The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About084-02 READE, GULLICKSEN, HANLEY & GIFFORD, LLP SIX YOUNG'S WAY NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 ARTHUR 1. READE, JR., P.c. KENNETH A. GULLICKSEN MARIANNE HANLEY WHITNEY A. GIFFORD (508) 228-3128 FAX: (508) 228-5630 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 2669 NANTUCKET, MASS. 02584 April 25, 2003 BY HAND DELIVERY Catherine Flanagan Stover, Town Clerk Town of Nantucket Town and County Building Federal and Broad Streets Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Re: Board of Appeals File No. 084-02 Edith S. Bouriez et al, Applicants Dear Catherine: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17, notice is hereby given that I have filed a Complaint in the Land Court to appeal from the action of the Board of Appeals in denying relief, on behalf of the present owner of the subject property, Hampton S. Lynch, Jr., as Trustee of Nine Milk Street Realty Trust. As required by the statute, a copy of the Complaint is delivered to you herewith. This action is now pending in the Land Court in Docket No. 2.! 9 4 10. Kindly time and date stamp the enclosed copy of this letter upon its face in order to signify your receipt hereof. Thank you. AIR/irv ~in rely, , p~ Arthur I. Reade, ~ air@readelaw . com :E?> 2':' c; r fT\ " d VJ . "'~,' := CD :;:0 Dl ;'- -0 N :r F:\WpB\Bouriez\Town Clerk 01 LTR.doc N U1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Nantucket, ss. v. ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) } HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., as Trustee of NINE MILK STREET REALTY TRUST, NANCY J. SEVRENS, EDWARD S. TOOLE, EDWARD C. MURPHY, EDWARD J. SANFORD and DAVID R. WILEY, as they are members of the NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Defendants. Land Court civil Action Miscellaneous No. 2~qLl-'O COMPLAINT UNDER M.G.L, c. 40A, ~ 17 1. The plaintiff, Hampton S. Lynch, Jr., is an individual residing at 1105 Park Avenue, New York, in the State of New York, and brings this action in his capacity as Trustee of Nine Milk Street Realty Trust under Declaration of Trust dated April 22, 2003, recorded with the Nantucket Registry of Deeds in Book 816, Page 158. 2. The defendants, Nancy J. Sevrens, Edward S. Toole, Edward C. Murphy, Edward J. Sanford and David R. Wiley, are all of the members and alternate members of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board of Appeals") who participated in the proceedings which are the subject of this action, and reside at the following addresses, all situated in Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts: 1 ... Nancy J. Sevrens 22 Vesper Lane Edward S. Toole 28 Burnell Street, Siasconset Edward C. Murphy 163 Orange Street Edward J. Sanford 3 Mill Street David R. wiley 68 Union Street 3. The plaintiff, as Trustee of Nine Milk Street Realty Trust as aforesaid, is the owner of the land and buildings situated at and known as 9 Milk Street, Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts, approximately shown upon Nantucket Assessor's Map 42.3.3 as Parcel 130, by virtue of deed recorded with the Nantucket Registry of Deeds in Book 816, Page 162 (the "Locus") . [At the time of filing of the proceedings which are the subject of this action, the Locus was owned In various undivided interests by Edith S. .Bouriez, individually ( 11 Mrs. Bouriez", the plaintiff's mother), Hampton S. Lynch, Jr., individually, and Hampton S. Lynch, Jr., and Elise W. Lynch, as Trustees of The Edith S. Bouriez Personal Residence Trust under trust instrument dated August 13, 1997, recorded with Nantucket Deeds In Book 558, Page 269 (the "Prior Record Owners"). Accordingly, the application to the Board of Appeals and the Board of Appeals Decision which are the subject of this action were filed in the names of the Prior Record Owners as applicants, and certain other documents were filed by Mrs. Bouriez as applicant. ] 4. This action is General Laws, Chapter 40A, brought pursuant to Massachusetts Section 17, in order to appeal from a 2 decision by the Board of Appeals In its File No. 084-02, filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk (the "Town Clerk") on April 8, 2003, a copy of which, bearing the date of filing thereof, certified by the Town Clerk, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. Mrs. Bouriez and her former husband, Hampton S. Lynch, purchased the Locus in 1960, and Mrs. Bouriez and her family have used the Locus as their summer residence ever since. The Locus contains two structures: the main house, which is a historic dwelling built in the early 1740's, and a carriage house. Both of these structures, and the Locus as a separate lot, pre-exist the effective date of the Nantucket Zoning By-law (the "By-law") in July, 1972. Over a period of time, Mrs. Bouriez and other family members have engaged in a gifting program in order to result in title ultimately passing to her son, the plaintiff. At the present time, the beneficiaries of the Nine Milk Street Realty Trust are the plaintiff, individually, and the plaintiff and his sister, Elise W. Lynch, as Trustees of The Edith S. Bouriez Personal Residence Trust, under which Mrs. Bouriez retains the use of the trust property as a personal residence until August 13, 2007. 6. In 2001, Mrs. Bouriez and the plaintiff decided to seek necessary approvals in order to perform alterations upon the carriage house to enable its use as a separate dwelling, so that Mrs. Bouriez could live in it while the plaintiff and other family members would be in residence in the main house. 7. Under the By-law, the Locus lS situated in a Residential-Old Historic zoning district. Relevant provisions of 3 the By-law require a side yard setback of five feet [By-law ~139- 16.A], permit a primary single-family dwelling [~139-7.A(1)], and a detached single- family secondary dwelling, subj ect to prior approval by the Nantucket Planning Board (the "Planning Board") as to adequacy of access to the lot and structures [~139-7.A(2)], and require one on-site parking space per dwelling or dwelling un i t [ ~ 13 9 - 18 . D] 8. The carriage house is nonconforming as to side yard setback, having zero side yard setback from the northeasterly lot line. The Locus and the structures thereon are otherwise conforming with the dimensional requirements of the By-law. 9. There lS one off-street parking space upon the Locus, which lS situated to the northeast of the main dwelling and involves backing out into Milk Street, a maj or roadway; this parking space is dimensionally nonconforming with the By-law' s dimensional requirements for parking spaces under ~139-18.A(3). The Locus also has frontage on Green Lane, an unpaved public way abutting the Locus on the west. 10. By-law ~139-7 (2) (d) dwelling shall comply with provides that ,,[t] he all other applicable secondary [By-law] regulations". 11. Accordingly, Mrs. Bouriez, acting for the Prior Record Owners, caused an application to be filed with the Board of Appeals in December, 2001, for relief by special permit under By- law ~139-33 .A, for the alteration of the pre-existing, nonconforming carriage house by installation of a kitchen and conversion to a secondary dwelling, even though no expansion of 4 the structure was being made within the side yard setback area, and also under By-law ~139-18.B for the waiver of applicable parking requirements to authorize provision of the required two off-street parking spaces by the existing nonconforming parking space with access from Milk Street and an additional conforming parking space with access from Green Lane. 12. Mrs. Bouriez, acting for the Prior Record Owners, also filed an application with the Planning Board in January, 2002, for the approval of the conversion of the carriage house into a secondary dwelling. 13. At its meeting on February 8, 2002, In File No. 008-02, the Board of Appeals considered the application filed by Mrs. Bouriez, and made a decision, which determined that the carriage house was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure and granted relief by special permit for the conversion of the structure for that use. The decision noted that the applicant had withdrawn her request for parking relief, noting that two conforming parking spaces would be provided utilizing the existing driveway access from Milk Street. This decision contained several conditions, including, in subparagraph 6.d, the requirement that: Two conforming parking spaces, accessed by Milk Street, shall be provided on site that would not require backing out onto Milk Street. This decision was not appealed from, and a certified copy was recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Book 749, Page 267. A copy thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14. On February 11, 2002, the Planning Board considered the application filed with it by Mrs. Bouriez, and granted approval 5 for a secondary dwelling upon the Locus, conditional upon the provision of two parking spaces with access from Milk Street over the existing parking space in accordance with a plan attached to the approval letter issued by the Planning Board, which plan did not provide for a turnaround within the Locus which would eliminate the need for backing into Milk Street. A copy of the approval letter issued by the Planning Board dated February 11, 2002, with plan annexed, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 15. Mrs. Bouriez, and the Prior Record Owners, were unaware of the discrepancy between the Board of Appeals decision and the Planning Board decision as to the provision of parking spaces, and proceeded to perform the work necessary to convert the carriage house into a dwelling pursuant to Building Permit No. 316-02 issued by the Nantucket Building Department. 16. While work on the conversion of the carriage house was underway, Mrs. Bouriez and the Prior Record Owners discovered the discrepancy between the terms of the Board of Appeals decision and the Planning Board decision as to the layout of parking spaces, and that conforming on-site parking spaces could not be provided with access over a driveway In the location of the existing driveway, as required by both the Board of Appeals decision and the Planning Board decision, because By-law ~ 139- 20,l.B(2) (i) expressly requires that access to a secondary dwelling must be over a driveway with minimum improved width of ten feet, and the maximum possible driveway width would be 9.9 feet, the distance between the main dwelling and the northeasterly lot line. 6 17. Accordingly, the Prior Record Owners proceeded to file a new application with the Board of Appeals in November, 2002, requesting modification of the existing special permit in File No. 008-02 by removal of the condition that the two required parking spaces be provided and accessed from Milk Street and allowing for the two required parking spaces to be provided and accessed from Green Lane. 18. Also in November, 2002, the Prior Record Owners filed a request with the Planning Board to modify the previously-granted secondary dwelling approval by approving a revised plan showing the two required parking spaces as being provided and accessed from Green Lane. 19. At its meeting on December 9, 2002, the Planning Board approved the modification of its secondary dwelling approval by substituting the plan showing two parking spaces accessed from Green Lane, with various conditions, all acceptable to the Prior Record Owners and the plaintiff, including the requirement to abandon the existing driveway access on Milk Street. A copy of the approval letter issued by the Planning Board dated December 10, 2002, with plan annexed, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 20. Also at its December 9, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board issued a recommendation, by a unanimous vote, that the Board of Appeals grant the relief requested by the Prior Record Owners, removlng the condition that the parking area be accessed from Milk Street, setting forth that access from Green Lane would make more sense for traffic safety concerns than access from Milk Street, and indicating favor for the removal of access from Milk 7 Street. A copy of the recommendations made by the Planning Board on this and other cases to be brought before the Board of Appeals lS attached hereto as Exhibit E. 21. The Board of Appeals considered the modification application filed by the Prior Record Owners at its meeting on December 13, 2002, and continued the matter to its January 10, 2003 meeting. At that meeting, by a vote of three members In favor and two members against (and thus not achieving the required four votes in favor, as required of a five-member board under M. G. L., c. 4 OA, ~ 9), the Board' of Appeals denied the requested modification, the two members voting in the negative stating that the applicants had failed to establish that the modification would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present conditions. As set forth above, a certified copy of the Board of Appeals decision, filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk on April 8, 2003 in File No. 084 - 02, lS attached hereto as Exhibit A. 22. The plaintiff, as the present owner of the Locus, lS aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Appeals In File No. 084-02 (the "Subject Decision"), because the Subject Decision exceeds the authority of the Board of Appeals in that: (a) The Planning Board is given jurisdiction under the By-law to determine the siting and access to secondary dwellings, and the Subject Decision issued by the Board of Appeals lS inconsistent with the approval issued by the Planning Board; (b) The only issue before the Board of Appeals in this matter was the change in use of the carrlage house, which 8 arguably required the issuance of a special permit granting relief by reason of the language of By-law ~139-7 (2) (d), providing that the secondary dwelling shall comply with all other applicable zoning regulations, as set forth in Paragraph 10, supra; (c) No relief was in fact required from the Board of Appeals in connection with the conversion of the carriage house to a secondary dwelling, because the carriage house is a pre- existing, nonconforming structure and no alteration was proposed which would affect any zoning nonconformity; and (d) The parking configuration proposed by the Prior Record Owners and approved by the Planning Board as set forth in Exhibit D conforms to all provisions of the By-law, and the plaintiff has the right to construct such parking as a matter of law. Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment, as follows: (a) Determining that the Subject Decision exceeded the authority of the Board of Appeals. (b) Annulling the Subject Decision. (c) Entering its Order, that the Board of Appeals grant a modification of the Special Permit issued in its File No. 008-02 so that it will be consistent with the approval issued by the Planning Board on December 10, 2002, as set forth in Exhibit D hereto. (d) Remanding the matter to the Board of Appeals, for modification to the Subject Decision as appropriate. 9 (e) Awarding the plaintiff his costs, including attorneys 1 fees. (f) For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., as Trustee of NINE MILK STREET REALTY TRUST By his attorney, ~ I. f1'~ L- Arthur I. Re de, Jr. BBO# 413420 Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP 6 Young's Way Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584 Tel. (508)228-3128 Fax ( 5 0 8 ) 2 2 8 - 5 6 3 0 air@readelaw.com Dated: April 25, 2003 F:\WpB\Bouriez\Complaint.doc 10 E)(f/, (3 (1 It - TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date: ~~/J[ ? , 2003 To: Parties in Interest and, Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the followinq: Application No.: 09'1-02- Owner/Applicant: &~ S. ~,'e7_ I ~"b-JS~ . / Lr t1 cb 1 ,VOl Q rd NafJ1(f' 'h.rJ S ~ IJd (:J/". and lif So 0. ~nch Trvskes of-f,fe rFc:t, fh s: Px)()rle-u rOer Cl/Q/' t'?e5{ CfJeaCe rL!;;i En~losed 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, Massachus~tts 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. ~~~~\~~an cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 East Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Assessor's Map 42.3.3, Parcel 130 9 Milk Street Residential-Old Historic Deeds, Book 120, Page 230, and various later deeds No plan of record DECISION: 1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, which opened on Friday, December 13, 2002, at 1:00 P.M., and which was continued to and concluded on Friday, January 10, in the Conference Room, in the Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket J Massachusetts, the Board made the following decision on the application of EDITH S. BOURIEZ I HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., and HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., and ELISE W. LYNCH, as Trustees of the EDITH S. BOURIEZ PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584, File No. 084-02: 2. The applicants are seeking a MODIFICATION of the Decision in Board of Appeals File No. 008 - 02, which granted a SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By~law ~139-33.A (alteration or expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure or use) to allow construction of an addition to a carriage house for use as a secondary dwelling. The applicants are asking the Board to remove the condition that stated that "tV10 conforming parking spaces, acce'ssed by Milk Street, shall be provided on site that would not require backing out onto Milk Street". The applicants now propose to construct two conforming spaces to be accessed from Green Street, removing the existing parking space that is accessed by Milk Street. The subjecL property (the "Locus") is nonconforming as to side yard setback, with the carriage house being sited at zero feet from the northeasterly side yard lot line I in a district in which the minimum required side yard setback is five feet. The Locus is si tuated at 9 MILK STREET, Assessor's Map 42.3.3 J Parcel 130, with no plan of record, and is situated in a Residential-Old Historic zoning district. 3. Our decision is based upon the application and accompanYlng materials, and representations and testimony received at our public hearing. The Planning Board recommendation was favorable to the granting of relief as requested. There were several neighbors, with properties abutting Green Lane, who appeared in person and by counsel at the public hearing and who wrote correspondence, in opposition to the application. One neighbor, and a member of the Planning Board staff, spoke in favor at the public hearing. 4. As presented by the applicants, the condition set forth In subparagraph 6d in the decision in File No. 008-02 has become 1 unacceptable to them, because it would require the placement of two parking spaces, with a turning area to prevent backing into Milk Street, in the portion of the Locus which is an open garden area, cherished by the applicants. The original concept of creating a parking area to be accessed from the portion of the lot frontage lying to the northeast of the principal dwelling is not feasible, as there is not adequate space between the dwelling and the property line to allow for a driveway of the minimum width of twelve feet required by the Planning Board for a driveway to serve a secondary dwelling. The matter has been before the Board of Appeals only because the pre-existing, nonconforming structure being converted into a secondary dwelling lies within the side yard setback area, although the addition to that structure is entirely outside the setback area. The applicants have returned to the Planning Board to have their secondary dwelling approval modified, and the Planning Board has granted this modification to show the driveway access for both required parking spaces as being from Green Lane. The question of access to a secondary dwelling is within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, and that Board is satisfied with the access from Green Lane and has recommended that the Board of Appeals grant this relief in order to reconcile the difference between the present decisions of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. As stated above, the reason for the matter having come before the Board of Appeals is solely related to the setback issue, and no parking relief has been sought by the applicants. In the absence of any matter being before the Board of Appeals, the applicants,' having frontage on Green Lane, would have the right to change their driveway access from Milk Street to Green Lane and to construct any number of parking spaces on their lot wi th this access. In response to concerns expressed by members of the Board of Appeals that the protection of the garden area be permanent, the applicants offered to have the condition be imposed that no dwelling or other structure be constructed in the area to the southwest of the present principal dwelling. 5. The Planning Board staff member spoke in favor of the application, and stated that the Planning Board favored the present proposal by the applicants because it would eliminate access from Milk Street, including removal of the present parking space which backs out into Milk Street, with access substituted from the much less heavily-traveled Green Lane. 6. The Green Lane neighbors and their counsel spoke In opposition to the applicants' proposal, citing the narrowness and rural character of Green Lane, and stating that any further driveway entrances into Green Lane, added to the existing driveways entering Green Lane from their properties, would create traffic problems. 7. A majority of the Board of Appeals members sitting on this case (Sevrens, Toole and Sanford) voted in favor of the applicants' request for modification, on the basis that with the conditions offered by the applicants the removal of the condition 2 requiring access to be from Milk Street and substituting access from Green Lane would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. However, two members (Murphy and Wiley) voted against the application, stating that the applicants had failed to establish that the modification would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present conditions. Accordingly, the required supermajority of four members not having voted in favor of the requested relief, the application for modification was DENIED. Dated: April~, 2003 R. Wiley F,\WpB\Bouriez\ZBA DEe 084-02.doc d VJ --\-. -, o :::- =€ == = ..-" ::;0 C') cb I r.. " -',,' v w 0 \0 ATTEST: A TRUE COpy ~ NANTUCKET TOWN CLERK 3 '. q r: r .,.: ~ j' i ~\ ., '. " ,', !,- t ;" ~ r; t t t. f' '! l, EX/.l/8 , r t3 ~ BOOK 7 (9PA6E0267 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS . NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSBTIS l54 Date: ~ , 20~ To: Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the' following: Application No.: ()O>('-C)"') Owner/Applicant:. t r:OdA S. 'ffrn7('f,!'e. 7 Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this day been filed in the office of the N~ntucket 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. \J ~ . 4Z . ~:r" U~ . /~~~~ I\kmt~ ' ). Chai~ m..... :;c rl1 ;::S:;:-l 2 :x ;J:a : :0 "ill)' :~;~~~~~"-: ;~:" . , ,"i'l} ~ rt ! 'fJ,;' " . . ._\ ' . l,.,c".t.~: 1 . '.,/~~ ~t1'a\hi'o~rJc ~, ',:,.., : . ~,'::;:" "';'Plann.i'ii9 Board Lf~ ! :~~'~J~iJ4i~gcol\lRlissioner ~:.,~:..,~,\:;~~;~;-:-... -/.>' '.:~. . . '~,,;:.l~5J1.:SI?,.ROT'tlMOST SPECIAL PBRHITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME :,,\~~~:;~,:l{t.LL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTBD.UPON ACCORDING'TO NANTUCKBT "?-~Jl~)(G\ BYfr.~W 1139-301 (SPBCIAL PERKITS), U39-32I (VARIANCES) , !~.:Ab;~OBS't'~,OHS,' PLEASE CALL THi NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OP APPBALS. .... N 31 N ~ .... Y,WIY.~ (Ju,1 ::0 '- m o rn - < rn o BOOK 749 PA6E0268 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 East Chestnut Street Nantucket, MA 02554 Assessors Map 42.3.3 Parcel 130 ROH 9 Milk Street pian Book 5. Page 55. Lot A Deed Book 558, Page 267 At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals held at 1 :00 P.M., Friday, February 8, 2002, in the Conference Room, Town Annex.Building, 37 Washington Street,. Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of EDITH S. BOURIEZ, clo Glidden and Glidden, P.C., 37 Centre Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554, Board of Appeals File No. 008-02, the Board made the following DecIsion: 1. Applicant (Bouriez) is seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning BYlaw Section 139-338 (atteration/extension of a pre-existing nonconforming structure/use). Applicant proposes to alter a said to be pre- existing carriage house, that does not have a kitchen presently, by constructing a confonning addition with kitchen, that would not come any closer to the northeasterly side yard lot line than the existing carriage house. The result would be the creation of a new secondary dwelling. The addition would conform to the required five-foot side yard setback distance, 20% differential and 12-foot scalar separation required for secOndary dwelnngs, and would conform to ground cover requirements. To the extent necessary, Applicant is also seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning Bylaw, Section 139-18 to validate two (2) parking spaces, one (1) proposed conforming space off of Green Lane, and one (1) existing truncated space off of Milk Street, as when there is additional grourid cover constructed, par1Qng must be calculated as if newly constructed and the existing space does not meet the dimensional requirements. The Locus is nonconfoming as to side yard setback with the carriage house being sited at zero feet from the northeasterly side yard lot line. Ttle Premises is located at 9 MILK STREET, Assesso(s Map 42.3.3, Parcel:;1~0, Pfan Book 5. Page 55. The property is zoned Residential-Old- Hist9ftC. ' ,~'l~'~,;' . '0"; .:f.K~ ":~ ~'~$ion is based upon the Application and materials submitted with ...~\~...8ri,d..'..' o..:o.inOny. .'" . .and evidence presented at the Hearing. The Planning '?:~'CrJf~o, .. 0 0 -." ~on stated that as they had not had the opportunity to ,:,n: ir, _,-<:~. . .' ,. ~secondary dwelling application and had not ruled on the ,;,::'~~""~_'for . i " drivewaY, the Board of Appeals did not have the V\{~f~'" ~:..1iiq~~=:"~ae:~:~~~ one on - ,:ro~~~ '. :"oallQt.vsiacked spacing of the two required spaces to eliminate the ",:),eegjJOi"jtiecurbcUton Green lane. (SUbsequent to the Board of Appeals ," ,'.i.'.~'~-' -..'(~:.' -'. !/ --- BOOK 749 PAGE0269 i ? Ji) : ~ hearing, the Plannin~fBoard on February 11, 2002,approved the secondary dwelling request but the Applicant did not request a curb cut on Green Lane, thus effectively requiring access to the two parking spaces solely from Milk Street) 3: Applicant (Bouriez), through her attorney, explained that she desired to construct an about 610 square-foot one-story addition, with kitchen, to the existing carriage house located on her property at 9 Milk Street. The addition would comply in all respects with the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. However, the existing carriage house, which was built in the late 1800's, violates the sideline setback provisions of the existing By-law and is a "non-conforming" structure. The Bouriez family has used the carriage house since the time of purchase in 1960 as living and sleeping quarters for family and guests, which is a nonconfonning use without a kitchen having been present in the structure. The addition of a kitchen would allow the use to be brought into conformity with the By-law and be conver1ed into a secondary dwelling. The 12-foot scalar separation and 20% differential required for secondary dw8Uings would be COfll)lled with and the addition falls far short of the maximum allOwable ground cover ratio of 50%. Applicant also discussed the parking situation Yr'herein two conforning spaces would be required, where one is currently required and provided on site. There was concern from the neighbors about the use of Green Lane and they asked in person and by letter that it not be utilized to provide the second on-site parking space, as it would interfere with the neighbors' enjoyment of Green Lane, a narrow relatively unimproved way. In addition, there was concern that stacked spaces backing onto Milk Street would be a safety hazard. It was suggested that the AppliCant might attempt to find a way to construct two conforming spaces in the interior of the property that would allow turning around in order not to have to back out onto the street. 4. The Applicant requested pennission to withdraw the request for parking relief without prejudice. After brief discussion. it was moved; seconded and unanimously voted to allow Applicant to withdraw without prejudice her request for parking relief under Section 139-18 as two confonnngspaces would be p~ on site utilizing the existing driveway access from Milk Street. ~~ , ~5.','.m,;,.rJhe,....,,~.c re, after.co nsiderati'on of all th~ !nformation ~ted to the ." . i ~:~ finds that the proposed addition to the carnage house .' ,:.. v~ ~,Jrft.o a secondary dwelling, would not increase any nonconformities. ,~~,l~.'l ,,- ~, . ~.confor:tJJipg "bunkhouse- use would be eliminated with the , ..;!~f.x:~Pr. '.. "'. ".,". '" :..:d kit, ' '~nd. conve!"on in!? a secondary ~ling. The Board ~so /Y~:;';-:': fi, ..' )tlls pf ' "conforming addition and change In use would COlTl>IY In }/(f'::,' ~~pects . ,', e atJilicableprovisfons of the Zoning By-law and clearfy would "Nt:~, - '. ;,fiof~ate ',' . 'ipirit,or. 'intent of the Zoning By-law The Board further ...j.-~. </', .._~.I."'lI :,f ."( Jo ~ ,'" . . ')r);;:~:tnat , ,',," and:eonversion of use. would not be substantially more ;.., .,' )~( Jti:itrimen;!totf1e\liei9hborhood than the existing nonCOnforming carriage house 1 ." ~~,., c/" .... : fie . ~.' 'ti~f.~;~: . ,r~' ,., . j . BOOK 749 PAGE 0 27 0 --- 6 Accordingly. by UNANIMOUS vote, the BOARD OF APPEAlS GRANTS A SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A allowing the addition to the carriage house. Said relief is conditioned upon the following: a. The addition shall be constructed in substantial compliance with approved Historic District Commission Certificate of Appropriateness No. 39098. as may be amended; b. The trash bin that is situated within the required five-foot northerly side yard setback area shall be removed from said location; I. , c. The addition, not the pal1dng as shown, shall be constructed in .' substantial conformity with the plan done by Nantucket Suryeyors, Inc., dated January 31, 2002, marked as Exhibit A, and attached hereto; d. Two conforming parking spaces, accessed by Milk Street, shall be provided on site that would not require backing out onto Milk Street; e. There shall be no exterior construction related to this project, from June 1 to October 1, in any given year. Dated: March IJ., 2002 ". ~~'<r":'. . , ' ":.>~~~~::~;~; '::, ...~.;'.'." '. ., ~ . ...- ~ . 1.....-- ~-:' ~.,;:..' - ~ . .~'-. ~:~ .. J' ~: ; ~J r. :.' 749PAGEO~ . PIAN TO ACCOMPANY A' BOOK SECONDARY Dlt'EWNG APPUCATION \ ... IN NANTUCIET, lUSSACHUSET11t < (. \ :' . ..' . PREPARED RlR: ~ ~ ..'~ ~ '.f~h " HAJIPTrM .t L)Ml(/,g ETIJ. 7RS. . J::~t':; . I.~\.:~~ . . ./ : .~.....(,..-.. .:.~~, SCIU": 1 · ~/ DAm .INf. 31. 2002 =:' ..:! ;"'~"Y:.;:L ~ ~ "'- -./' ~~ ~I 0,.. ~~. ~'~:: NAHTUacET SUM't'CRI, we. "~.,, 1\ ~'h,.:<t:,1"'~ u;: · ........ "'v l',_- ,.,..- f .. -.wI "'1 '\"';"'~'v. ~.~l::d ~, NU'''''I'OIPO' uA ......... ,..,. ", _'~ nnl~'.. ~ ,.....~ ,,(... .,~ ...; "'.:~~?~"~L~~~/ <' :1 .. ~~ ~~()2- o llEH01EJ RQC PI'E fOJH!J , "~ IlEHOTEJ REIIM ffIH CIi' SET · IlEHOTEJ DRI..I.JlCU If cc.ttaeE 8ClUII) ftQIJ NOlES: 1) LOT NfJ DaS1ING &UlDIm ~ PREDAlt NNI1\lQ(ET ZtNNG B"lIAt R&~ OEm lIEF.: DO.BK. :IalI fIG. W Pl.M IEF.: Pl...BK. 5 PQ. 65 ASIEJSORS REF.: IIN": 42.3.3 p~ 130 4U3-f~ llC~ UNIA II1'CHU. AS!OaA1QC ! I ~ ::.. ';~i:\ ~: >j'W!t' ' ZXIIG a.ASsiIF1CA1ICIt ast1ICTI RQf - IIaD1IIL ClD IIS1tIIC ~= _:'if~~ n. FIIINT'YMJ IE1IMIIC .. .... JUl. aIlE.,.. -1Ft. . .. ~ CO'ttlUAlIO - _ .~';itt..,'.i:t. .~.~.,., \~ ,.~ ... \. I ,~, ...tV . ~~ "l~; H-7J: I' ;-. . .. : f '~.' ~ ~ J BOOK t cr.nTI!="'!TI!AT20 DAYS Ht\V!S~ A:Ftt1t. Y'G: ii"2n~;ON WAS FiLED lNTdEOFHrnOFnm 'f.} ATI Ub'"'lll{, M1D lEA T NO APPFAL HAs BEEN ~1U'.i), W.s1JANITo GEr.:E!tAL LA WS4M. SECI!OO 11 ~_.' "~/' ':X::.'~;"_: .' :. .' -"; "91. . ~ .~~~~~ tnd Of I nstru mef)t 749 PA6E0272 - Extl ({3 IT e -' NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD February 1 l, 2002 Mr. John H. Dunn Building Commissioner Nantucket, MA 02554 Re: Nantucket Surveyors for Edith S. B!)l!riez t) l\1i1k Street (Map 42.3.3, Parcel 130) Dear Mr. Dunn: Please be advised that the Planning Board, at its meeting on February 11, 2002, considered the above application for adequate access, as per S 139-7 A2(g) of the Nantucket Code, and granted a secondary dwelling approval, conditional upon the following. · The Driveway must be cleared to a width of twelve (12) feet and to a h~jght of thirteen (13) feet from the driveway to the parking spaces, to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. · Planning Staff be notified within five (5) working days of completion prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for inspection, Approval ofthe above-refercnc.~d applic?.tior: is condi6onaI upon the provision of a minimum 12- foot width, free of bru~h. along the entire length oftl1e driveway, to a height of 13 feet, in order to ensure adequate access for elllcrgencyvehicles prior to the issui:l.nc~ of a certificate of occupancy. The approval is also cO!lditional upon adherence to the site plan submitted by the applic<:nt and endorsed by the Chairman, showing the relative bcations of proposed or existing dwelliJigs ,l!~d driveways or parking areas. As per Section 139-7 A2(g) of the Nantucket Zoni;lg Code, the approval referenced herein is ~liJ f<?.r a period of t\\'o years onlL, calculated from the date of site plan endorsement by the Planning Board, If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact the Planning Office at Ext. 233. r Sincerelj,' / lJfJ I ( ,I Q;vV\OM~~ ~~l Marshall Beale Chaim1an cc: Marcus Silvcr~1cin - Zoning Enforcerncnl Officer NOTE TO APPLfCA,NTS: Pleas,' note t/;ar a copy (lfthe vian you SIlomi:fed [{J the flcurd, "l'hich has been endorsed by lhe Chairman, is enclosed and JIlllst be presentalto the Brtiiding Dcparrmo1: when apP!YIl1gJr;r a building permit. There will be a Sf 5 admimstmtivefee to re-iSS1!e al; endorserl sih plan 1 East Chestnut Street . Nantucket, MA 02554 . (508) 228-7233 . fax (508) 228-7298 email: nanplan@nantucket.net '. . PLAN TO ACCOMPANY A SECONDARY DlJEUJNG APPLICATION IN NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR: HAJlPTON S. L'lNaI. oR. ETAl. 7RS. SCALE: 1- = 3rt DAlE: JAN. 31. 2002 ~SED: FEB. 10. 2002 LEGEND NANlUCKET SURVE'fOOS, INe. 5 WINDY WAY' NANlUCKET, MA 02554- ~ \-;.,~,,-;-,;:-;--- --:-~' -:;,-- .. ;, ~ \ o DENOTES IRON PIPE FOUND . DENOTES REBAR YIfTH C1P SET Gl DENOTES DRlWia..E IN CON~ BOUND fOUND NOlES: 1) LOT AND EXISllNG BUILDINGS SHOY\tol PREDAlE NANlUCKET ZONING BYLAW. ~ & liB 1 '4, ?CO? REFERENCES: DEED REf.: DD.BK. ~8 PG. 2e7 PLAN REF.: PLBK. 5 PG. 55 ASSESSORS REF.: MAP: 4-2.3.3 p~ 130 42.3.3-165 N/F THE NANlUCKET MARIA NITCHELL ASSOClA110N ~! IS ~ ZONING ClASSIFlCAllON DIS'TR1CT: ROO 0= RESlDEN11AL OlD HISTORIC NINIt.lUN LOT SIZE - 5,000 Sq. ft. NININUN FRONTAGE - 50 Ft. FRONT YARD SETB.6.CK .. NONE REAR ~ SlOE UNE SElBAO< .. ~ ft. NAX. GROUND COVER RAllO - ~ N-7224- \~.~.J.DWC EXHIP // 0 NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD December 10,2002 Mr, Bernie Bartlen Interim Building Commissioner Nantucket, MA 02554 Re: Edith Bouriez-9 Milk Street (Map 42.3.3, Parcel DO) Dear Mr. Bartlen: Please be advised that the Planning Board, at its meeting on December 9, 2oo2,considered the above application for adequate access, as per ~ 139-7 A2(g) of the Na1'1f1.Kka Oxie, and granted a secondaIydwelling approval, conditional upon the following: That the existing driveway access located on Milk Street be abandoned and replaced with landscaping; That the applicant replace granite curbing and the sidewalk along Milk Street when the existing driveway is removed; That the applicant submit a revised site plan showing the dimensions for the drive,,';!y and parking spaces; That any future landscaping around the driveway entrance be limited to low growing plantings to allow for adequate sight dLsrance; That planning staff shall be notified within five (5) working dar; of completion of driveway modifications prior to the issuance of a cenificate of occupancy. Approval of the above-referenced application is conditional upon the provision of a minimum 12-foot width, free of brush, along the entire length of the driveway, to a height of 13 feer, in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The approval is also conditional upon adherence to the site plan sub mined by the applicant and endorsed by the Chairman, showing the relative locations of proposed or existing dwellings and driveways or parking areas. As per Section 139-7 A2(g) of the Na1'1f1.Kka Zonirf, Oxie, the approval referenced herein is valid for a period of two years only, calculated from the date of site plan endorsement by the Planning Board. If)'Uu have any questions regarding this approval, please contact the Planning Office at Ext. 233. d VJ :0 .n Sincerely, I: r ~:i I,.__)J J '} ),tlt J V'-, ~ L- C Marshall\Beale Otainnan ' --t~'1" 0;:: ::;f:: z.- n := CD :;:0 ~ cc: i\rthur Reade 6 Youngs \\"ay Nantucket, ~1A 02554 -0 N N 0\ Marcus Sih-erstein - Zoning Enforcement Officer NOlE TO A PPLICA NTS: P!mse rr.te that a apy if the plan yu subniaai to [he Band, 7ihiJJ h:1s lAm emomd by the OJairmm, is errlaffi ani mISt b: f>>BeJ1lfd to the Bui/dirg Departnmt vknappljngfor a buildingpemit. 1he1e Wll /:;e a $15 adrrinistratir.e Ire to re issue an erriarstrl site p/Lm. 1 East Chestnut Street · Nantucket, MA 02554. (508) 228-7233 · fax (508) 228-7298 email: nanplan@town.nantucket.net .: ,,~-- . PLAN TO ACCOMPANY A . REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY DWElliNG PARKING IN NANTUCKET. MASSACHUSETTS LEGEND PREPARED fOR: HAJJPTON .s: L'rNCH. oR. ETAL.. m.s: SCALE: ," - ;'0' DAlE: NOV. 7, 2002 o DENOlES IRON PIPE FOUND . DENOlES REBAR Yt11H CM3 SET CD DENOlES DRILLHOlf: IN CON~ BOUND FOUND NOlES: 1) LOT SHO'ftN PREDAlES NANTUCKET ZONING BYLAW. NANTUCKET SURVEYORS, INe. 5 Yt1NDY WAY NANTUCKET, MA 02554 ~~ i~ ~ a '" ~ REFERENCES: DEED REF.: DD.8K. 556 PG. 267 PlAN REF.: PLBK. 5 PG. 55 ASSESSORS REF.: MM3: ~2.3.;' PARCEL: 130 ~2.;'.;'-1 65 N/F ll-lE NANTUCKET \.CARlA t.lITCHElL ASS00A1l0N ~ & ~ \\JOBS\H7224\jlR!\oaIAY-111WC :-' ~-.".. . -.. - ~~'. "'. : ~ : .' . ~-, " - .:. - < -. :.~~~... i 1'> -'. -" ZONING ClASSlFlCA1l0N DISTRICT: ROH ... RESlDENllAL OLD HISTORIC MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 5.000 Sq. fl MINIMUM FRONTAGE - 50 Ft. FRONT YARD SETBACK - NONE REAR 6: SIDE UNE SElBACK .. 5 ft. MAX. GROUND CO~ RA1l0 - SOX N- 722.... . .. e..x 11 ,13 rr e: NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PLANNING lJOARD RECOMME!\'1)ATIONS PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1119/02 The Planning Board makes thefollowing recommendations regardmg The Zoning Board of Appeals cases to be considered allfu! ZBA ~ December 13, 2002, meeting: #082-02 Susan Alllson Palmer and Erik Johnson, 73 Surfslde Road. The Board observes that it is rare event when Ii request for a variance actually meets the statutory requirements, and in such rare cases. the Board supports those applications. In this case, the topography of the subject lot, the nnique circumstances regarding its relationship to surrounding streets and the hardship that has resulted warrant the issuance of a variance. The subject lot. #3B, was created in the Rhonda Thurston subdivision. PB # 6031, dated 2/22/99, The lot derives its frontage on an unnamed way, hence its address as 73 Surfside Roae. However, a condition offered by the developer and accepted by the Planning Board (condition 2 of decision) was to restrict vehicular access to Celtic Drive only. A driVeway was therefore created over an easement to Celtic Drive. The house C<lnstructed on the lot faces Celtic Drive and in appearance, seems oriented toward this rood and it is their sole access, The lot drops off away from Celtic Drive so that the basement level is at grade near the unnamed way. However, a 102: wide piece of an adjoining lot actually separates this lot from Celtic Drive. Setbacks should therefore have been 20 feet from the unnamed way and 5 feet (side/rear) from all other property lines, The house was rotated from the originally depicted footprint on the subdivision plan at the request of the H.D.C. . Planning Board Recommendation, voted 5-0. Reconunend the granting of the variance with the condition that no structure or part thereof shall be erected in the area of the lot that measures 20 feet from the edge: of the Celtic Drive right-of-way and that the five foot side and rear setbacks should be measured from the other property lines. This condition will observe the practice followed when the exi~ting house was constructed. #084-02 Edith Bouriez, etaI., 9 Milk Street. The appliC8Jlt's project has involved joint applications to both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, for second dwelling approvaL The issue has been somewhat contentious, revolving around the issue of parking. AF. the site is now configured there is one parking space on Milk Street that requires backing onto the roadway. The Planning Board was critical of this arrangement because of the level of traffic and restricted site distances on Milk Street. The approved second dwelling required extension of the Milk Street driveway to two conforming parking spaces located beyond the main house. This approval was discovered to be (1) contrary to the owner's wishes, (2) physically impossible to construct without removing a chirrmey and a portion of the existing historical home and (3) represented a substantial introsion into the property because it removed mature trees and other important landscaping elements. The Planning Board would not agree to waive a parking space. 1 East Chestnut Street. Nantucket, MA 02554. (508) 228.7233. fax (508) 228.7298 emaH: nanplan@town.nantucket.net .. ~ PlannIng Board Report fOf ZBA Recommendations December 9, 2002 Phvlnlng Board Meeting 2 The applicant now proposes to construct two conforming parking spaces with a driveway accessing Green Lane and closing the parking space on Mille Street. The applicants have appeared before the Planning Board to amend their prior approved site plan, which was approved. To finalize this matter, the decision of the ZBA must be amended to remo'\'e the language requiring the parking area to access Milk Street. Access to Green Lane makes more sense for traffic safety and would be constmcted over an existing construction accesS. Cars will be screened from view and this location does not require the removal of any substantial trees. Removing the Milk Street driveway ends the current practice of the backing of vehicles onto that roadway. Staff notes and the Board agrees that most properties along Green Lane have constructed parking areas to service their lots, all requiring them to back onto this low volume road. Planning Board Recommendation, voted 5-0. The Board supports the request to remove the language. The Board voted to approve an amended site plan for the second dwefiing showing the parking located on Green Lane and the existing driveway access on Milk Street closeq.: #086-02 Maurice E. and MUllcent Gibbs, 211 Polpis Road. The applicants are proposing a land swap with a neighboring property that eliminates an existing non-conformity, the rear yard setback. We generally support changes that reduce or eliminate non-conformities. The proposed land swap does not cure the sub-minimum lot size but brings the existing house into full conformity. Planning Board Recommendation, voted 5-0. Support the issuance of a Special Permit as requested by the applicants. The Planning Board voted 5-0 that thefoUowing cases are recommended as Not of Planning Concern: #083.02 Robert and Ann Nussbaum, 9 Auriga Street. The applicants are seeking a special permit to validate a basement stairway constructed about 2 feet within a 10-foot setback. #085.02 Benjamin P. Moore, 15 Folger Avenue. The appellant seeks a variance from the maximum allowed ground cover for a pre-existing lot of record. The applicant proposes a one-story garage/storage building, which would replace a shed. The proposal exceeds the upper limit of 1,742 square feet by 473 square feet. #087.02 Robert Echele, 8A Union Street. The applicant seeks a modification to a prior Z.B.A. decision. 1be lot is an undersized commercially zoned lot. #88.02 Quidnet Beach Realty Trust, etaL, 36C Sesachacha Road. The applicants request a special permit to demolish a small pre-exisbng dwelling unit and rebuild a similar sized dwelling in its place. TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date: !lf~/L ? , 2003 To: Parties in Interest and, Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Application No.: 09'1-02- bwner/Applicant: &~ S. ~,'e7_ t ~"b-JS~ . / Lr t1 ch I ;Y.; Q rd HatJ1(f Yo/? S Lr nd. (:/t: and lit So ~f/~~~I'Wf,t:ftagf'ffrfs~tJl -fh So &)r)rr~z, En losed 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. ~~~~\~;ta~an cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 East Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Assessorls Map 42.3.3, Parcel 130 9 Milk Street Residential-Old Historic Deeds, Book 120, Page 230, and various later deeds No plan of record DECISION: 1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals, which opened on Friday, December 13, 2002, at 1:00 P.M., and which was continued to and concluded on Friday, January 10, in the Conference Room, in the Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following decision on the application of EDITH S. BOURIEZ, HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., and HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., and ELISE W. LYNCH, as Trustees of the EDITH S. BOURIEZ PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584, File No. 084-02: 2. The applicants are seeking a MODIFICATION of the Decision in Board of Appeals File No. 008 - 02, which granted a SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law ~139-33.A (alteration or expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure or use) to allow construction of an addition to a carriage house for use as a secondary dwelling. The applicants are asking the Board to remove the condition that stated that "two conforming parking spaces, accessed by Milk Street, shall be provided on site that would not require backing out onto Milk Street". The applicants now propose to construct two conforming spaces to be accessed from Green Street, removing the existing parking space that is accessed by Milk Street. The subj ect property (the "Locus") is nonconforming as to side yard setback, with the carriage house being sited at zero feet from the northeasterly side yard lot line, in a district in which the minimum required side yard setback is five feet. The Locus is situated at 9 MILK STREET, Assessor's Map 42.3.3, Parcel 130, with no plan of record, and is situated in a Residential-Old Historic zoning district. 3. Our decision is based upon the application and accompanying materials, and representations and testimony received at our public hearing. The Planning Board recommendation was favorable to the granting of relief as requested. There were several neighbors, with properties abutting Green Lane, who appeared in person and by counsel at the public hearing and who wrote correspondence, in opposition to the application. One neighbor, and a member of the Planning Board staff, spoke in favor at the public hearing. 4. As presented by the applicants, the condition set forth In subparagraph 6d in the decision in File No. 008-02 has become 1 unacceptable to them, because it would require the placement of two parking spaces, with a turning area to prevent backing into Milk Street, in the portion of the Locus which is an open garden area, cherished by the applicants. The original concept of creating a parking area to be accessed from the portion of the lot frontage lying to the northeast of the principal dwelling is not feasible, as there is not adequate space between the dwelling and the property line to allow for a driveway of the minimum width of twelve feet required by the Planning Board for a driveway to serve a secondary dwelling. The matter has been before the Board of Appeals only because the pre-existing, nonconforming structure being converted into a secondary dwelling lies within the side yard setback area, although the addition to that structure is entirely outside the setback area. The applicants have returned to the Planning Board to have their secondary dwelling approval modified, and the Planning Board has granted this modi f icat ion to show the driveway access for both required parking spaces as being from Green Lane. The question of access to a secondary dwelling is within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, and that Board is satisfied with the access from Green Lane and has recommended that the Board of Appeals grant this relief in order to reconcile the difference between the present decisions of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. As stated above, the reason for the matter having come before the Board of Appeals is solely related to the setback lssue, and no parking relief has been sought by the applicants. In the absence of any matter being before the Board of Appeals, the applicants, having frontage on Green Lane, would have the right to change their driveway access from Milk Street to Green Lane and to construct any number of parking spaces on their lot with this access. In response to concerns expressed by members of the Board of Appeals that the protection of the garden area be permanent, the applicants offered to have the condition be imposed that no dwelling or other structure be constructed in the area to the southwest of the present principal dwelling. 5. The Planning Board staff member spoke in favor of the application, and stated that the Planning Board favored the present proposal by the applicants because it would eliminate access from Milk Street, including removal of the present parking space which backs out into Milk Street, with access substituted from the much less heavily-traveled Green Lane. 6. The Green Lane neighbors and their counsel spoke In opposition to the applicants I proposal, citing the narrowness and rural character of Green Lane, and stating that any further driveway entrances into Green Lane, added to the existing driveways entering Green Lane from their properties, would create traffic problems. 7. A majority of the Board of Appeals members sitting on this case (Sevrens, Toole and Sanford) voted in favor of the applicants' request for modification, on the basis that with the conditions offered by the applicants the removal of the condition 2 requiring access to be from Milk Street and substituting access from Green Lane would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning By-law. However, two members (Murphy and Wiley) voted against the application, stating that the applicants had failed to establish that the modification would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present conditions. Accordingly, the required supermajority of four members not having voted in favor of the requested relief, the application for modification was DENIED. Dated: April~, 2003 F,\WpB\Bouriez\ZBA DEe 084-02.doc d VJ !J -1 -. 0::- :IE ;,- :)::> CD ;;r :;:0 (') I r- CD rr, 7) -0 -r Lv C; \0 3 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, DECEMBER 13, 2002, IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, TOWN ANNEX BUILDING, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, ,M,!-ssachusetts, on the Application ofthe following: {, :' EDITH S. BOURIEZ; HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR.; AND HAMPTON S. LYNCH, JR., AND ELISE W. LYNCH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE EDITH S. BOURIEZ PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST ' BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 084-02 Applicants are seeking relief by MODIFICATION of the Decision in BOA File No. 008-02, which granted a Special Permit under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A (alteration or expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming structure/use) to allow construction of an addition onto a carriage house for use as a secondary dwelling. Applicants are asking the Board to remove the condition that stated that the "two conforming parking spaces, accessed by Milk Street, shall be provided on site that would not require backing out onto Milk Street." Applicants now propose to construct two conforming spaces to be accessed from Green Street, removing the existing parking space that is accessed by Milk Street. The Locus is nonconforming as side yard setback with the carriage house being sited at zero feet from the northeasterly side yard lot line in a district that requires a minimum side yard setback distance of five feet. The Premises is located at 9 MILK STREET, Assessor's Map 42.3.3, Parcel 130, . no plan of record. The properly is zoned Residentiai-Old-Historic. 4i~~Pg~~ ancy J. Sevre ChaIrman THIS NOTICE IS A V AILABLE IN LARGE PRINT OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. ,r- BOA Form 1-89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37 WASHINGTON STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 November 6, 2002 Date CASE No. 'o'icf02 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF Owner's name(s) Edith S, Bouriez; Hampton S, Lynch, Jr,; and Hampton S, Lynch, Jr. and Ellse W. Lynch, as Trustees of the Edith S. Bouriez Personal Residence Trust Malling address: c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP Applicant's name: Same Mailing address: 6 Young's Way, P,O, Box 2669, Nantucket, Mass. 02584 Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 42.3,3-130 Street address: 9 Milk Street (No plan of record) Date lot acquired: 11/7/60 Deed Book 120, Page 430, et al Zoning district 8QH Uses on lot - commercial: None x or MCD? _ number of: dwellings ~ duplex apartments rental rooms Building date (s): all pre-8/72? )( or ___.. C of O? Building Permit appl'n Nos. 8169-91; 316-02 Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: 008-02 State fully all zoning relief sought and respective Code sections and subsections, specifically what you propose compared to present and what grounds you \lrge for BoA to make each finding per Section 139-32A if Variance, 139-30A)( if a Special Permit (and 139-33A x if to alter or extend a nonconforming use) If appeal per 139-31A & B attach decision or order' appealed. OK to attach addendum' The applicants request that the Decision in Board of Appeals Case 008-02, which granted a Special Permit for the alteration of a pre-existing, dimensionally nonconforming structure for use as a secondary dwelling with construction of an addition, be modified by removing the condition that the two required conforming on-site parking spaces be provided and accessed from Milk Street, to allow the two required parking spaces to be provided and accessed from Green Lane, as per the plan by Nantucket Surveyors, Inc., submitted herewith. co Co' ..- f . N . 0::: P.l: "<;t t..". <..":' >- = W z a::: ~ Items enclosed as part of this Application: order' addendum' Locus map x Site plan )( showing present )( + planned )( structures Floor plans present __, proposed_ elevations __ (HOC approved? )() Listing lot area )( frontage )( setbacks )( GCR )( parking data )( Assessor-certified addressee list 4 sets )( mailing labels 2 sets x $200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket )( proof' 'cap' covenant __ '(If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Co~r's record to BOA,) I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the pains and penalties of pern/// /J /J SIGNATURE: ~1. ~L Applicant Attorney/agent x '(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BoA OFFICE USE Application copies rec'd: 4~ ~'1y B% on I(/Q/O'l-b~ One copy filed with Town Clerk on 1Tj~/!.L-CJ;,y Cll2ii'5 comPlete"t..fi;;J One copy each to Planning Bd and BUildin~e [i/1SF~' by $200 fee check given 1pw7~,Z~s~rer on I ived? Hearing notice postedIL/fJ/(Ll..o1f\ailed 11/ & M /l ~t41!.L'/-.; Hearing(s) on __/__/__ cont'd to __/__~__, __/__/__ withdrawn? __1__1__ Decis~on due by __1__/__ made __/__1__ filed TC 1__1__ mailed __1__1__ See ~elated cases lawsuits other 1':,\>:1''' BOUli'~;.:\Bo,l; Zi.'..:, lIP1' ,doc '" J. >4 -:3 8 N 103 000. o o o 00 o r<l W 41-'l5~ 41- li1 " NAIIITlJCI([T 42. .s 4- :3 T HISTORl GAL ASSOCIATION 10 . HOWARD " 53 , I- W ~ 100 .2 ~ V) BAPTIST CH " J 2. ).. ~ 106 '0 C tr 10' : 0 :r SrRE:E:r 40 ~' 4' ).. : 41- \1.1 10' 138 14 r ''''"' 170 -1- 41- 171 172 143 144 T THE ~:H;:C'ET ! t..4.3..RIA MIT::HEL~ 114 173 ASSOCI.t.TICiN 146 , ~ "4- niE NANTUCJ<ET 184 MARIA ,'l MITCH E LL It ASSOCIATION 166 168 167 .. GREEN LANE w 'Z 1; < I3C ...J 132 :t1- 87 86 e. z w w a: (!) z UJ w a: (!) 11 2\ PLAN TO ACCOMPANY A SPECIAL PERMIT APPUCATION IN NANTUCKET J MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR: HAMPTON s: LYNCH. oR ETAl. TRS: SCALE: ,. .. 30' DATE: NOV. 7. 2002 LEGEND o DENOTES IRON PIPE FOUND . DENOTES REBAR WllH eM' SET II DENOTES DRIWiOLE IN CCJIlCRETE BOUND FOUND NOTES: 1) LOT SHOWN PREDATES NANT\JCI<ET ZONING BYLAW. NANT\JCKET SURVEYORS, INe. 5 WINDY WAY NANlUCKET, MA 02554 REFERENCES: DEED REF.: DD.BK. 558 PG. 287 PLAN REF.: PL..BK. 5 PG. 55 ASSESSORS REF.: MAP: 42.3.3 PARCEl.; 130 42.3.3-185 N/F lHE NANlUCKET MARIA MITCHEll. ASSOOA1l0N ~ ~ ~ \\.HIIS\N7224\llR1I1EWAY-3.DM: ~56'~ ZONING CLASSIFlCA1l0N DISTRICT: ROH .. RESIDENllAL OLD HISTORIC MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 5,000 Sq. Ft. MINIMUM FRONTAGE .. 50 Ft. FRONT YARD SElBACK .. NONE REAR a: SIDE UNE SElBACI< - 5 ft. MAX. GROUND CO\'ER RAllO - SOX N 7224