The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About060-04 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 . Date:~Cev)~{~r <t ' 20()l.f \ To: Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the Decision of .the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Owner/Applicant: O(oOJOc{ ." ~I 'cJ&le ~1~ee..TvusJ ~' Applicati~n No.: ~ . . - . .. '.' 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 pursu,a,nt 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. ~dSrPjJli~d _r::". cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner ~::J ;~r: L-) I .::;0 -'3 ::::1 PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE Af~IME LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING" TO NA~TUCKET ZONING BY-LAW ~139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS)~ Y139-32I (VARIANCES) ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS One East Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 46 107 Sankaty Road Limited Use General-3 Land Court Plan 36116-B Lot 4 Certificate of Title No. 16861 DECISION: 1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, on Friday, September 10, 2004, at 1:00 P.M., in the Conference Room, in the Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following decision on the application of JOHN J. HODGES and DAVID C. HODGES, as Trustees of BIDDLE NOMINEE TRUST, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584, File No. 060-04: 2. The applicants are seeking relief by VARIANCE from Nantucket Zoning By-law ~139-16.A (Intensity Regulations setbacks, lot area, frontage). The applicants seek validation of the locus as separately marketable from all adj acent land, and being a buildable lot as to zoning issues, as presently configured. The current boundaries of the locus result from a previous change in lot lines that rendered the locus more nonconforming. The locus has lot area of about 28,624 square feet, with the minimum in this zoning district being 120,000 square feet, and frontage of 184.44 feet, with the minimum being 200 feet. The locus has been improved with a single-family dwelling since a time prior to the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket Zoning By-law, and was a part of the former Lot 2 on Land Court Plan 36116-A until Lot 2 was divided into Lot 4 (the locus) and the adjacent Lot 3 by Land Court Plan 36116-B, which was filed with the Land Court on April 19, 1973. The former owner of the locus (the applicants' father) conveyed Lot 3 to an abutter by a deed dated June 3, 1973, recorded on March 28, 1974, thus rendering the locus more nonconforming by the removal of about 6,293 square feet of area and 11.00 feet of frontage on Sankaty Road. The dwelling on the locus is also nonconforming as to setback requirements, with the structure being sited as close as about 8.3 feet from the easterly rear yard lot line, with the minimum in the zoning district being 10 feet for a lot of record (20 feet otherwise). The locus is situated at 107 SANKATY ROAD, SIASCONSET, Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 46, is shown on Land Court Plan 36116-B as Lot 4, and is situated in a Limited Use General-3 zoning district. 3. Our accompanying decision is materials, based upon the and representations application and and testimony received at our public hearing. There was no Planning Board recommendation. Several letters in support and as corroboration of the facts were received from abutters and other neighboring property owners. There was no opposition presented in person or by correspondence at the public hearing. 4. As presented by the applicants, the subject property was improved with a dwelling constructed well before 1972. In 1973, after the locus was placed in a Limited Use General zoning district, the applicants' father had a plan prepared by a surveyor, endorsed by the Planning Board, and filed with the Land Court as Plan 36116-B, which divided the applicants' father's lot, shown as Lot 2 on Land Court Plan 36116-A, into two lots: the locus, shown as Lot 4, and a parcel shown as Lot 3. Lot 2 was then a pre-existing, nonconforming lot of record, having been created prior to the 1972 effective date of the By-law, which initially established 50,000 square feet as minimum lot area in the Limited Use General district. (Lot 2 did not merge with the adjacent land of the applicants' father shown on Land Court Plan 12839-B as Lot B2, because both lots were lawfully improved with dwellings prior to the imposition of zoning requirements; see the definition of "Lot" in By-law ~139-2.) The 1973 Annual Town Meeting rezoning of the locus as Limited Use General-3, with 120,000 square feet minimum lot area, continued the nonconformity of the locus. After the filing of Plan 36116-B, the applicants' father conveyed Lot 3 to an abutter by deed dated June 3, 1973, recorded on March 28, 1974, to be combined with the abutter's existing lot, increasing the nonconformity in that Lot 4, the locus, contains less area and has less frontage than did Lot 2. As a result, the locus is arguably no longer protected as constituting a valid building lot under the provisions of By-law ~139-16.A, which provide that no lot may be changed in size or shape except in conformity with the dimensional requirements set forth therein. The applicants have now encountered an issue as to the marketability of the locus as a result, and now seek relief by Variance in order to validate the status of the locus as a building lot under the By-law. 5. The dwelling upon the Locus, having existed since a time prior to the adoption of the By-law, is entitled to remain and be used notwithstanding the increase in the nonconformity of the locus as a result of the 1974 conveyance; see M.G.L., c. 40A, ~7. Lot 3 remains vacant, and does not constitute a separate building lot in the hands of its present owner, to whom it and the other land with which it had been merged had been conveyed by the successors to the grantee from the applicants' father. Accordingly, the overall intensity of uses and structures on the two lots, which made up the former Lot 2 has not been changed by the division of Lot 2 and the conveyance of Lot 3. 2 6. Therefore, the Board of Appeals, by a vote of four members in favor (Sevrens, O'Mara, Murphy, Wiley) and one opposed (Loftin), made the finding that the granting of variance relief as requested would, due to the shape and topography of the locus and the structure thereon, unique to the locus, constitute desirable relief not derogating from the purpose and intent of the By-law, and by the same vote of four members in favor and one opposed, GRANTED the requested relief by VARIANCE from the intensity regulations in By-law ~139-16.A, to validate the locus as a buildable lot, subject to the following conditions: (a) No secondary dwelling shall be constructed or used upon the locus; and (b) The maximum total ground cover of all structures upon the locus, as calculated in accordance with the By-law, shall be 1,500 square feet. Dated: December <t , 2004 F:\WpH\HODGES\ZBA DEe 060-04.doc 3