Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31-15 1 Kite Hill Lane_ JAN 7 2016 FM2: 45 pNTUI:/�F _ iota r�9 JA 7 2015 �Ys;:4!s C3. y� °9poeAt����1 Town & County Building TOWN OF NANTUCKET 16 Broad St BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, MA 02554 NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date: December 30, 2015 To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decision of The BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Application No: 31 -15 Current Owners /Applicant: ANJONIC REAL ESTATE 13 COMPANY, LLP; NOREEN CT,ARKF'NECINA; ELENA EVANGELISTA; and MAUREEN DUNPHY 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. Eleanor W. Antonietti, Zoning Administrator 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 - 325 -7587. NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Assessor's Map 42.4.4, Parcel 63 1 Kite Hill Lane Residential Old Historic (ROH) T)P 1q1 N- Book 1484, Page 185 NO PLAN 1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals ( "ZBA "), opened at 1:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 8, 2015, Thursday, November 12, 2015, and closed on Thursday, December 10, 2015, in the Conference Room, at 4 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following Decision on the application of ANJONIC REAL ESTATE 13 COMPANY, LLP; NOREEN CLARKE'NECINA; ELENA EVANGELISTA; and MAUREEN DUNPHY, c/o Anthony Colella, GP, 330 East 43rd Street, #605, New York, New York, 10017, File No. 31 -15. *: * N.B. : See also ZBA Decision File No. 30 -15 granted to BENJAMIN M. MCGRATH & LINDA B. MCGRATH and DAVID B. DILLARD & ANNA -KARIN DILLARD, as APPELLANTS, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford, LLP, 6 Young's Way, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584. This decision upheld an appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision File 15 -15 granted to Anjonic Real Estate 13 Company, LLP et al, pursuant to Zoning By -law Sections 139 - 29.C(3) and 139 -31 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 8. Appellants were further granted a determination that the proposed project to alter a pre- existing nonconforming structure requires a Special Permit and pursuant to Section 139 -33 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 6. 2. Applicant requests special permit relief pursuant to Zoning By -law Section 139- 33.A(1) in order to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling. The structure is sited within the side and rear yard setbacks. The work consists of raising the structure, removing the existing foundation and an access to the crawl space, installing a full basement, lowering the structure back down onto a new poured concrete foundation, and adding three window wells. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 1 Kite Hill Lane, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.4 as Parcel 63. Evidence of owner's title is in Book 1484, Page 185 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The property is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). 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 matters of planning concern were presented. Opposition, both written and oral, was presented at the public hearing. 4. Attorney John B. Brescher represented the applicant at all three hearings. Additional testimony regarding this project in favor of the application was received from Maureen Dunphy 2 (partial owner), Frank Daily (General Contractor), Thornewill Design LLC (Architect), and Stephen J. Goan (Structural Engineer). 5. At the initial hearing on October 8, 2015, attorneys for both the Appellant in the above - referenced appeal and the Applicant agreed to open the related hearings for ZBA Application File Nos. 30 -15 and 31 -15. The Board found that, in consideration of testimony given in ZBA File No. 30 -15 and No. 31 -15, the decision of the Zoning Administrator should be overturned. The Board made a simultaneous and related determination that the Applicant's proposed project requires relief by Special Permit pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139 -33 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 6, to be considered at a regularly scheduled and duly noticed Public Hearing in order to allow all abutters and neighbors to have the opportunity to present evidence as to additional matters of concern regarding the standard of substantial detriment to the neighborhood from the proposed work, which it was and was subsequently opened on Thursday October 8, 2015. Therefore, ZBA Application File No. 31 -15 remained open pending further testimony. 6. The Locus, as shown on plan entitled, "Building Location Plan of Land in Nantucket, Mass. ", dated June 15, 1993, prepared by Blackwell & Associates, Inc., and attached herewith as "Exhibit A ", is an undersized lot of record having an approximate lot area of 1,787 square feet in the Residential Old Historic (ROH) zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The locus is also pre- existing nonconforming as to frontage, having 31.51 feet of frontage on Kite Hill Lane (s/k/a Sunset Hill Avenue) where minimum required frontage is fifty (50) feet. The premises are improved with a 510 square foot dwelling, having an existing ground cover ratio of 28.5% where a maximum of 50% is allowed. The structure, said to pre -exist the local adoption of the zoning by -law in 1972, is pre- existing nonconforming as to side and rear yard setbacks, being sited as close as 1.3 feet from the westerly side yard lot line, three (3) feet from the easterly side yard lot line, and 2.8 feet from the northerly rear yard lot line, where five (5) foot side and rear yard setbacks are required. There is one available parking space on the lot in compliance with requirement of 139 -18.13 for the ROH zoning district. 7. As explained by Attorney Brescher, the Applicant proposes to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling. The work consists of raising the structure to remove and replace a concrete block foundation and crawl space with a new finished basement to contain up to two new bedrooms, a new parged foundation, and three basement window wells, two (2) on the north elevation and one (1), intended to provide egress, on the west elevation of the dwelling. (The Board was reminded that window wells have traditionally been treated as retaining walls and the Building Department has historically exempted them from being considered with regards to setbacks as they are not a "structure ".) The structure will be set back down on a new poured concrete foundation without any change to its footprint or its height. Additional exterior alterations, which do not require relief from this Board, consist of adding windows, siting a `BILCO" bulkhead access beneath the porch, and a new front porch door. While some of said work will be done within the required five (5) foot side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed alterations will be no closer to the side or rear yard lot lines than the 3 existing structure and, as such, will not result in an increase to the pre- existing non - conforming side and rear yard setback intrusions, and will not create any new nonconformities. The project benefits from Nantucket Historic District Commission approval by virtue of Certificate of Appropriateness No. 64067, as the same may be amended from time to time. 8. Over the course of the three hearings, the Board heard substantial opposition to the project. Along with counsel for the Appellants, several abutters — many of whom had also submitted written opposition — appeared at the hearing to express various concerns related to the impact on the neighborhood. Further Testimony was received from an engineer and a consulting excavating contractor. Those expressing concerns collectively maintained that substantial site constraints inevitably impact the construction methodology and best practices must be incorporated and adhered to throughout the construction process. The principal contention was that the proposed alterations would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformities because 1) they could potentially cause damage to the adjacent lot and the structures thereon; 2) they would increase the existing nonconformity by increasing the massing of the structure within the nonconforming setback area; 3) an intensification of use by doubling the sleeping capacity of a very small house on a very small lot would overburden the Locus and the narrow roadway; and 4) the lack of adequate access for construction machinery and vehicles via Kite Hill Lane which is too narrow to accommodate such vehicles and parking thereon. (Kite Hill Lane is an easement which is a portion of the land known as 5 Kite Hill Lane.) 9. Carl Jelleme of Toscana Corp., a consultant for the abutters, explained how the foundation would have to be constructed in order to avoid structural damage to neighboring properties. According to him, under the originally proposed construction methodology, they would have to over - excavate onto the neighbors' property (involving their approval), with underpinning of the existing foundation to avoid any disturbance to adjacent lots. An earth retention system would be needed to drive steel sheathing — which could be a serious challenge with this Locus. He also stated that a preconstruction survey of every structure within two hundred (200) feet should be obtained to better monitor any impact on adjacent lots during construction. 10. John Stover, Professional Engineer and consultant for the abutters, expressed concerns regarding the impact of driving piles. Specifically, he maintained that this process could consolidate and destabilize soils in such a way as to cause a damaging effect on buildings within twenty (20) feet. He strongly urged the Board to require geotechnical engineering assessment of the site and soil testing. 11. Numerous representatives for the applicant assured the Board that best practices would be consistently and reliably applied with this renovation project. More specifically, construction vehicles would be parked on the premises or off site and not on Kite Hill Lane. The Applicant acknowledged the neighborhood concerns regarding access and the potential for the foundation work to have a negative impact on surrounding structures. In an effort to mitigate the alleged intensification of use, the applicant reduced the number of proposed bedrooms in the basement 4 from two to one. It was further explained that the work will be done according to all applicable building code regulations, and that the contact information of the site manager and General Contractor will be given to all neighbors. 12. The Board established that the work that will be done, if not done very carefully, will have a substantial and potentially detrimental impact on the neighborhood. With that in mind, the Board requested that the applicant submit a thorough engineering survey and adequate documentation of the manner in which the work will proceed. After substantial discussion, the applicant agreed to provide a detailed Construction Methodology and corresponding documentation in order that the Board may further evaluate and review the establishment of best practices in terms of structural engineering. 13. At the third and final hearing on December 10, 2015, the Board reviewed the revised and refined Construction Methodology and corresponding engineering plans submitted, as requested, by the Applicant. Testimony was received from Structural Engineer, Stephen J. Goan, as consultant to the Applicant. Mr. Goan responded to recommendations made by consultants for the opposition and explained in detail the site preparation, excavation, installation of the concrete forms and the underpinning of the foundation. The applicant elected to use the underpinning method of construction rather than the sheet piling. 14. As explained by Mr. Goan, the dwelling is a small light building which readily allows for underpinning in 3 -foot sections. This gradual process is designed to mitigate any undue negative impact on adjacent buildings and properties. The structure on the adjacent property is approximately twelve (12) feet away from the subject structure. The basement is clear of the eight (8) foot "line of influence ". The approximate effect around the building is at most three (3) feet. The porch will be taken out on the bottom level. The front foundation wall will be cut out to enable a gradual excavation. Concrete will be pumped in 3 -foot sections as a continuous pour, with trenches in a various locations. There will be no sheet piling. Mr. Goan adding that hiring a geotechnical engineer is not a standard requirement with a residential project. As to the recommendation to conduct soil tests, test pits and soil borings examine subsurface conditions, this is done with a boring rig and a vibratory hammer whereby the number of blows per foot is the basis for calculations. The vibrations resulting from this process could reverberate to the structures on the adjacent lots. The applicant is seeking to avoid such potentially damaging vibrations. 15. Based upon the testimony received at the hearings, the site plan, the Construction Methodology and related Engineering Plan, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a determination that the requested relief may be granted based upon the findings that the proposed project will not make the existing nonconforming setback distances more nonconforming and will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformities, provided that the detailed the Construction Methodology is strictly adhered to so as to avoid both any damage to neighboring properties and any negative impact on the neighborhood. Furthermore, the Board acknowledged that they have no jurisdiction relative to the number of bedrooms on the 5 property because the residential use (e.g., the bedrooms for a single- family dwelling) are an allowed use in the ROH zoning district. 16. Accordingly, by a MAJORITY vote (four in favor and one opposed) of the sitting Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals GRANTS the requested relief by SPECIAL PERMIT pursuant to Zoning By -law Section 139- 33.A(1) in order to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling upon a pre- existing nonconforming lot. The relief is conditioned upon the following: a. The proposed alterations and expansion shall be done in substantial conformity with the plans approved in conjunction with Nantucket Historic District Commission Certificate of Appropriateness No. 64067, as the same may be amended from time to time; b. The project shall be done in accordance with the Construction Methodology and Engineering Plans, attached herewith as "Exhibit B "; C. There will be no more than one bedroom in the new finished basement as shown on basement floor plans, attached herewith as "Exhibit C "; d. There shall be no further construction involving exterior changes or expansion with further relief from this Board; e. The General Contractor, Site Manager, and/or Construction Supervisor will provide all contact information to the Zoning Administrator and any abutters who request it; f. Kite Hill Lane will not be used for parking of construction vehicles or vehicles belonging to people working on the site. g. There shall be no exterior construction between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any given year relative to construction contemplated under this decision. SIGNATURE, PAGE_TO..FOLLOW 6 Assessor's Map 42.4.4, Parcel 63 1 Kite Hill Lane Residential Old Historic (ROH) Dated: 2 ,2015 Book 1484, Page 185 NO PLAN Michael J. O'M ////" erim Koseatac (opposed) Susan McCarthy COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of Nantucket, ss On the _� day of OC.cem6t' 2015, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Lisa. -bo tic[l i , one of the above -named members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Nantucket, Massachusetts, personally known to me to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and acknowledged that he signecthe foregoing instrument voluntarily for the purposes therein expressed. O fic'al Signature and Seal of Notaiy Public S/ DORIS C. STRANG My commission expires: 1,61111 ww r ; `r Notary Public Massachusetts ='Y, ,•° Commission Expires Oct 9. 2020 Yp �$s n ep 4z.4.4 -G4 3= KOt3ERT E. -�-PPLZ LDT C WAND CURT 15ZOG - C NANTUCKET BUIL ING DEPT. Date 4 ' r9 -- By �Y, 4Z. 4.4 - 69 AI_DYS CWAPMAI.1 DEED /,G -9/ Fi-AJV 30Ok 23 -37 40. DEED pq'D 4O.OZ L.C. .w FRAM E- DW-,L.LING 42.4.4 - 6Z 39'' -.� w JOK✓J G.REENSE2GEi2 OPEN PoRCN N p LAWD COURT 40903 -X b is U.P 1 •, '. � a 3q SDI /T, //- 19.73 4 `kMSET AV 4'�� EJ v DENOTES CONCRETE 43OU1,1D FOUND ZOLL..r CLASSIFICATION, R.O.,H... EXISTING: MIN. AREAi .. SODO SF. 1.787 ? SF. MIN. FRONTAGE; ...5Q, FT-.. FRONT YARD $.B.:. REAR 6 SIDE S, B. o .. $FT.. p " . GROUND COVER 1 %1, . $Q A, .. Ze.S.� �$s n ep 4z.4.4 -G4 3= KOt3ERT E. -�-PPLZ LDT C WAND CURT 15ZOG - C NANTUCKET BUIL ING DEPT. Date 4 ' r9 -- By �Y, 4Z. 4.4 - 69 AI_DYS CWAPMAI.1 DEED /,G -9/ Fi-AJV 30Ok 23 -37 40. DEED pq'D 4O.OZ L.C. .w FRAM E- DW-,L.LING 42.4.4 - 6Z 39'' -.� w JOK✓J G.REENSE2GEi2 OPEN PoRCN N p LAWD COURT 40903 -X b is U.P 1 •, '. � a 3q SDI /T, //- 19.73 4 `kMSET AV 4'�� EJ v DENOTES CONCRETE 43OU1,1D FOUND 11% of R� U-F DENOTES EX/ST /NG UTIL /TY POLE LEO y ' L.C. DENOTES LAND COURT PLAN D ISTANCE ofilm o No.33030 0 ' '2s '�✓C'SU ' 4 +' • �CNAI LAN06`� '�rrrvv % BUILDING LOCATION PLAN I CERTIFY, GI ) I IA ... . . .D- . THAT THE BUILDINGj51 IS /ARE LOCATED ON THE OF LAND W SHOWN HEREON. NANTUCKET, }U'll' ¶T,f'KET, 1RAf ASS. 1V I111V ll IU=IS'' Z7AS C ,' / i�crT�r+, 6-1 SGALE T '= 15' DATE: Ce - IS "93 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR Owneri$RN�F X.,KORU SK$vfREl,IIJQAL,KDm )SI(E, THIS PLOT PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET_ BUILDING DEPARTMENT ONLY AND Dead: BIC,40'(T'<,{,,3 plan: .NQNE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A PROPERTY LINE SURVEY. THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT RE USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES, FENCES, HEDGES OR Locus: ONE, KITE H /LL,L!+NF - , _ , , , . ANY ANCILLARY STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISES. - THE PROPERTY EOFSRECORD ELY ON CURRENT BLACKW ELL &ASSOCIATES, irt0. DEEDS AND PLANS THIS PLOT PLAN IS NOT A CERTIFICATION AS TO 8 YOUIVGS WAY TITLE OR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN. OWNERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ARE SHOWN NANTUCKET, MASS. 02554 ACCORDING TO CURRENT ASSE$OR RECORDS. (50 8) 228- 9026 ASSESSOR MAP: 4 ;.9.4, , PARCEL: 63.. . NOT TO BE RECORDED. B -356(D "EXILZiT A" EXHIBIT B CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY 1 Kite Hill Lane ZBA Application — File No. 31 -15. An UNDERPINNED FOUNDATION will include the following measures: • Protect the common way with the use of heavy planting; • Remove necessary landscaping material from the front of the property; • Removing existing front porch; • Create opening in foundation wall for access; • Excavate no more than 3 feet wide sections under existing foundation to be spaced 3 feet apart from each other; • Pour footings in new excavation; • Install forms at the inside face of the foundation wall; • Block in new foundation from new footing to existing foundation; • After the first sections of foundation are complete, split the span of remaining existing foundation and repeat the process until completion; • Underpinning will extend approximately 4 inches inside the existing foundation wall. If there is a footing, the inside will be removed (sawcut off) prior to underpinning in order to minimize intrusion into the existing basement; • The interior of the foundation space will then be excavated to full height; • A one sided form will be built and a foundation wall will be poured on the interior to connect the existing foundation to the new lower foundation and create a monolithic structure. • & ADDITION: • There will be no vibrating of sheet or shoring materials; • There will be no exterior sheet piling; • The exterior dimension of the foundation will remain as they currently are; • Access to Kite Hill Lane will remain open; • All construction vehicles will be parked either on -site or along West Chester Street, Centre Street, or Cliff Road; • If Kite Hill Lane needs to be temporarily blocked, ample notification will be given to abutters (at least 48 hours in advance); • During times of temporary blockage to Kite Hill Lane, Public Safety vehicles will have access to all homes on Kite Hill Lane in case of life and safety issues; • No disturbance to the abutters electrical, sewer, water, or internet service is foreseen. If any issue arises, all abutters affected will be notified and the cost will be the responsibility of the contractor; • There will be no impact on neighboring foundations, because the existing foundation is at the same level as the foundation of the surrounding properties; • Contractor will be available to abutters via phone, email, or on site meeting; • No exterior construction will be done between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any year of this project. 1"EXHIBIT B" J FI ( I I I I VW']a,onlueN'u1111H iqIN T �9lFX�'&Kal l ➢[6F6FF. �Pl J I tm Pri' g;�1i1i1i 11 O ��.�a�� ,7I7 QlLrmaW°r� o q A-I GIRH 35� 1� R &� ,g e `R T.11a E 1u o c5F'c U ! "Hip #@g� 9tl 3S 9f� F9 X16 = E� �g 11 ^a �R 9 kp' _ F_ R E � @_ lie a & ae Q44; 'S Hill �� �@ � � �� � � �� a It E E Q MHsesi 49y B� � a 3� pp��� y€ r �� ���, a i-C� y e H� ' a5 gFi 5 BUR ell 3 "9C9i n Ark i 3R e 1 5 k_ z 33 iA 24-11111 al aka 6 H '� �: 3 � 38 � � a� ��� 2& 1a fro g�ElS s� y�3 L� C H e -a zw.g Etl�aR k 3i §�6 �s esE a V �e 3111; ITT' 12H �s 1 Re g A '1Eg giga y k 40 No i:sp 5� id I x ily I - ti m .111 ° Fa 3 3 it, ! 1 iy@ a C q HIM a 1 €. ■� 29 �� 3 I! a E R g! Fq� 5 i1_ "s Him .1. o.a n F �? 9 1"EXHIBIT B" fit I I I I I I I I I I tlW '7a�pn3ueN 'U'I IIIH a]Di i � T,�.�.e y r � "� S9lPlll9x�l[9RflZ16f�RL j i i i I I I III Ol SNOLLMOGY W- fao�� y b.y yy 9 +. .fig 3@ E ri mm0• - qq`ygyg33 t! a ann,mth G _ all IN — 1I I k ¢ —S F — O $ I 0 y 3 e 191.[hIDl/J � > e i �0 �o 0 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN � 9 K Y AA 1Z .1 n°�iL • 1"EXHIBIT C' I 4 is r In 0 =2 n1 . � Y J 1 ED N AA 1Z .1 n°�iL • 1"EXHIBIT C' I TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 MEMORANDUM jown %.:ierK gUlldl►1g Town & County 16 Broad St WtUCKet, MA 02664 jAN 1120'16 °`0z_,.2!9 Date: January 11, 2016 To: Town Clerk From: Eleanor Weller Antonietti, Zoning Administrator Re: Zoning Board Decision #31 -15— TECHNICAL CORRECTION The above referenced ZBA Decision regarding 1 KITE HILL LANE, filed with the Town Clerk on January 7, 2016, requires minor modification to correct an inadvertent typographical error on Page 6. The corrected page is filed herewith. This minor modification will neither effect the content of the relief contained in the decision nor the completed appeal period. Please attach this page to the front of the existing Decision so that it may be recorded in its entirety. Thank you. Eleanor W. Antonietti, Zoning Administrator COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of Nantucket, ss On the 114 day of anLka-v' Y , 2016, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared = , one of the above -named members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Nantucket, Massachusetts, personally known to me to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing inst ent voluntaril for urposes therein expressed. DORIS C. STRANG IC ffici Signature and-Seal of Not Public t, Massachusetts My commission expires: �r� y,� Commission Expires Oct 9.2020 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508 - 228 -7215 telephone 508 - 228 -7298 facsimile Town & County Building .sapNTUC/rF�'� 16 Broad St o� Nantucket, MA 02554 � ua (u't' {{ i 1di�l i♦ Town & County Building 9p�flAlEO TOWN OF NANTUCKET 16 Broad St Nantucket, MA 02554 BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date: December 30, 2015 To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decision of The BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Application No: 31 -15 Current Owners /Applicant: ANJONIC REAL ESTATE 13 COMPANY, LLP; NOREEN CLARKE'NECINA; ELENA EVANGELISTA; and MAUREEN DUNPHY 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. Eleanor W. Antonietti, Zoning Administrator 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 - 325 -7587. NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Assessor's Map 42.4.4, Parcel 63 1 Kite Hill Lane Residential Old Historic (ROH) DECISION: Book 1484, Page 185 NO PLAN 1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals ( "ZBA "), opened at 1:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 8, 2015, Thursday, November 12, 2015, and closed on Thursday, December 10, 2015, in the Conference Room, at 4 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, the Board made the following Decision on the application of ANJONIC REAL ESTATE 13 COMPANY, LLP; NOREEN CLARKE'NECINA; ELENA EVANGELISTA; and MAUREEN DUNPHY, c/o Anthony Colella, GP, 330 East 43rd Street, #605, New York, New York, 10017, File No. 31 -15. *: * N.W: See also ZBA Decision File No. 30 -15 granted to BENJAMIN M. MCGRATH & LINDA B. MCGRATH and DAVID B. DILLARD & ANNA -KARIN DILLARD, as APPELLANTS, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford, LLP, 6 Young's Way, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584. This decision upheld an appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision File 15 -15 granted to Anjonic Real Estate 13 Company, LLP et al, pursuant to Zoning By -law Sections 139 - 29.C(3) and 139 -31 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 8. Appellants were further granted a determination that the proposed project to alter a pre - existing nonconforming structure requires a Special Permit and pursuant to Section 139 -33 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 6. 2. Applicant requests special permit relief pursuant to Zoning By -law Section 139- 33.A(1) in order to alter the pre - existing nonconforming dwelling. The structure is sited within the side and rear yard setbacks. The work consists of raising the structure, removing the existing foundation and an access to the crawl space, installing a full basement, lowering the structure back down onto a new poured concrete foundation, and adding three window wells. The Locus, an undersized lot of record, is situated at 1 Kite Hill Lane, is shown on Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map 42.4.4 as Parcel 63. Evidence of owner's title is in Book 1484, Page 185 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The property is zoned Residential Old Historic (ROH). 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 matters of planning concern were presented. Opposition, both written and oral, was presented at the public hearing. 4. Attorney John B. Brescher represented the applicant at all three hearings. Additional testimony regarding this project in favor of the application was received from Maureen Dunphy (partial owner), Frank Daily (General Contractor), Thornewill Design LLC (Architect), and Stephen J. Goan (Structural Engineer). 5. At the initial hearing on October 8, 2015, attorneys for both the Appellant in the above - referenced appeal and the Applicant agreed to open the related hearings for ZBA Application File Nos. 30 -15 and 31 -15. The Board found that, in consideration of testimony given in ZBA File No. 30 -15 and No. 31 -15, the decision of the Zoning Administrator should be overturned. The Board made a simultaneous and related determination that the Applicant's proposed project requires relief by Special Permit pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139 -33 and M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 6, to be considered at a regularly scheduled and duly noticed Public Hearing in order to allow all abutters and neighbors to have the opportunity to present evidence as to additional matters of concern regarding the standard of substantial detriment to the neighborhood from the proposed work, which it was and was subsequently opened on Thursday October 8, 2015. Therefore, ZBA Application File No. 31 -15 remained open pending further testimony. 6. The Locus, as shown on plan entitled, `Building Location Plan of Land in Nantucket, Mass. ", dated June 15, 1993, prepared by Blackwell & Associates, Inc., and attached herewith as "Exhibit A ", is an undersized lot of record having an approximate lot area of 1,787 square feet in the Residential Old Historic (ROH) zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The locus is also pre - existing nonconforming as to frontage, having 31.51 feet of frontage on Kite Hill Lane (slkla Sunset Hill Avenue) where minimum required frontage is fifty (50) feet. The premises are improved with a 510 square foot dwelling, having an existing ground cover ratio of 28.5% where a maximum of 50% is allowed. The structure, said to pre -exist the local adoption of the zoning by -law in 1972, is pre - existing nonconforming as to side and rear yard setbacks, being sited as close as 1.3 feet from the westerly side yard lot line, three (3) feet from the easterly side yard lot line, and 2.8 feet from the northerly rear yard lot line, where five (5) foot side and rear yard setbacks are required. There is one available parking space on the lot in compliance with requirement of 139 -183 for the ROH zoning district. 7. As explained by Attorney Brescher, the Applicant proposes to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling. The work consists of raising the structure to remove and replace a concrete block foundation and crawl space with a new finished basement to contain up to two new bedrooms, a new parged foundation, and three basement window wells, two (2) on the north elevation and one (1), intended to provide egress, on the west elevation of the dwelling. (The Board was reminded that window wells have traditionally been treated as retaining walls and the Building Department has historically exempted them from being considered with regards to setbacks as they are not a "structure ".) The structure will be set back down on a new poured concrete foundation without any change to its footprint or its height. Additional exterior alterations, which do not require relief from this Board, consist of adding windows, siting a `BILCO" bulkhead access beneath the porch, and a new front porch door. While some of said work will be done within the required five (5) foot side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed alterations will be no closer to the side or rear yard lot lines than the 3 existing structure and, as such, will not result in an increase to the pre - existing non - conforming side and rear yard setback intrusions, and will not create any new nonconformities. The project benefits from Nantucket Historic District Commission approval by virtue of Certificate of Appropriateness No. 64067, as the same may be amended from time to time. 8. Over the course of the three hearings, the Board heard substantial opposition to the project. Along with counsel for the Appellants, several abutters — many of whom had also submitted written opposition — appeared at the hearing to express various concerns related to the impact on the neighborhood. Further Testimony was received from an engineer and a consulting excavating contractor. Those expressing concerns collectively maintained that substantial site constraints inevitably impact the construction methodology and best practices must be incorporated and adhered to throughout the construction process. The principal contention was that the proposed alterations would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformities because 1) they could potentially cause damage to the adjacent lot and the structures thereon; 2) they would increase the existing nonconformity by increasing the massing of the structure within the nonconforming setback area; 3) an intensification of use by doubling the sleeping capacity of a very small house on a very small lot would overburden the Locus and the narrow roadway; and 4) the lack of adequate access for construction machinery and vehicles via Kite Hill Lane which is too narrow to accommodate such vehicles and parking thereon. (Kite Hill Lane is an easement which is a portion of the land known as 5 Kite Hill Lane.) 9. Carl Jelleme of Toscana Corp., a consultant for the abutters, explained how the foundation would have to be constructed in order to avoid structural damage to neighboring properties. According to him, under the originally proposed construction methodology, they would have to over - excavate onto the neighbors' property (involving their approval), with underpinning of the existing foundation to avoid any disturbance to adjacent lots. An earth retention system would be needed to drive steel sheathing — which could be a serious challenge with this Locus. He also stated that a preconstruction survey of every structure within two hundred (200) feet should be obtained to better monitor any impact on adjacent lots during construction. 10. John Stover, Professional Engineer and consultant for the abutters, expressed concerns regarding the impact of driving piles. Specifically, he maintained that this process could consolidate and destabilize soils in such a way as to cause a damaging effect on buildings within twenty (20) feet. He strongly urged the Board to require geotechnical engineering assessment of the site and soil testing. 11. Numerous representatives for the applicant assured the Board that best practices would be consistently and reliably applied with this renovation project. More specifically, construction vehicles would be parked on the premises or off site and not on Kite Hill Lane. The Applicant acknowledged the neighborhood concerns regarding access and the potential for the foundation work to have a negative impact on surrounding structures. In an effort to mitigate the alleged intensification of use, the applicant reduced the number of proposed bedrooms in the basement 4 from two to one. It was further explained that the work will be done according to all applicable building code regulations, and that the contact information of the site manager and General Contractor will be given to all neighbors. 12. The Board established that the work that will be done, if not done very carefully, will have a substantial and potentially detrimental impact on the neighborhood. With that in mind, the Board requested that the applicant submit a thorough engineering survey and adequate documentation of the manner in which the work will proceed. After substantial discussion, the applicant agreed to provide a detailed Construction Methodology and corresponding documentation in order that the Board may further evaluate and review the establishment of best practices in terms of structural engineering. 13. At the third and final hearing on December 10, 2015, the Board reviewed the revised and refined Construction Methodology and corresponding engineering plans submitted, as requested, by the Applicant. Testimony was received from Structural Engineer, Stephen I Goan, as consultant to the Applicant. Mr. Goan responded to recommendations made by consultants for the opposition and explained in detail the site preparation, excavation, installation of the concrete forms and the underpinning of the foundation. The applicant elected to use the underpinning method of construction rather than the sheet piling. 14. As explained by Mr. Goan, the dwelling is a small light building which readily allows for underpinning in 3 -foot sections. This gradual process is designed to mitigate any undue negative impact on adjacent buildings and properties. The structure on the adjacent property is approximately twelve (12) feet away from the subject structure. The basement is clear of the eight (8) foot "line of influence ". The approximate effect around the building is at most three (3) feet. The porch will be taken out on the bottom level. The front foundation wall will be cut out to enable a gradual excavation. Concrete will be pumped in 3 -foot sections as a continuous pour, with trenches in a various locations. There will be no sheet piling. Mr. Goan adding that hiring a geotechnical engineer is not a standard requirement with a residential project. As to the recommendation to conduct soil tests, test pits and soil borings examine subsurface conditions, this is done with a boring rig and a vibratory hammer whereby the number of blows per foot is the basis for calculations. The vibrations resulting from this process could reverberate to the structures on the adjacent lots. The applicant is seeking to avoid such potentially damaging vibrations. 15. Based upon the testimony received at the hearings, the site plan, the Construction Methodology and related Engineering Plan, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a determination that the requested relief may be granted based upon the findings that the proposed project will not make the existing nonconforming setback distances more nonconforming and will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformities, provided that the detailed the Construction Methodology is strictly adhered to so as to avoid both any damage to neighboring properties and any negative impact on the neighborhood. Furthermore, the Board acknowledged that they have no jurisdiction relative to the number of bedrooms on the 6 � SEE replacement page with correction. operiy because the residential use (e.g., the be (rooms for a single - family, dwelling) are an - -- al ed -use in -the ROH zoning district. - -- - 16. ordingly, by a MAJORITY vote (four in favor and one opposed) of the sitting ard, the Zonin oard of Appeals GRANTS the reques d relief by SPECIAL PERNIIT p uant to Zoning By- Section 139- 33.A(1) in order to ater the pre- existing nonconfo dwelling upon a pre -ex g nonconforming lot. The relief i conditioned upon the followin a. The proposed alterations 2 id expansion shall be do in substantial onfonnity with the plan approved m conjuncts with Nantucket toric District Commissio Certificate of Appropr' eness No. 64067, as the e may be amended fr m time to time; b. The pr ' ct shall be doe in accordanc with the Construction Methodol and Engineeri g Plans, attac herewith as "Exhibit B"; C. There will be more than ne bedro in the new finished basement as shown on basem floor pl s, att ed herewith as "Exhibit C"; d. There shall be no her co traction involving exterior changes or expansion with further r 'e m this Board; e. The General Contractor, anager, and/or Construction Supervisor will provide all conta rrlf rm 'on to the Zoning Administrator and any abutters who reques ; £ Kite Hill Lane ill not A used for king of construction vehicles or vehicles be] mg to peopl working on e site. g. There shgA be no exterior f onstruction betwAk Memorial Day and Labor Day oyany given year rcVtive to constructiokeontemplated under this 6 property because the residential use (e.g., the bedrooms for a single - family dwelling) are an allowed use in the ROH zoning district. 16. Accordingly, by a MAJORITY vote (four in favor and one opposed) of the sitting Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals GRANTS the requested relief by SPECIAL PERMIT pursuant to Zoning By -law Section 139- 33.A(1) in order to alter the pre- existing nonconforming dwelling upon a pre- existing nonconforming lot. The relief is conditioned upon the following: a. The proposed alterations and expansion shall be done in substantial conformity with the plans approved in conjunction with Nantucket Historic District Commission Certificate of Appropriateness No. 64067, as the same may be amended from time to time; b. The project shall be done in accordance with the Construction Methodology and Engineering Plans, attached herewith as "Exhibit B "; C. There will be no more than one bedroom in the new finished basement as shown on basement floor plans, attached herewith as "Exhibit C "; d. There shall be no further construction involving exterior changes or expansion vok4 without' further relief from this Board; e. The General Contractor, Site Manager, and/or Construction Supervisor will provide all contact information to the Zoning Administrator and any abutters who request it; f. Kite Hill Lane will not be used for parking of construction vehicles or vehicles belonging to people working on the site. g. There shall be no exterior construction between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any given year relative to construction contemplated under this decision. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 1 Correction of typographical error made by Eleanor Weller Antonietti, Zoning Administrator, on January]], 2016. J Assessor's Map 42.4.4, Parcel 63 1 Kite Hill Lane Residential Old Historic (ROH) Dated: 2 30 2015 Book 1484, Page 185 NO PLAN Aa ie/ 6* Michael J. O'M erim Koseatac (opposed) Susan McCarthy COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of Nantucket, ss On the �dll day of - ecem6v, 2015, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Lisa. -$o 4Ict) i ,one of the above -named members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Nantucket, Massachusetts, personally known to me to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and acknowledged that he signecithe foregoing instrument voluntarily for the purposes therein expressed. ' I ' ,d Orfidal Signature and Seal of No Public 5 s DORIS C. STRANG My commission expires: 1,61012020 _1.- `; Notary Public Massachusetts °�,rf•� commission Expires Oct 9, 2020 7 4z.4.4 - 64 ROBERT E. cPPLl= ILO7 -C LAMD CW1RT /3ZOG - C r� APPROVED NANTUCKET i3Ul� DEPT. Data 6 - ev 42.4.4- 69-. ALDYS CKAPMAN DEZD 14 -91 PLAN axe Z3 -3Z 40' DEED 7O�.qq'TDj AO.DZ L.C. -M 3.0 F-AM E" Dl,/> =i11MG 3.9 . LI OPEX PORCH N W NN h V si 73: kA I,NS" 4 AVE) 42.4.4 - CZ JOKA/ GRPEEN3E2GZZ LANs CDt19T 4003 -A v DENOTES col/CR47E aOUA/D FDUWD ZOL.., CLASSIFICATION, RO ;H,.. EXISTING: MIN. AREA... , . 5000,SF. I•(&Ti SF,, MIN. FRONTAGE :... 54, FT, . . $¢ ?iAX. FRONT YARD $.a, XPJD ; . REAR d SIDE S. S.. , . SFT•, , ^ " , . GROUND COVER IY.I:. 4z.4.4 - 64 ROBERT E. cPPLl= ILO7 -C LAMD CW1RT /3ZOG - C r� APPROVED NANTUCKET i3Ul� DEPT. Data 6 - ev 42.4.4- 69-. ALDYS CKAPMAN DEZD 14 -91 PLAN axe Z3 -3Z 40' DEED 7O�.qq'TDj AO.DZ L.C. -M 3.0 F-AM E" Dl,/> =i11MG 3.9 . LI OPEX PORCH N W NN h V si 73: kA I,NS" 4 AVE) 42.4.4 - CZ JOKA/ GRPEEN3E2GZZ LANs CDt19T 4003 -A v DENOTES col/CR47E aOUA/D FDUWD OF �wf'g,_ uP.. �y DEIJOTES EXiSTJNG UTILITY POLE `�EFQtl LEO L.C. DENOTES LAND HURT PLAN DISTAAIClr ASADOORIAN y 1= II o Na, 33920 0 "2' RTCISTCR4� QJ' . I LMIO P�5 ( BUILDING LOCATION PLAN I CERTIFY, AS I I .... , OC . , THE THE BUILDINGf51 IS /ARE LOCATED ON THE CAF LAND IN GROUN AS SHOWN HEREON. MASS. NANTUCKET, p ASS. c- ' SOALE 1 '= 15' DATE: In - IS -93 PR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR • Owners SRDV>;x.,Kpm{sK . fiELINDA THIS PLOT PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET BUILDING DEPARTMENT ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A PROPERTY LINE pdad:.BX�AILT .� 3 .. Plan:. NQNEi SURVEY. THIS PLAN SHOULD NDT RE USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES, FENCES, HE OR Locus:. CN F, K {TE NJLL,LPN €, ANY ANCILLARY STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISES, _ THE PROPERTY ESFLY ON CURRENT DEEDS AND PLANS OF RECORD. �BLACKWELL & ASSOCIATES, IRO. THIS LE OR OWNERSHIP PROPERTY TITLE HOWN. 6 YOUNGS WAY OWNERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ARE SHOWN NANTUCKET, MASS. 02664 ACCORDING TO CURRENT ASSE$OR RECORDS. 228- 902fi ASSESSOR MAP; 4�r•9•k. , PARCEL: ,6,3, , , NOT TO BE RECORDED, $_3566 —H.— 17EXH —' -.—A"- A" EXHIBIT B CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY 1 Kite Hill Lane ZBA Application — File No. 31 -15. An UNDERPINNED FOUNDATION will include the following measures: • Protect the common way with the use of heavy planting; • Remove necessary landscaping material from the front of the property; • Removing existing front porch; • Create opening in foundation wall for access; • Excavate no more than 3 feet wide sections under existing foundation to be spaced 3 feet apart from each other; • Pour footings in new excavation; • Install forms at the inside face of the foundation wall; • Block hi new foundation from new footing to existing foundation; • After the first sections of foundation are complete, split the span of remaining existing foundation and repeat the process until completion; • Underpinning will extend approximately 4 inches inside the existing foundation wall. If there is a footing, the inside will be removed (sawcut off) prior to underpinning in order to minimize intrusion into the existing basement; ■ The interior of the foundation space will then be excavated to full height; ■ A one sided form will be built and a foundation wall will be poured on the interior to connect the existing foundation to the new lower foundation and create a monolithic structure. ' IN ADDITION: ■ There will be no vibrating of sheet or shoring materials; ■ There will be no exterior sheet piling; ■ The exterior dimension of the foundation will remain as they currently are; ■ Access to Kite Hill Lane will remain open; ■ All construction vehicles will be parked either on -site or along West Chester Street, Centre Street, or Cliff Road; ■ If Kite Hill Lane needs to be temporarily blocked, ample notification will be given to abutters (at least 48 hours in advance); ■ During times of temporary blockage to Kite Hill Lane, Public Safety vehicles will have access to all homes on Kite Hill Lane in case of life and safety issues; • No disturbance to the abutters electrical, sewer, water, or internet service is foreseen. If any issue arises, all abutters affected will be notified and the cost will be the responsibility of the contractor; • There will be no impact on neighboring foundations, because the existing foundation is at the same level as the foundation of the surrounding properties; • Contractor will be available to abutters via phone, email, or on site meeting; • No exterior construction will be done between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any year of this project. -------------- V)4'IWn4u-N '-I 111H -IN T o to YN hpw 0 01 SNOU VAON3U 4p it 6 I a 'Pill, NO tf [_� A J8 Lid tip 19 oj2 is g3 RIB g 'H IRM R! ............... .21 PH ,z Min Bill 11 H11 'a 1, 1 _F 1 P_ RIM I'; Htj OR 9I a 26 e . I lap i z 1 9 It 1 2M 'min i i Id H I I pm 2 Y IN fill Ell E El HIM H1 1� 1 11 I"EXHIBIT B" VW'lWtgmN'u711W WDIT ^� S➢IF-97C9X'aa'l9li$R'6+53'+1 01 SNOLLVAON3d - .: m W� .; —.21, X11 ilia i euninafrY �F= x i — 0 3338111 —� euninafrY �F= x i — 3338111 —� —dl U' G , �5• if 4 1 � 1 I O ` qi. � ass I sus 3a a� r LJ19 it 1 � 1 I O ` qi. � 9 f t— Kggqo . I III i t!- j =o Y BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN -�A O 4 14 OT v ��5 n •I I I I I -� o v 9 J c�u C I"EXHIBIT C"