HomeMy WebLinkAbout084-85TOWN OF NANTUCKET
i 1 ♦ a 4
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
September 23, 1985
o �Lf -P5
Re: JANE CHERMAYEFF FOR HERSELF AND CHARLES DE FLANDRE (084 -85)
Enclosed, please find notice of a decision of the BOARD
OF APPEALS which has this day been filed with the Town
Clerk.
Any appeal from this action shall be made pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and shall
be filed within twenty (20) days after this date.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEAI,S
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
DECISION:
At a Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS held on FRIDAY, SEPTEM-
BER 13, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket,
in the matter of the Application of JANE CHERMAYEFF, FOR HERSELF AND
CHARLES DE FLANDRE, OWNER (084 -85), address 58 Highland Street, Cambridge,
MA 02138, the Board finds:
1. Applicant, for herself and the owner, seeks a SPECIAL PERMIT to
enlarge an existing single- family residence to provide herself with an
artist's studio in such residence and additionally with a small, first -
floor gallery space for display and retail sale of works of art. To the
extent enlargement of the residence (for retail use) brings with it a re-
quirement for off - street parking under Zoning By -Law SECTION 139 -18A,
Applicant further seeks a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -18G, as amended,
for relief from the requirement of parking spaces beyond those which can
properly be provided on the property. Its location is 2 ASH LANE, Lot 93,
Assessor's Map 42.4.2 recently rezoned from Residential to RESIDENTIAL -
COMMERCIAL.
Z. From the Application papers and Applicant at the hearing, we find
that the residence pre -dates the Zoning By -Law and is non - conforming as to
lot size. Section 139 -33 is applicable and requires our finding whether or
not the proposed expansion of the structure upward on the same footprint is
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We recognize that add-
ing the second story to this single- family residence, there being no in-
cursion into the required setbacks or other instance of increasing a non-
conformity, may be done without any special permit (or variance). Since
the present use as a residence is conforming and , with recent change to
R -C Zoning, the proposed retail use is-likewise conforming, no Special Per-
mit is required for altering use to include retail sales after the second
story is added. In any event, apart from parking, no evidence was received
that Applicant's proposal would be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood.
(084 -85) -2-
3. Having disposed of the Section 139 -33 request, we turn to the
parking requirements arising with enlargement of the structure coupled
with addition of the retail use. (Arguably, no off - street parking require-
ment would arise with simple addition of a second floor with residential
use only, Ch. 40A MGL §6.) The Planning Board's recommendation was unfavor-
able "because parking is already limited in the area." No further opposi-
tion was heard from nor relevant evidence adduced against Applicant.
4. However, this Board is mindful that the Board of Selectmen have
expressed strong concern that we adhere more closely to the (in -Town)
parking requirement in such cases. Letter of June 7, 1985. Similar broad
concern has been expressed by the Planning Board and publicized locally.
5. The present footprint is about 600 SF. Assuming retail space
occupies more that 100 SF of it, one off - street space is required in addi-
tion to one for the residential use. Unless two or more employees of Appli-
cant are contemplated then only two spaces would be required (though 5
spaces were spoken of at the hearing). Applicant, to save a sizeable tree,
proposes two spaces end -to -end along the easterly line. As the Assistant
Building Inspector noted, the end -to -end provision for two cars, e.g.,
owner's and one customer's would under the By -Law only meet the requirement
for one space.
6. As amended by ATM 4/2/85 Article 16, Section 139 -18G provides
that we may grant Applicant parking relief by Special Permit upon finding
"(a) that the granting of such relief is in harmony with the general pur-
poses and intent of the By -Law (chapter); and (b) that the provision of
off - street parking as required by the By -Law (chapter) is physically im-
possible for the Applciant to provide or, if physically practical, would
have a significant and adverse effect on the scenic and historic integrity
of the neighborhood."
7. Not making such finding, the majority voted, upon motion to grant
such relief, in the NEGATIVE. A dissenting opinion of the acting Chairman
who voted to grant relief, is attached. Relief was thus DENIED.
(084 -85)
Dated: September23, 1985
Nantucket, MA 02554
-3-
Andrew J. Leddy
Dorothy D. Vollans
V
C. Ma shall Be le
Re: Application 084 -85, Charles de Flandr_e, Owner,
Jane Chermayeff, Applicant
I must respectfully dissent from the decision of my
colleagues in this Application. The reasons for my doing so require,
I believe, some background concerning the zoning applicable to the
premises at 2 Ash Lane.
By the time of Town Meeting in April, 1984, the premises
under discussion in this Application were the sole (quite small) parcel
on the south side of Ash Lane still zoned Residential Old Historic,
which effectively prevented any form of commercial use except as a
neighborhood service establishment or for a customary home occupation.
The remainder of the south side of Ash Lane had lost its purely res-
idential nature by zoning or fact. Further, the premises were generally
felt to be unrealistic as a pure residence because of the commercial
activity (especially of restaurants) on the rear lot lines of the
southerly abuttors on Broad Street. Consequently, there were fundamental
questions of fairness in leaving this one lot in the Residential Old
Historic zone. After careful consideration, the Planning Board
recommended "straightening out" the zoning boundary along Ash Lane so
as to include this parcel in the Residential- Commercial zone. Thus,
a straight zoning boundary was established which ran down the middle
of Ash Lane. Questions of any unfairness with regard to this isolated
parcel or of "spot zoning by default" (i.e. commercial activities had
come to surround it by either "grandfathering ", by a "ziq -zag" zoning
line or by action of the Board of Appeals previously) appeared to be
ended. It was felt that the straightening out of the zoning line would
also conform to what had in fact become the nature of the south side of
Ash Lane, namely, an area of "soft" commercial use which was effectively
a narrow transition zone between the intensive commercial use of Broad
Street to the south and the residential /rooming house character of the
area to the north of Ash Lane.
In the instant Application, relief from the parking re-
quirements of the Zoning By -Law appeared to be required because it was
proposed to enlarge the building upwards to allow its use as an artist's
residence and exhibition space. The footprint of the building would
not be increased and the visual characteristics of a building which by
no stretch of the imagination could be considered harmonious with the
surrounding neighborhood would be altered by a reconstruction marvel-
ously in harmony with its environment. It is inconceivable to me that
the proposed changes would be other than a great improvement to the
premises and would be other than the sort of "soft" commercial use
which is desirable in a narrow transitional zone.
When this Application came before the Board, no opposition
was voice by neighbors and no letters of opposition were received.
There was no discussion of any realistically expected impact of the
proposed use of the premises upon the well -known parking difficulties
which exist in downtown Nantucket.
AJL: Dissent re Application 084 -85
Page Two
In fact, the Applicant was requesting only a reduction in
the technically required number of parking spaces which it was believed
the Zoning By -Law required for the proposed use. In addition to the
unrealistic and abstract quality of the parking requirement in light of
the proposed use, a reduction in the parking requirement would allow
the retention of green space and foliage on the premises instead of
turning the area not occupied by the building into a barren parking lot.
In light of the foregoing, I find the Board's denial of
the requested relief from the full rigors of the parking requirement
to be arbitrary and capricious for the following reasons:
1. It is a "Catch -22" to rezone an isolated parcel into
conformity with abutting parcels and then to deny a use ideally suited
to the premises by invoking the abstract formula of the parking re-
quirement;
2. There was no discussion of the actual impact upon
parking in the neighborhood or in downtown Nantucket of the proposed
reduction;
3. Recent decisions of the Board have granted much
greater relief from the parking requirement to nearby premises, relief
which will have far greater impact upon Nantucket;
4. Finally, this Board is specifically empowered by Section
139 -18G of the Zoning By -Law to grant relief from the parking requirement
in the area within which the subject premises lie if such relief is (a)
in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the By -Law and (b)
the provision of parking would be either physically impossible or have
a significant and adverse effect on the scenic and historic integrity
of the neighborhood even if it should be physically possible to meet
the requirement. The Board failed to give these criteria adequate dis-
cussion and consideration.
5. In conclusion, I must say with great regret that taken
in the context of the evolution of the Zoning By -Law on Nantucket, the
nature of the neighborhood, the past decisions of the Board in nearby
Applications, and the criteria of proper adjudication of Applications,
I can only find this decision arbitrary and capricious. And I must add
as "footnotes" that,
(1) I find the parking requirements set forth in Section 18 -I of the
By -Law, when one attempts to interpret them with reference to the
instant Application, to be so ambiguous as to raise questions of
the amount of parking required for the proposed use if, in fact,
it is not wholly exempt from any additional parking requirement
because it is a traditional Nantucket home occupation; and
(2) as the Board failed to consider or decide the second request of
the Application for a Special Permit to expand a non - conforming
use (i.e. the extension upwards of a building on a non - conforming
lot) or whether such relief was in fact needed, there is a question
of whether this Application was fully heard and consequently
whether a valid Decision was made.
91 -
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. in the TOWN AND COUNTY
BUILDING, FEDERAL AND BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET, on the Application
of JANE CHERMAYEFF, FOR HERSELF AND CHARLES DE FLANDRE, OWNER
(084 -85) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT for 'relief from the full off -
street parking requirements of Zoning By -Law SECTION 139 -18, also
a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -33 allowing alteration of the
single - family dwelling on a subminimum lot to include gallery space.
The property is located at 2 ASH LANE, LOT 93, Plan 42.4.2 and
zoned RESIDENTIAL- COMMERCIAL.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS
-
AB -1•-
FEE $100.00
Case No.
APPLICA'T'ION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Nantucket, Massachusetts:
To the Members of the Board of Appeals:
The undersigned hereby applies for relief from the terms of
(ZO':Ir;G BY -',AW) (BUTLDINC CODE) on property described below:
r.cc. tion of Property. 2 ASH MA • 02�5�4
Lot No. #°)3 _ Plan No. It: 42' 4' 2
District is zoned for
Type of structure(Existing or Proposed) or proposed user %jU_ Q
Owner's Name q, ^PQ`ti
'2J r e s s rj 8 PA G," C4C4-� ST . ?--t Z c OC�� i�-Q�. • O ?� 3 8
Whin did you acquire this property? a'X1 W (9f S N CIJ
Has application been filed at Building Department? No
Has any previous appeal been made? 00 .+
Section of By -Law or Code from which relief is requested:
+
Reason for asking relief: ( 9 (8
LxDttEtoc�r- F�C_- _-
C�c�oE2�,t2EU Uc=)T Y�C.�Scit�C -� CIs� FQc' -� St► —�cD. F2C�s pCIJC
ATTACH: (1) A list of thq names
Signature o pplicant
and addresses of each abutting owner
and owner abutting the abutters, and owners within 300 feet.
(2) A check in the amount of $100.00 made payable to the Tzwn
of Nantucket.
(3) Four copies of the application and a map or plan showing
the location of the property to be considered.
(4) If the applicant is other than the owner, please indicate
your authority to make this application.
(\ BOARD'S DECISION
Application su muted to Board S
Advertising dates ^
Hearing date(s) -
Decision of Board
Decision filed with the Town Clerk _
ii
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OP APPEALS,- . -..4;
L-..t of parties in interest in the matter;of the..petitlon of:
Name J /6 J G
Address r--)S W GC-1 L, � ST 021 3 8
Property Address 2 ASH LAk---)E�,
421-4-2- C)S': co-xse cc�-f 4 ASi4 ST,.,
S `. (_s�cu- �EUIl,-�,A SC4, L,. ,' l�� UAu-�., -f Tco, �t�� , at. 021340
g I lJczss . e- toTr,1L ?rte , C"'&:5. V e-e se v , S ec:--(-�?cDk e� i M.
,;. . ;. • , X0870
S t AL TTY (F3F3 S I AS" `' ST.
3CeC7 ,�r�t -.cS ST
52 +IIj a.�x-c- co�..�� -i f Vac.�e2cE Cl�uc- u�cr�5 ��.. lob8%
174 (I! ST-._.
t 03 ....r
�. 87 5�-A s . �cu`y . C- Oa►T�2 ST-.
IJ,LV.- �I-vCKET � toC.SL�3J �LDro
61
/2 tiJA�-T. / e /A n S ze: ,-e TCY/S l / (2-ZE> Wtu— P—o.,
c)0,74 c.x)-(ue+ (r=xse ccx-ui -�.s 1-7 ST.
'7-7
78� 38 1 -c,oec -r P "(."P r -EU%.0 2c) P-42C>a,.o ST.
C"2TZ S + �gpr.� s , t Z 5�► —�S�T' u � �. -�rj , iJ,o��C' C r'T
0700
33e� + cD� ��-��� 45
3 4 eT-�e L-CDL --) ;:C�F&Tjer-> 24c"r'
`';�, c' � Tom, � • 33575
2 4 Gej=&a sT- .
I certify the foregoing is a list of persons who are owners of 1-,
abutting the property, owners of land abutting the abutters, own
of land directly opposite the property on any street or way, and
owners of land within 300 feet of the property, all as they appear
on the most recent applicable TAX list.
o�
Assessor
Town of Nantucket'\/•
$o Fsgeo-� -f-
94 t- -u-D2e:0 1p � S as4 s-r.
�r C4-TKe)21IJE 5 A-5" ST
Scn`sD-P I 68 l3 dc�, Sr ., `f , r1Y. looc4 4 2 + Rc_(- c2os�3y,
(42. 4.3' Zq)
83 J d5. l..cpTTA J2 /C_"QS . VCSE� , S P�OCiC`-PPOt OJT �p
43.44 , 45
42 3 .
7
7 8
n
SATRAN READE & MARINO, P. A.
ONE LIBERTY SQUARE
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109
6 1 7 1 423-4800
NEAL E. SATRAN
ARTHUR I. READS, JR.
PETER G. MARINO
ROBERT J. COTTON
WILLIAM R. MARINO
FRANCIS X. DEVER, JR.
NINA M. PARKER
SARAH F.ALGER
August 26, 1985
Mr. William Sherman, Chairman
Nantucket Board of Appeals
Broad Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Dear Mr. Sherman:
I, Charles de Flandre, being the owner
of record of the premises located at 2 Ash Lane,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, hereby consent to
the filing of the application brought by Jane
Borden Chermayeff and assent to its presenta-
tion to the Board.
Charles de Flandre
by his attorney:
Sarah F. Alger
Please reply to:
NANTUCKET OFFICE
P. O. BOX 2774
SPARKS AVENUE
NANTUCKET. MA 02584
16171 228 -3126