Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032-88TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 April 5 , 1988 Re: Decision in the Application of THOMAS-C. AMORY AND CAROLYN P. AMORY (032 -88) Enclosed is a notice of the 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 cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk f BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: At a Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS held on FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1988, at 1:30 P.M. at the Town and County Building, Nantucket., in the matter of the Application of THOMAS C. AMORY and CAROLYN P. AMORY (032 -88) , the Board enters the following decision and makes the following findings: 1., Applicants seek a VARIANCE from Nantucket. Zoning By -law Section 139 -16,.A (Int.ensity Regulations - Mini.mum Lot Size and Frontage) and a SPECIAL PERMIT under Sect.i.on 139 -18.G (Relief from Parking Requirements in Core District. and Resident. Parking Permit District), in order to confirm the prior conveyance of the Premises from common ownership with an adjacent. parcel. The Premises are located at. 24 LIBERTY STREET (Assessor's Parcel 42.3.4 -31), shown as Lot 1 on a plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book 16, Page 59, and are zoned RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC. 2. The Board's fi.ndi.ngs are based upon the Application and support.i.ng materi.als, including a plot plan dated February 25, 1988, and viewi.ngs, correspondence, and representations and testimony received at the public hearing.' 3. The Premises contain about 3,640 square feet of land area (5,000 square feet. are required in this zoning di.st.rict.) and have about 10 feet of frontage upon a private way leading to Li.bert.y Street. (50 feet of frontage are required). No parking is provided upon the Premises (one on-site parking space is required). Parking for one vehicle is currently provided within the limits of the way, upon a section of the way used only by the Premises. One single- family dwelling is located upon the Premises and has so existed since a time prior to the adoption of the Zoning By -law in July, 1972. The side line setback nonconformity on the North and the East are found to be pre - existing and are thus effectively exempt from the By -law requirements and thus not at issue in this case. 4. The adjoining parcel is located at 93 Main Street (Assessor's Parcel 42.3.3 -17), is also in the Residential -Old Historic Zoning District., and is known as "East Brick ". The East Brick parcel contains about. 9,740 square feet. of land area, has about 56 feet of frontage upon Main Street, and provides one on-site parking space which conforms with the requirements of the By -law. One single- family dwelling is located upon this lot and has existed since a time well before the adoption of the By -law. The dwelling's nonconformity on the west with the B•y -law's side line setback requirement is pre - existing and not at issue. 5. The Premises and the East. Brick parcel were held in separate ownership from 1966, well before the adoption of the By -law. The two parcels have always maintained their own separate identity and have not been used in conjunction with each other. In fact, there is no practical means of access to the Premises from the East Brick parcel. The Premises have consistently been rented by the Applicants, and the East Brick parcel has always -2- been used by the Applicant as their Island residence. 6. The Applicants bought the East Brick parcel in 1980 as joint. tenants. In 1982, to protect the East Brick parcel, they purchased the Premises as tenants by the entirety, not realizing that a technical merger might occur. The two parcels were thus held until 1984, when the East Brick parcel was conveyed into , Mrs. Amory's name alone. 7. The Applicants are recently divorced, and as part of the divorce settlement, Mrs. Amory must buy -out her husband's interest in the Premises. Mrs. Amory represents that she is financially unable to do so, and that she must sell the Premises. It is in the context of this situation that the possible merger issue was discovered. Mrs. Amory intends to retain ownership of the East. Brick parcel and to continue to restore.it.t.o its early 1800's condition_as one of Nantucket's most historic and renowned structures. 8. No opposition was presented to the application. One neighbor voiced concern about the parking situation on Liberty Street; however, we find that adequate parking for the premises is provided within the limits of the private way. Provision of one on -site parking space is, in this case, impractical and would severally decrease the green space now provided upon the Premises. Such a change is undesirable if parking may legally be continued within the limits of the way. Without the relief requested, the ownership of the two parcels could be divided by condominium ownership, a solution abhorrent to the Applicants and found to be -3- inappropriate i.n connection with the Bast. Brick parcel, one of Nantucket's most treasured historic landmarks. 9. In keeping with precedent., based upon Massachusetts case law and found i.n the Board's decisions in the February 23, 1987, Chadwick case (024 -87) and the December 21, 1987, Maslow decision (121 -87) , the Board finds that the single- family dwellings located upon each of the Premises and the Bast. Brick parcel and their respective uses have been "structures or uses lawfully in existence . before the first publication of notice of the public hearing on the by- law," now Chapter 139. No undertaking since 1972 has effected a legal merger of the two parcels for zoning purposes. Each has retained an i.dent.it.y separate and distinct from the other. In accordance with the so- called "grandfathering" provisions of Section 139 -33.A, Mass. Gen. Laws t.40A.§6 (quoted above), and applicable case law, the Board finds that no variance relief is required to confirm the 1984 transfer of the two lots into ownership separate from each other. 10. Had we found that the two parcels were legally merged for zoning purposes, we would have had diffi.cult.y making the findings necessary for relief by variance. In such event., hardship to the Applicant would have been apparent. However, validating the Premises, if they were now to be a newly created lot, separate from the East Brick parcel, would have been in derogation of Section 139 -16.A, which reads, in relevant part., that. "no lot shall be changed in size or shape, unless in conformity with [the minimum lot size and frontage requirements of the By- law]." -4- 11. Accordingly, by UNANIMOUS VOTE, this Board FINDS that the Premises may be retained in ownership separate from that of the East Brick parcel under the protection afforded under Section 139 -33.A, without need of variance relief, and accordingly such variance relief i.s denied. The Board GRANTS the Applicant- the requested relief under Section 139 -18.G by SPECIAL PERMIT, subject to the following conditions: (1) No additional structures shall be constructed upon either the Premises or the East. Brick parcel and no enlargement. of either of the single - family dwellings now existing upon each of said parcels shall be made without further relief from this Board. (2) If, at any time, the Premises shall not have the appurtenant. right to park one vehicle wi.t.hin the limits of the private way serving the Premises, one parking space, meeting the requirements of the c�By-law, shall be provided upon the Premises. Dated: 1988 T Nantucket., Massachusetts M'M William R. Sherman Dor thy D. Vollans Q d 6 In '�' �� zz_" � , C. a shall ltaDr TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 April l> , 1988 Re: Decision in the Application of THOMAS-C. AMORY AND CAROLYN P. AMORY (032 -88) Enclosed is a notice of the 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 1 Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and shall be filed within twenty (20) days after this date. cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk i J William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: At a Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS held on FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1988, at 1:30 P.M. at the Town and County Building, Nantucket., in the matter of the Application of THOMAS C. AMORY and CAROLYN P. AMORY (032 -88) , the Board enters the following decision and makes the following findings: 1. Applicants seek a VARIANCE from Nantucket. Zoning By -law Section 139 -16.A (Int.ensity Regulations - Minimum Lot Size and Frontage) and a SPECIAL PERMIT under Section 139 -18.G (Relief from Parking Requirements in Core District. and Resident. Parking Permit District), in order to confirm the prior conveyance of the Premises from common ownership with an adjacent parcel. The Premises are located at 24 LIBERTY STREET (Assessor's Parcel 42.3.4 -31) , shown as Lot 1 on a plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book 16, Page 59, and are zoned RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC. 2. The Board's findings are based upon the Application and supporting materials, including a plot plan dated February 25, 1988, and viewings, correspondence, and representations and testimony received at the public hearing. 3. The Premises contain about 3,640 square feet of land area (5,000 square feet. are required in this zoning district) and have about 10 feet of frontage upon a private way leading to Liberty Street (50 feet of frontage are required). No parking is provided upon the Premises (one on-site parking space is required). Parking for one vehicle is currently provided within the limits of the way, upon a section of the way used only by the Premises. One single - family dwelling is located upon the Premises and has so existed since a time prior to the adoption of the Zoning By -law in July, 1972. The side line setback nonconformity on the North and the East are found to be pre - existing and are thus effectively exempt from the By -law requirements and thus not at issue in this case. 4. The adjoining parcel is located at 93 Main Street (Assessor's Parcel 42.3.3 -17) , is also in the Residential -Old Historic Zoning District., and is known as "East Brick ". The East Brick parcel contains about. 9,740 square feet of land area, has about 56 feet of frontage upon Main Street, and provides one on-site parking space which conforms with the requirements of the By -law. One single- family dwelling is located upon this lot and has existed since a time well before the adoption of the By -law. The dwelling's nonconformity on the west with the By -law's side line setback requirement i.s pre - existing and not at issue. 5. The Premises and the East. Brick parcel were held in separate ownership from 1966, well before the adoption of the By - law. The two parcels have always maintained their own separate identity and have not been used in conjunction with each other. In fact, there is no practical means of access to the Premises from the East Brick parcel. The Premises have consistently been rented by the Applicants, and the East Brick parcel has always -2- been used by the Applicant as their Island residence. 6. The Applicants bought the East Brick parcel in 1980 as joint. tenants. In 1982, to protect the East Brick parcel, they purchased the Premises as tenants by the entirety, not .realizing that a technical merger might occur. The two parcels were thus held until 1984, when the East Brick parcel was conveyed into Mrs. Amory's name alone. 7. The Applicants are recently divorced, and as part of the divorce settlement, Mrs. Amory must buy -out. her husband's interest in the Premises. Mrs. Amory represents that she is financially unable to do so, and that she must sell the Premises. It. is in the context of this situation that the possible merger issue was discovered. Mrs. Amory intends to retain ownership of the East. Brick parcel and to continue to restore it to its early 1800's condition as one of Nantucket's most historic and renowned structures. 8. No opposition was presented to the application. One neighbor voiced concern about the parking situation on Liberty Street; however, we find that adequate parking for the Premises is provided within the limits of the private way. Provision of one on -site parking space is, in this case, impractical and would severally decrease the green space now provided upon the Premises. Such a change is undesirable if parking may legally be continued within the limits of the way. Without the relief requested, the ownership of the two parcels could be divided by condominium ownership, a solution abhorrent to the Applicants and found to be -3- inappropriate in connection with the East. Brick parcel, one of Nantucket's most treasured historic landmarks. 9. In keeping with precedent, based upon Massachusetts case law and found in the Board's decisions in the February 23, 1987, Chadwick case (024 -87) and the December 21, 1987, Maslow decision (121 -87) , the Board finds that the single - family dwellings located upon each of the Premises and the East. Brick parcel and their respective uses have been "structures or uses lawfully in existence . before the first publication of notice of the public hearing on the by- law," now Chapter 139. No undertaking since 1972 has effected a legal merger of the two parcels for zoning purposes. Each has retained an identity separate and distinct from the other. In accordance with the so- called "grandfathering" provisions of Section 139 -33.A, Mass. Gen. Laws C.40A. §6 (quoted above), and applicable case law, the Board finds that no variance relief is required to confirm the 1984 transfer of the two lots into ownership separate from each other. 10. Had we found that the two parcels were legally merged for zoning purposes, we would have had difficulty making the findings necessary for relief by variance. In such event, hardship to the Applicant would have been apparent. However, validating the Premises, if they were now to be a newly created lot, separate from the East Brick parcel, would have been in derogation of Section 139 -16.A, which reads, in relevant part., that "no lot shall be changed in size or shape, unless in conformity with [the minimum lot size and frontage requirements of the By- law] ." -4- 11. Accordingly, by UNANIMOUS VOTE, this Board FINDS that the Premises may be retained in ownership separate from that of the East. Brick parcel under the protection afforded under Section 139 -33.A, without need of variance relief, and accordingly such variance relief is denied. The Board GRANTS the Applicant the requested relief under Section 139 -18.G by SPECIAL PERMIT, subject to the following conditions: (1) No additional structures shall be constructed upon either the Premises or the East Brick parcel and no enlargement of either of the single- family dwellings now existing upon each of said parcels shall be made without further relief from this Board. (2) If, at any time, the Premises shall not have the appurtenant. right to park one vehicle within the limits of the private way serving the Premises, one parking space, meeting the requirements of the By-law, shall be provided upon the Premises. Dated:T �(� (� 1988 Nantucket, Massachusetts -5- William R. Sherman e6'w /;� kq o Dor thy D. ollans C/ all\ 1 ,2'• x C.—Ma shall B�al N O T I C E A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on Friday, March 25 , 1988, at 1:30 P.M., in the TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING, FEDERAL and BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET on the application of THOMAS C. A_MORY and CAROLYN P. AMORY (03Z--88) , seeking a VARIANCE from Zoning By -Law Section 139 -16.A (Intensity Regulations - Minimum Lot Size and Frontage) and a SPECIAL PERMIT under Section 139 -18.G (Relief from Parking Requirements in Core District and Resident Parking Permit District) in order to confirm the prior conveyance of the Premises from common ownership with an adjacent parcel. The Premises are located at 24 LIBERTY STREET (Assessor's Parcel 42.3.4 -31) Plan Book 16, Page 59, Lot 1, and are zoned as RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC. Andrew J. Leddy, Acting�hairman BOARD OF APPEALS BOA Form 1 -87 No � ARPE1CA11ON' NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ") Owner's name(s): Thomas C. Amory and Carolyn P. Amory Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C., P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584 Applicant's name Mailing address: Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel: 42.3.4 -31 Street address 24 Liberty Street Registry LC PL, PL BK & PG, PL FL 16/59 Lot 1 Deed ref. 191 -197 Subdivision Endorsed _ /_ /_ ANR? Date lot(s) acquired: 4 / 30/ 82 Zoning district Resident ial- Old.Historic Number of dwelling units on lot(s): one Rental guest booms none Commercial use on lot(s): none MCD? no Building date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? yes or Building permit application Nos. and dates none C of 0? no Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications: none State fully all zoning relief sought together with all respective Code sections and subsections, specifically, what you propose compared with present and what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if Variance, -30A if Special Permit, -33A if to alter or extend non - conforming use, or to reverse Building Inspector by;Appeal per -31A & B: Applicant requests relief by Varience from Nantucket Zoning By -Law Section 139 -16.A (Intensity Regulations - Minimun lot size and frontage) and a Special Permit under Sect-Lori 139 -13.G (Relief from Parking Requirements in Core District and Resident Parking Permit District) in order to confirm the conveyance of the parcel with building thereon _pre - existing zoning, in common ownership with an adjacent conforming parcel from 1982 to 1984, into separate ownership. Each parcel has been separately shown and conveyed si»ce 1966. In the alternative tovariance relief, Applicant requests a determination that no su:Ii relief is neec.ed. Provisio;i of off - :street parking is physically impossible for the applicant, would have an adverse affect on the nei hbonccod; -and would be unsafe. Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement to above Site /plot plan(s) x with present /proposed structures X Locus map X Floor plans present- /proposed Appeal record` Needed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets): ,X . Mailing -labels) (2:•-sets) X Fee check for $150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket X "Cap" covenant I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and Lruo to the best of my knowledge, under pains and penalties'of perjury.i Signature: kle., ` - Z16& Applicant Attorney /agent (If not owner, show basis for authority. *1L -o- apply-;).1 FOR OFFICE USE Application copies received: 4((or only for BOA One copy given Town Clerk //y Complete? One copy sent to Planning Board and to Building Dept. LL by_ $150.00 check given Town Treasurer_/ RE-by Notices of hearing posted -j /q /_ mailed� /_ published /X/ llearing(s) held on _ /_ /_ continued to _ /_ / _ /_ /_ withdrawn? Decision made _ /_ /_ filed with Town Clerk _ /_ /_ mailed See related files: application - litigation - other