The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About092-86a TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 November 'Z/, 1986 Re: WILLIAM C. CAMERON AND WAYNE MOSHER (092 -86) 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 APPEALS l BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: The BOARD OF APPEALS, at a Public Hearing held on OCTOBER 14, 1986 in conjunction with the Nantucket Planning Board, in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, made the following Decision upon the Application of WILLIAM C. CAMERON AND WAYNE MOSHER (092 -86) address 40 Broad Street, Nantucket, MA 02554. 1. Applicants seek relief by VARIANCE from : t: (a) the intensity regulations SECTIONS 139 -16A and C of the Zoning Code to allow siting of a reconstructed building within the easterly and southerly side lot line setbacks, and with a ground cover exceeding the allowed 30% ground cover ratio; (b) the off - loading facilities SECTION 139 -19; and (c) the 30% open space requirement of SECTION 139 -9B (4)(f) applicable to Applicants' proposed Major Commercial Development ( "MCD"). 2. Applicants are concurrently seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT pursuant to SECTION 139 -9B(4) for their MCD and SECTION 139 -18G for waiver of the off - street parking requirement in its entirety. This relief is within the sole jurisdiction of the Nantucket Planning Board; see Section 139- 9B(4)(b) - which reached its decision immediately prior to ours, in their MCD File No. 8 -86. See also our prior Decision in 067 -86 dated 8/4/86. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers in this BOA proceeding, our prior 067 -86 and in Planning Board 8 -86, Planning Board staff report, correspondence, and viewings, and testimony and (092 -86) -2- representations at our hearings of September 5 (alone) and September 22 and October 14, 1986 (jointly with the Planning Board). 4. In this and companion case 8 -86, Applicants applied for relief as contract purchasers. We are advised that they are owners of the pre- mises. (Accordingly, Mary E. Paterson is no longer before us.) The premises are located at 10 BROAD STREET, Assessor's Parcel 42.4.2 -065, Land Court Plan 8269 -A in the zoning district RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL. In Applicants' statement of the relief sought, the relief by variance is limited to SECTION 139 -16 ( "for lot line setbacks ") and SECTION 139 -33A (the Code's provision for allowing alteration and extension - not reconstruction - of non - conforming structures by Special Permit after they are found to pre -exist the zoning requirement). A question remains whether this Board can properly grant the different variance relief now sought per paragraph 1 above. See DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 339 (1985). We note also that the Application states a proposal of continued bike shop use but Applicants apparently intend moped rentals as well. 5. Applicants' proposals are more fully described in the Planning Board staff report dated August 25, 1986. They would raze an existing building and adjacent ice cream stand and reconstruct on the lot a new building with footprint shown on the site plan accompanying their Application. On the east side abutting Glidden's Island Seafood, the building would continue to have zero setback. On the west side, non - conformity would be reduced by removal of the ice cream stand now extending into South Beach Street Ext. But,the principal building's southeast corner would have setback reduced to 0.75 feet (5 -feet required). The new front on Broad Street would have near zero setback only in the middle double -doors section. At the rear, a former zero setback is increased to 3 feet to accommodate trash bin areas off the way. That way is said to provide adequate off - loading absent the facility required by Section 139 -19. Finally, ground cover ratio would be 87 %, and the required 30% open space not provided. (02 -86) -3- 6. Arguing in favor of the requested Variance relief, Applicants' counsel cites a number of commercial projects inthe Core District allowed in recent years by the Board of Appeals, principally by Special Permit relief under Section 139 -33A. No MCD project is cited where relief has been finally granted by the Planning Board and none where the Board of Appeals has granted Variance relief to allow an MCD project by razing and reconstruction. Also argued is the benefit to the neighborhood in a new building meeting Massachusetts Building Code standards and Historic District Commission aesthetic criteria. Adverse impact of the moped rental business upon increasing heavy and vital traffic west on Broad Street would be alleviated by Applicants under taking to display no more than one moped in the street (no bicycles) with the rental activity otherwise in- side the building and practice riding area in the way at the rear. 7. Against relief, loss of a substandard off- street parking space along South Beach Street Ext. is cited. A 5 -foot and preferably 8 -foot rear setback would better suit the site. Also of concern is Applicants' jproposal to intensify use within the new building by adding a separate retail area of 741 SF on the second floor along with 1161 SF of storage replacing 1435 Sf of bike shop storage in the old 1 1/2 story building. (Applicants' counsel argues that the new retail use of unspecified charac- ter and impact would have less adverse affect on the neighborhood than the existing Anthony's Pizza take -out food establishment. However, such food take -out would be an unlawful use unless grandfathered and no evi- dence in support of grandfathering was offered. Applicants' reference to a letter dated August 15, 1986, would be unavailing even if it could esta- blish that Anthony' Pizza had folowed a retail canvas bag shop use.) We find that Anthony's Pizza does not lend support to the relief sought. Rather, these factors support and compel our denial of relief. 8. Addition of a third -floor 1270 SF, 4 bedroom employer dormitory is favored on the understanding the employees would not have seasonal on- street parking permits. However, this favorable factor would not warrant a grant of the requested Variance relief. (092 -86) -4- 9. To support relief by Variance, counsel would apparently argue that siting of the building inthe Core District environment of structures with 87% ground cover constitutes a topography not generally effecting th= Residential - Commercial District. Hardhsip is said to lie in the poor conditiuon of the existing building which ought to be totally replaced accoring to an,,engineering report dated October 14, 1986. 10. COUnsel's argument that other old buildings in the Core Distri_ are similarly situated undermines the basis for a requisite findings of uniqueness for Variance relief. 11. We considered the following conditions for relief: (a) Implicitly, the proposed new building and uses would by substantially as most recently presented to the Planning Board; however, (b) The propane cylinders would be relocated to the rear in a lawfully- permitted place and adequately safe - guarded by posts or the like; (c) Only one moped would be displaced on the street side of the building and a practice riding area would be provided off the public streets, e.g., on the way at the rear. (Applicants' Special Permit 020 -77 of 8/26/86 for its moped business has further conditions.) 12. Even with such conditions, this Board was unable to find that the Variance relief desired might be granted without substantial detriment- to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning chapter. The Steamship Authority and abutter Glidden expressed concern with increase in Broad Street traffi Such congestion is a stron factor with those of paragraph 7 above found tc be so detrimental to the public good as to require denial of relief. 13. Upon motion to grant the requested Variance relief sbject to t'- above- stated conditions, the Board voted one in favor (Sherman) and two (092 -86) -5- opposed (Vollans and Beale). Accordingly, relief is DENIED. Dated: November 21, 1986 Nantucket, MA 02554 _ William R. Sherman Dorothy D. Vollans C. 4arshall Beale f� ,R NOTICE A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. in the TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING, FEDERAL AND BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET, on the Applica- tion of MARY E. PATERSON, OWNER FOR HERSELF AND WILLIAM C. CAMERON AND WAYNE MOSHER (CONTRACT PURCHASERS) (092 -86) seeking VARIANCES to construct a new building at 4 BROAD STREET, re- placing an existing one, to contain a bicycle shop plus retail shop and apartment, with relief from SECTION 139 -16 lot line setback and SECTION 139 -18, off - street parking, and loading requirements, also a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -33A (as in 067 -86) of the Zoning By -Law. The premises are ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 42.4.2 -065, Land Court 8269 -A and zoned RESIDENTIAL- COMMERCIAL. William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS List of parties in interest in the matter of the petition of: Name WILLIAM C. CAMERON and WAYNE M. MOSHER Address 4 Broad Street, Nantucket, Mass. 02554 . Property Address Same Nantucket Yacht Club WH, MV S N SS Authority Harry Gordon Walter D. Glidden, Jr. Sturgis Pines Realty Trust Henry Fee, Jr., et ux Foster R. Herman, Esq. Roger A. Young, et ux Nantucket Historical Assn. Hudson Hollanbr., et al Sidney H.-Killen, et ux Sherburne Associates Pacific National Bank, Tr., c/o EMRE Corp. Zelda .Zlotin, et al Joseph V. Arno J. Richard Judson Florence Ingall Dreamland Theatre, Inc. Irene R. Walsh, et al South Beach Street Steamboat Wharf 26 Easy Street 41 Liberty Street c/o Roger A. Young, Tr., 9 Young's Way 24 Center Street 125 William Street, S. Dartmouth, MA 02748 28 Easy Street Nantucket, Mass. 02554 15 Fair Street 10 Easy Street c/o Harborview Shopkeeper, 35 Main Street Macy Lane Gay Street Box 1319 634 Morgan Creek Rd., Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 c/o Mrs. F. Clifford, 16 Driftwood Lane, Weston, Mass. 02193 5 Water Street c/o Mary E. Paterson, 7531 Bristol Lane, Parkland, Florida 33067 Town of Nantucket Town and County Building on the most recent applicable TAX list. Assessor Town of Nantucket 1986 Dat AB -1 FE$ $100.00 Case No. ArPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Nantucket, Massacl;u::et i'o the Members of the Board of Appeals: The undersigr -d hereby applies for relief from the terms of (70NIN I BY-LAW) (BUILDING CODE) on property described below: location of Property I.ot No. I i'. R26 Ply- n No. _4242-Q65 District is Zoned for Residential /Commercial cype of struetur (Exi tU q or Proposed) or proposed us^: Commercial nary. F'aferson - Owner �-- uvner' s Name William C. Camberon and Wayne Mosher Contract Purchasers _ owner's Address 10 Broad _Street Nantucket. Mass. 02554 .then did you acquire this property? .1985 Has application been filed at Building Department? No Has ar.y previous appeal been made? No section of By -Law or Code from which relief is requested: _S�npri i Rermit iindpr S 119 -33• Varianrc and S 1A4 - 'A1A_ reason for asking relief:_PetitiQners seek In remove old commercial buildings and construct new building containing bike shop, retail shop, and residential apar ment per prans-suomitled. Need perms 6757ter nonTconll5rming use, dFid Varjjance for lot line cetharkc� rPlipe ,fl:nm parking anri off- Street load ina requirements, and new building. Signature of a ic:tnt By their attorney: ATTACH: (1) A list of the names and addresses of each abutting cwner and owner abutting the abutters, and owners within 300 feet (2) A check in the amount of $100.00 made payable to the To-•,-i of Nantucket. (3) Four copies of the location of r the application and the property to be a map or plan showirg considered. (4) If the applicant is other than the owner, please ind your aithoritY to make this application. BOARD'S DECISION Application submitted to Board Advertising dates _ Hearing date (s) recision of Board Decision filed with the Town Clerk r, up ;r • 1 X IL 00'9,2 ---C 3;,95, LO o91 S ; 0-- � s,noS Havas 0 .D E-O-ZZ 59 S� N y , X il a>11 LA Ln CD N V m r fn fill N _ o W ,v 19 — Ln t0 � Iv N X IL 00'9,2 ---C 3;,95, LO o91 S ; 0-- x,jja7als S9 Sz 14 -L C1os MLI60 0 ZZN� ; 00*9� --" �;,yS 2-0.91 S z �J 0 0 PI W c1� N m rn W .A m M F-i