HomeMy WebLinkAbout072-11 Janet Murphy, North Beach St. Nominee trst.- i
t s. TOWN OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
ti
Date: January 19, 2012
To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decison of t.
The BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: :co
Application No: 072 -11
Owner /Applicant: JANET MURPHY, TRUSTEE OF NORTH BEACH
STREET NOMINEE TRUST
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this
day been filed with 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 a
complaint in Land 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.
�L J, V (-W)
Edward S. Toole, Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner /Zoning Enforcement Officer
PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME LIMIT
AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING TO NANTUCKET ZONING
BY -LAW SECTION 139 -30 (SPECIAL PERMITS); SECTION 139 -32
(VARIANCES). ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS OFFICE AT 508 - 228 -7215.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Assessor's Map 42.4.1, Parcel 94
9 North Beach Street Lot 6A, Plan No. 2010 -41
Limited Commercial Deed Book 514, Page 68
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals, on Thursday, November 10, 2011, at 1:00 P.M., at 4
Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the
following decision on the application of JANET MURPHY, TRUSTEE OF
NORTH BEACH STREET NOMINEE TRUST, c/o Rhoda H. Weinman, 36 Centre
Street, PO Box 1365, Nantucket, MA 02554, File No. 072 -11:
2. Applicant is requesting Variance relief pursuant to
Nantucket Zoning Bylaw Section 139 -32 (Variances) from the
intensity regulations in Section 139 -16 (intensity regulations)
in order to validate the siting of a pre- existing nonconforming
single- family dwelling as to validate the lot as separately
marketable and buildable. An "approval not required" plan was
dated July 22, 2010 was recorded August 24, 2010 at the Nantucket
County Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 2010 -41 that subdivided the
Locus. The plan divided an existing 4,500 square foot lot into
two lots: Locus (Lot 6A), containing 3,002 square feet and Lot
6B, containing 1,498 square feet in a zoning district that
requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. These lots
were conveyed out of common ownership from Locus by a deed dated
March 28, 2011 and recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds on
April 15, 2011. The Locus was conveyed out of common ownership
by virtue of a Deed dated and recorded on October 1, 1982. The
Locus is nonconforming as to rear yard setback, with the
structure being sited as close as about 0.4 feet from the
northeasterly rear yard lot line in a zoning district that
requires a minimum rear yard setback of five (5) feet. No
expansion of the structure is planned under this Application.
1
Said structure has a ground cover ratio of about 29.3% in a
zoning district that allows a maximum ground cover ratio of 30%
for preexisting nonconforming lots. The Applicant is requesting
the Board of Appeals validate the lot with a preexisting
nonconforming single- family dwelling as separately marketable and
buildable. The Locus is situated at 9 North Beach Street, is
shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.1 as Parcel 94, is
shown as Lot 6A, Plan No. 2010 -41, and is recorded at the
Nantucket County Registry of Deeds in Book 514, Page 68. The
property is zoned Limited Commercial.
3. Our decision is based upon the application and
accompanying materials, and representations and testimony
received at our public hearing. There were no letters of support
or opposition to the application. The Planning Board made a
positive recommendation on the matter.
4. Attorney Rhoda H. Weinman represented the Applicant at
the hearing. Attorney Weinman explained to the Board that the
Applicant is requesting Variance relief pursuant to Nantucket
Zoning Bylaw Section 139 -32 (Variances) from the intensity
regulations in Section 139 -16 (intensity regulations) in order to
validate the siting of a pre- existing nonconforming single- family
dwelling as to validate the lot as separately marketable and
buildable.
Attorney Weinman explained to the Board of Appeals that the lot
in question was held in common ownership with adjacent land until
October 1, 1982. An "approval not required" plan dated July 22,
2010 was recorded August 24, 2010 at the Nantucket Registry of
Deeds as Plan No. 2010 -41. The Plan divided an existing 4,500
square foot lot into two Lots: Locus (Lot 6A), containing 2,002
square feet and Lot 6B containing 1,498 square feet (conveyed out
of common ownership from Locus by a Deed dated March 28, 2011 and
recorded April 15, 2011 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds in
Book 1276, Page 301), in a district that requires a minimum lot
size of 5,000 square feet.
The Locus was conveyed out of common ownership by virtue of a
Deed dated and recorded October 1, 1982 at the Nantucket Registry
of Deeds in Book 194, Page 280. In addition to the above, the
Locus is nonconforming as to rear yard setback, the structure
being sited as close as about 0.4 feet from the northeasterly
rear yard lot line in a district that requires a minimum rear
yard setback of five (5) feet. One (1) parking space is provided
on site and would continue to be provided.
Attorney Weinman further added that no expansion of the structure
is planned under this Application. Said structure has a ground
cover ratio of about 29.3% in a district that allows for a
2
maximum ground cover ratio of 30o for preexisting nonconforming
lots.
Marcus Silverstein, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, clarified his
position that although there has been some debate as to whether
or not the Board of Appeals needs to approve this matter by
Special Permit or Variance, the practice in recent years has been
to validate these lots by Variance relief.
5. Attorney Weinman explained to the Board that the
Applicant has received endorsement of the Approval Not Required
( "ANR ") plan by Planning Board, thereby creating two separate and
buildable lots. At the hearing, it was explained that the
Applicant had created two lots pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 41 -81L,
which allows the division of a lot into two (2) or more lots if
each contain one (1) or more structures that predate the adoption
of the Subdivision Control Law (1955).
Through the issuance of a Variance, the Board has the authority
to regulate the location and ground cover of any proposed
structure. Specifically, the Board found that the present
application meets the requirement for a Variance based upon the
uniqueness of the lot due to its creation pursuant to M.G.L.
Chapter 41 -81L, which distinguishes it from other lots in the
same zoning district. Based on this information, the Board found
that the requested relief would not derogate from the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Bylaw.
In ascertaining the uniqueness of the situation and the proposed
structure on the loads, the Board examined the neighborhood in
which the locus is located. The Board considered the neighboring
parcels in the neighborhood. The Board determined that the
proposal to validate the lots as separately marketable and
buildable would be in harmony and conjunction with the intent of
the Bylaw and the neighborhood in which the Locus is situated.
6. Accordingly, by a vote of FOUR in favor (Botticelli,
Koseatac, McCarthy, and Angelastro voted in favor) and ONE
opposed (Poor opposed) of the sitting members, the Board of
Appeals made the finding that circumstances relating to the soil
conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures and
especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting
generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve
substantial hardship to the applicant and the desirable relief
may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the bylaw. Specifically, the lot was
validly created pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 41 -81L and is
significantly smaller than the minimum lot size required in the
C
Limited Commercial zoning district. The conflict between the
state law allowing the lot division and the intensity regulations
of the local bylaw has created a unique situation specific to
this lot.
7. Based upon the application and accompanying materials,
and representations and testimony received at our public hearing,
the applicant is granted Variance relief pursuant to Nantucket
Zoning Bylaw Section 139 -32 (variances) from the intensity
regulations in Section 139 -16 (intensity regulations - lot size
and setbacks) to validate "Lot 6A" and the siting of the
structure thereon as shown on the plan entitled, `Mortgage
Inspection Plan, in Nantucket, MA," dated September 14, 2011,
prepared by Earle & Sullivan, Inc., attached hereto as "Exhibit
A" as separately marketable and buildable.
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
N
Dated: 2012
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v
Nantucket, ss. January �U 2012
On this �� day of January, 2011, before me, the
undersigned N�t c, personally appeared y 4wuklio
, who is personally known
to me, and who is the person whose name is signed on the
preceding or attached document, and who acknowledged to me that
/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
Notary blic:
My commission expires:
s
y
5
All
1 r Piz 514 I
Plan Ref: Plan #2010 - 41 O'
FEMA FIRM Flood Zone A 7 Elev.8
Assessors Map 42.4.1 -94 i
O dh /cb fnd
Zoning : Limited Commercial 0 20'
Min Area : 5000 S.F.
Frontage : 40 Ft
Front Yard : None 1�oos'o.,
Side /Rear Yard .- 5 Ft 7 `Z
Max.GCR : 50 %(But 30% for ` Ck "
pre- existing non- conforming lots) Upole
Exist. GCR : 29.3 % O ' crb disc %b frd
curled I'
0diu
n
I� �
` �0 2
\\ �� crb�isc %b fnd
buried �4� /O�
/ e / ✓4 \ ��
adL.
DWLG '� '��� 3 3C
N 47 °52130" IV,,
io0'�
LOT 6 A ��'� P
3002 S Ft ��'
q G� ��ry
o�ae G,, *4$� `�-
977�99��
4-
1�
p�ooa
Notes:
1) Lot area, rear yardsetbacks and 6CR do not comply with current zoning.
2) Lots 6A and 69 each contain a building that was in existance as of
1955, prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Control Law in Nantucket,
ref,' Planning Board File No. 7290.
Traverse PC
,.00a
MORTGAGE INSPECTION PLAN
IN NANTUCKET,MA.
Scale:1 "= 20' Sept. 14, 2011
Prepared For: Thomas Robinson
Earle & Sullivan Inc.- Professional Land Surveyors
A # 6 Youngs Way, Nantucket, Ma. 02554
508 - 332 -4808
ES -231
OO
2
i
4-
1�
p�ooa
Notes:
1) Lot area, rear yardsetbacks and 6CR do not comply with current zoning.
2) Lots 6A and 69 each contain a building that was in existance as of
1955, prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Control Law in Nantucket,
ref,' Planning Board File No. 7290.
Traverse PC
,.00a
MORTGAGE INSPECTION PLAN
IN NANTUCKET,MA.
Scale:1 "= 20' Sept. 14, 2011
Prepared For: Thomas Robinson
Earle & Sullivan Inc.- Professional Land Surveyors
A # 6 Youngs Way, Nantucket, Ma. 02554
508 - 332 -4808
ES -231