HomeMy WebLinkAbout063-11 Rabbit Run, LLCDate: Mav 11, 2012
To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decision of
The BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following:
Application No:
063 -11
Owner /Applicant: RABBIT RUN, LLC
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.
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 43, Parcel 176 Lot 1, Land Court Plan No.
13364 -D
18 Rabbit Run Road
Limited Use General - 3 Certificate of Title No. 23,371
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals, on Thursday, November 10, 2011 and December 8, 2011 at
1:00, at 4 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board
made the following decision on the application of RABBIT RUN,
LLC, c/o Glidden & Glidden, P.C., 37 Centre Street, Nantucket,
MA 02554, File No. 063 -11:
2. Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant
to Nantucket Zoning Bylaw Section 139- 16.C.(2) (unintentional
setback intrusion) in order to validate an un intentional
setback intrusion of 1.5 feet into the front yard setback
requirement. The porch is sited approximately 33.5 feet from
the front yard setback in a zoning district that requires a
thirty -five (35) front yard setback. The Applicant also
requests a modification to Special Permit No. 007 -07 seeking to
validate the ground cover of the structure as- built. The
Applicant is proposing to allow the ground cover of the
structure to be increased by about thirty -five (35) square feet
from 2,346 to 2,381 square feet. In the alternative, 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 - ground
cover, setbacks) to validate the structures as- built. The Locus
is situated at 18 Rabbit Run Road, is shown on Nantucket Tax
Assessor's Map 43 as Parcel 176, is shown as Lot 1 on Land Court
11
Plan 13364 -D, and is registered as Certificate of Title No.
23,371 in the Nantucket County Registry District of the Land
Court. The property is zoned Limited Use General - 3.
3. Our decision is based upon the application and
accompanying materials, representations, and testimony received
at our public hearing. There was no Planning Board
recommendation on the basis that no matters of planning concern
were presented. There were no letters in support of or in
opposition to the project on file.
4. Attorney Richard Glidden represented the Applicant at
the hearing. Attorney Glidden stated that the Applicant is
requesting a modification to Decision No. 007 -07 to allow the
ground cover of the structure to be increased by about thirty -
five (35) feet from 2,346 to 2,381 square feet, or, in the
alternative, Variance relief in order to validate this increase
in ground cover to the structure. This increase in ground
cover is due to a porch that was inadvertently not counted as
ground cover when the structure was originally staked.
The Applicant originally had a front yard setback violation
on the Locus, but it was ascertained by the Zoning Enforcement
Officer that such a setback violation did not exist because of
the configuration of the road layout.
Attorney Glidden explained to the Board that the Applicant
is not requesting any additional work be done to the structure
in question, but instead to validate the work that has been
completed.
5. The Board expressed concern with the application and
requested the Applicant to provide the Board with the relevant
Historic District Commission approvals so the Board could
ascertain where the discrepancy in the plans occurred.
At the December 8th hearing, the Applicant brought the
approved Historic District Commission plans to the hearing, but
the Board was unable to determine where in the chain of events
this error in ground cover took place. The Board also
acknowledged that the Applicant has been before the Board of
Appeals three times since File No. 007 -07 for various other
forms of relief.
6. The Board considered the requested relief of both a
Variance and a modification to Decision No. 007 -07. With
respect to the Variance relief, the Board considered whether or
2
not owing to 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, financial or otherwise, 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 such
bylaw. With respect to the modification, the Board considered
whether or not such the structure, as modified from Decision No.
007 -07, will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the Zoning Bylaw.
7. Accordingly, a motion was made, and duly seconded, to
grant the requested relief to allow the ground cover of the
structure to be increased by about thirty -five (35) square feet
from 2,346 to 2,381 square feet. The vote was THREE in favor
(Koseatac, Botticelli, McCarthy) and TWO opposed (Toole and
Angelastro opposed) . Therefore the requested relief does not
pass for lack of the requisite four votes necessary to approve a
modification to the existing Special Permit pursuant to
Nantucket Zoning Bylaw Section 139- 30.E.(3) and the requisite
four votes necessary to approve a Variance pursuant to 139 -
32.F. (3) .
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
3
Dated: �V ,2012
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Nantucket, ss. �j. 2012
On this da o, 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
LI A , 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 tha0e she signed it
voluntarily for its stated purpose. ��//
Notary lic:
My c mmission expires:
0