Loading...
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