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