subject
structure is atypical, having a flat roof. The work proposed by
the applicant will improve the general outward appearance of the
structure and will be welcomed by the neighborhood. None of the
proposed work will increase any zoning nonconformity by further,
intruding into either the required front or side yard setback
area. Accordingly, the appropriate relief in this case is by
special permit, and no relief by variance is required.
5. Upon these facts, the Board of Appeals UNANIMOUSLY
found that the proposed alteration and extension, conditioned as
set forth herein, would not be substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing nonconformities and voted
UNANIMOUSLY to grant the requested reI ief by SPECIAL PERMIT,
pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By-law ~139-33.A, upon the express
condition that the alteration and extension hereby permitted
shall be performed in substantial conformity with the plans
submitted to the Nantucket Historic District Commission and
<;l.pproved by it in Certificate of Appropriateness No. 34465, as
the same may be amended form time ~time.
Dated: December~, 1999 -.~
Wil iam P. Hour'
RECEIVED
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
DEe 1 7 1999
TIME' -;,. 3"
. ~ . .... p....
A~.~t
CLERK: :JZ-\-C a -J;-: \
,1fn..
~,
Jr.
Edward Murphy
2
. .
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: JOY\UO'rL ;S', 200(3
To: Parties in Interest and, Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.:
o ?Sf?" -o;;}.
Owner/App1icant, Tbe m,'choel C. k'e/JlfledJ,
lq~s- Tru~1
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
Any' action appealing the Decision must be brought by
filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the
complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
(20) days.
~O~~NV~~
jCJ~~ sl, UY-.Qn$, Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND V~RIANCES HAVE A TIME
LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING'TO NANTUCKET
ZONING BY-LAW ~139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS); ~139-32I (VARIANCES)
I
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 East Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Assessor's Map 21, Parcel 76.1
36C Sesachacha Road
Residential- 2
Plan File 50-Q
Unit 3
Deed, Book 538, Page 150;
Norfolk County Probate 98P0090
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, on
Friday, December 13, 2002, at 1:00 P.M., in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, in the
Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the
Board made the following decision on the application of THE MICHAEL L.
KENNEDY 1985 TRUST dated August 28, 1985, as amended, c/o Reade,
Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket,
Massachusetts 02584, File No. 088-02:
2. The applicant is seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket
Zoning By-law S 139-33.A (alteration or expansion of a pre-existing,
nonconforming structure), and in the alternative by VARIANCE from S139-16.A
(Intensity Regulations - Ground Cover). The applicant proposes to demolish one
of four individual dwelling units situated upon the subject property (the "Locus"),
which individually has ground cover of about 834 square feet, and replace it with a
new dwelling unit that would have ground cover of about 808 square feet, and
which would conform to all setback requirements. The Locus is a conforming lot,
having lot area of about 22,458 square feet, with minimum lot area in this
Residential-2 zoning district being 20,000 square feet. The Locus is
nonconforming as to use, containing four dwelling units, with the maximum
number of dwelling units permitted being two per lot. The existing ground cover
ratio upon the Locus is about 17.8%, with the maximum permitted in this district
being 12.5%. The result of the proposed alteration will be the reduction of actual
ground cover upon the Locus to about 17.7%. All parking requirements will
continue to be met. The Locus is nonconforming as to setbacks, with Unit 1 being
sited about 2.10 feet at the closest point from Sesachacha Road, with the minimum
required front yard setback being 30 feet, and with Unit 4 being sited about 0.68
foot at the closest point from the northerly side lot line, with minimum side yard
setback being 10 feet. Unit 3, which is the subject of this application, is
1
conforming as to all setback requirements. The Locus is situated at 36C
Sesachacha Road, is shown on Assessor's Map 21 as Parcel 76.1, is shown on plan
recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan File 50-Q, and is situated in a Residential-
2 zoning district.
3. Our decision is based upon the application and accompanying
materials, and representations and testimony received at our public hearing. There
was no Planning Board recommendation, on the basis that no matter of planning
concern was presented. Consent letters were received from the owners of the
other three units in the condominium; no other support or opposition was
presented at the public hearing.
4. As has previously been determined by the Board of Appeals in Files
Nos. 112-98 and 092-99, the Locus consists of a conforming lot containing four
pre-existing dwellings. As presented by the applicant's representatives, the project
originally consisted of the alteration of Unit 3, a freestanding single-family
dwelling, without affecting any nonconforming condition of the dwelling or the
lot. Accordingly, a building permit was issued for this work without any
requirement for zoning relief. In the course of construction, the applicant's
architect and builder determined, and the Building Department concurred, that the
condition of the building was worse than anticipated, and that the work could not
safely be performed as an alteration; demolition of the existing structure was
required. HDC approval was secured and the demolition took place. The
applicant now requests relief to validate the demolition and allow reconstruction
of the dwelling unit, as per the approved plans.
5. The Board of Appeals noted that the applicant was not expanding the
footprint of the pre-existing structure, and in fact her project included a small
decrease in ground cover, reducing the overall nonconformity upon the Locus.
Although relief should have been sought before the demolition occurred, in the
light of the determination that as-built conditions were not structurally safe, the
Board considered that it was understandable that the applicant's representatives
completed the demolition before seeking relief. The Board's position is that
demolition and reconstruction of this nonconforming structure under the
circumstances, i.e., with the demolition having been undertaken prior to relief
from this Board having been issued first, now requires relief by Variance, not
Special Permit. Accordingly, the Board treated the application as one for Variance
relief.
2
6. Based upon the foregoing facts, the Board of Appeals made the findi!lg
that owing to the physical condition (and thus the topography) of the applicant's
pre-existing, nonconforming dwelling (as to ground cover and number of units on
one lot), and especially affecting the Locus but not affecting generally property in
the Residential-2 zoning district in which the Locus is situated, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning By-law would effect a substantial
hardship upon the applicant, financial and otherwise, and that desirable relief
could be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the purpose
or intent of the By-law, especially as the number of units would not be increased,
ground cover ratio would be reduced and no new nonconformities would be
created, and accordingly by UNANIMOUS vote, GRANTED relief by
VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-16A, validating the
demolition and allowing reconstruction of the applicant's dwelling as requested,
subject to the condition that the work shall be done in substantial conformance
with the plans approved under Certificate of Appropriateness No. 39,493 issued by
the HDC, as the same may be amended.
_...",-.--
Dated: January Is, 2003
F,\NpK\KENNEDY\Michael\Kennedy ZBA DEC,doc
3
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date:
December r::L/
, 19 98
To: Parties in Interest and, Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.:
112-98
Owner/Applicant:
ROBERT J. KREB AND EILEEN E. KREB
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the
complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
(20) days.
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
\ PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND V~RIANCES HAVE A TIME
LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING' TO NANTUCKET
ZONING BY-LAW ~139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS); ~139-32I (VARIANCES)
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
South Beach Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
Assessor's Map 21
Parcels 76 and 77
R-2
36 Sesachacha Road
Plan File 50-a, Unit 2
Deed Reference 547/239
At a Public Hearing of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS held at 1 :00 P.M.,
Friday, November 20, 1998, in the Conference Room at the Town Building Annex, 37
Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of ROBERT J. and
EILEEN E. KREB, 36 Sesachacha Road, Nantucket, MA 02554, Board of Appeals File
No. 112-98, the Board made the following Decision:
1. Applicants (Kreb) are seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket
Zoning By-Law ~139-33A (alteration/expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming
structure/use). Applicants propose to demolish and reconstruct a portion of a said to
be pre-existing single-family dwelling as part of an overall renovation of the structure
known as Unit 2, "Sandpiper". There would be no enlargement of the footprint nor
increase in floor space. The Locus is nonconforming as to number of dwelling units on
one (1) lot as it contains four (4) dwelling units with the Zoning By-Law allowing a
maximum of two (2) dwelling units on one (1) lot; as to ground cover ratio with the Lot
having in excess of the 12.5% ground cover allowed under the By-Law; as to front yard
setback with Unit 1, "Sea Mist", being sited 2.1 O:!: feet at its closest point from the front
yard lot line along Sesachacha Road in a district that requires a minimum front yard
setback of 30 feet; and as to side and rear yard setback with Unit 4, "Gam", being sited
0.68:!: feet at its closest point to the northerly side yard lot line and "Gem" and Unit 3,
"Seashell" being sited at zero feet at their closest points from the rear yard lot line in a
district that requires a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten (10) feet. In
addition/in the alternative, Applicants are seeking relief by VARIANCE under Nantucket
Zoning By-Law ~139-16A to allow the completion of the project as proposed. The
Premises is located at 36 SESACHACHA ROAD, Assessor's Map 21, Parcels 76 and
77, Plan File 50-a, Unit 2. The property is zoned Residential-2.
The Premises is located at 36 SESACHACHA ROAD, Assessor's Map 21,
Parcels 76 and 77, Plan File 50-a, Unit 2. The property is zoned Residential-2.
2. The Decision is based upon the Application and materials submitted therewith,
and the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing. There was no
recommendation from the Planning Board as the Board determined that the matter was
not a planning concern. There were no letters on file.
3. Applicants, through their attorney, represented that Applicants wished to
renovate an existing dwelling that was in a serious state of disrepair. While these
renovations would not increase the ground cover nor the floor space of the existing
. . I '"'f
dwelling, a SPECIAL PERMIT is necessary because the lot is non-conforming as
outlined in Paragraph 1 (supra). Said non-conformities are grandfathered under the
zoning By-Law as all structures were built by the former owner, Ray Eger, during the
1950's and 1960's, prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-Law in Nantucket. The
designer for Applicants answered a number of questions from the Board verifying that
the finished height of this structure, as renovated, would not exceed the height of the
existing structure (24 feet).
4. THEREFORE, the Board finds as follows:
a. The property, which contains 4 pre-existing dwelling units on one lot is
non-conforming in that regard, is non-conforming as to ground cover and
is also non-conforming as to front and rear and side yard set-backs;
b. The proposed renovations and reconstruction, which have been approved
by the Nantucket Historic Districts Commission (Certificate No. 31566),
will be of minimal impact on the neighborhood and would not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the
neighborhood; and
c. A grant of SPECIAL PERMIT, allowing this renovation work will be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Laws.
5. Accordingly, by UNANIMOUS vote, the BOARD GRANTS THE SPECIAL
PERMIT under the Nantucket Zoning By-Law, S139-33A, allowing said reconstruction
and renovation conditioned upon the following:
(a) Said work shall be performed substantially in accordance with Historic
Districts Commission Certificate of Appropriateness No. 31566.
Date: ~ . dZ I, It 9<;j
Edward Murphy
" r
~
OWNER OF REAL ESTATE
QUIDNET BEACH CONDOMINIUM, a condominium created pursuant to MGL
Chapter 183A, by the Master Deed dated May 28, 1997 and recorded with
Nantucket Registry of Deeds in Book 598 page 92.
LOT AREA 23,010.00 square feet
ALLOWABLE GROUND COVER
12.5% x 23,010 = 2876.25 square feet
EXISTING GROUND COVER 3685.00 square feet
GROUND COVER OF THIS DWELLING 706.00 square feet
OWNERS OF UNITS:
. Unit One
Arthur W. Wright and Marilyn K. Wright
147 Hillyndale Road
Storrs, CT 06268
. Unit Two
Locus
. Unit Three
Estate of Michael L. Kennedy
clo Citizen's Energy Corporation
530 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
. Unit Four
Douglas Kennedy'
clo JPK Enterprises, Incorporated
500 Fifth Avenue
Suite 4700
New York, NY 10110