HomeMy WebLinkAbout035-88BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
DECISION:
The BOARD OF APPEALS, at a Public Hearing held on FRIDAY, APRIL
29, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, made
the following decision upon the Application of RICHARD M.SCAIFE (035 -88)
address c/o Reade and Alger, Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584.
1. Applicant seeks a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -33A of the
Zoning By -Law, to alter and extend a pre- existing, non - conforming
single - family dwelling by adding, at a height exceeding the 30 feet above
mean grade allowed by Section 139 -21, some or all of the following:
(a) as ornamental roof structures, a balustrade around the
perimeter of the existing flat roof atop the dwelling, the flat roof
then providing a roof walk, with
(b) a floorless, 7 -foot octagonal cupola centrally of the
balustrade affording access to the flat roof via a winder stairway; also
(c) a front gable with lateral dormer providing enlarged
living space at the front of the house.
2. The premises are located at 17 LINCOLN AVENUE, Assessor's Par-
cel 30 -118, Land Court Plan 8751 -H, Lot 1, zoned RESIDENTIAL -1.
3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers, viewings,
submissions from neighbors and scaled model, photoprints, plans, repre-
sentations and testimony received at our hearing of March 28, 1988.
The matter was taken under advisement to our meeting of April a9, 1988,
for decision after deliberating upon the somewhat unusual circumstances
presented to us _!
a
( 035 -88 ) -2-
4. The premises comprise a generally trapezoidal lot with the
shortest side providing arcuate frontage on Lincoln Circle and the
lot sloping away to the rear with increasing steepness toward the rear
lot line and toward Nantucket Sound. Besides the 2 1/2 story dwelling on
the north side of the lot, a 1 1/2 -story secondary dwelling is located
in the SW corner of the lot, without proper setbacks from the front and
side lot lines and without the 12 -foot front -to -rear spacing required
by zoning Section 139- 7A(2)(b) relative to the principal dwelling.
S. The principal dwelling is non - conforming, not only in its
relationship to the secondary dwelling but also in having a height above
mean grade exceeding 30 feet. According to Applicant's representations,
the flat roof is about 40 feet above mean grade and about 34 feet above
the lot contour (the "front grade ") immediately in frontof the dwelling.
6. With support from an abutter's letter in this record, Applicant
represents that the building predates Nantucket's mid -1972 adoption of
zoning. We are told that the building had, prior to 1938, been an annex
(the "Tavern ") to the Seacliff Inn, then sited to the south in the Cliff
area. The premises were purchased by Applicant November 16, 1987. He has
since commissioned an architectural design firm to rehabilitate the
dwelling.
7. The flat- roofed dwelling is generally agreed to be architectur-
ally awkward and not in conformity with the guidelines of the Nantucket
Historic District Commission ( "HDC "). According to HDC letter of 3/28/88,
Certificate of Appropriateness 17,971 was issued by the HDC to Applicant
after considering each of the elements for which relief is sought here.
After concluding that the requested relief should be granted the letter
states:
"To remove the cupola and reduce the gable in
question would diminish the integrity of the
approved design."
Wei of course, defer to the HDC in aesthetic matters to the extent
•
(035 -88)
-3-
they do not give rise to zoning violations.
8. Applicant calls to our attention various other large homes in
the Cliff area, a number of which are said to exceed the 30 -foot height
limitation. At least one in a proferred photoprint has a roof walk.
Another, viewed at 14 Lincoln Avenue, has a balustrade around a high
roof of low pitch angle. Their status as to conformity with zoning is not
of record. None in the neighborhood has a cupola.
9. Submissions from neighbors range from full endorsement to
unqualified objection. One sees the "lantern" or cupola as not in keeping
with the architecture of the neighborhood. Another expresses objection
to infringement of the height by -law, speaking of "growing excesses that
are plaguing Nantucket and threatening its future ". Another regards
the cupola as a "touch of elegance ".
10. In the Zoning By -Law Section 139 -21 setting the 30 -foot
height limitation, "roof structures for ornamental purposes" are excepted.
In the context of the height limitation, however, we think this exception
applies only if the roof carrying the ornamentation does not itself
exceed the 30 -foot limit. As noted below, we favor the proposed balus-
trade as shown in the HDC drawings, but not accepting here that it falls
within the ornamental exemption. It is simply the least obtrusive archi-
tectural element proposed to meet the aesthetic requirements of the HDC,
with minimum neighborhood detriment.
11. No reason is advanced, in this record, why building mass
cannot be rempved, rather than added above 30 feet to achieve an aesthe-
tic improvement. To the extent the balustrade may serve functionally to
define a roof walk, a hatch and not a cupola is the usual means affording
access.
12. We are mindful of warrant Article 93 proposing a clarifying
amendment of Section 139 -21 for Annual Town Meeting consideration starting
May 17, 1988. If approved, roof walks and Cupolas would be permitted
to exceed the 30 -foot height limitation "to an extent reasonable and
r . t
( 035 -88 ) -4-
customary„.
13. Applicant here has not requested relief by variance, apparent-
ly recognizing that any hardship arising with the proposed architectural
changes is of Applicant's own making. Whether relief is available here
to Applicant by Special Permit, and not the usually necessary variance,
is not spelled out in our zoning code.
14. For relief by Special Permit under Section 139 -33A, we must
find not only a pre- existing, non - conforming structure, as noted above,
but also:
(a) that the proposed increase in the non - conforming nature
of the structure is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood,
than the existing use, and
(b) that the proposed Special Permit relief is in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of the zoning chapter.
Test (a) is best understood as presuming comparable states of building
condition with and without the alteration. Unquestionably, an expensive
rehabilitation of a rundown building can enhance a neighborhood. The
question here is one of detriment after rehabilitation to the extent it
also increases the height non - conformity.
15. From the submissions of neighbors and our viewings, we con-
clude that the proposed increases in building mass above the 30 feet
would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, thus barring
the about 10 -foot long gable at near 40 -feet height and the cupola
above that height. We would, and do, approve a new front gable to the
extent it is below a 30 -foot height measured from the noted front grade
(thus no more than about 34 feet above mean grade). The balustrade lacks
the appearance and connotation of mass while going far toward answering
the aesthetic concerns present here. We find neither the balustrade nor
such a below.30' front gable substantially more detrimental to the neigh-
borhood but, rather, each meets these requirements for Special Permit
relief.
I 1 V.
(035 -88) -5-
16. Increases in building mass at a height above 30 feet directly
conflict-with the Section 139 -21 height limitation. Accordingly, relief
for such increases cannot be in harmony with the general intent of the
Zoning By -Law. The gable extends living space in this wood -frame dwelling
to a height where safety in case of fire or other calamity is diminished.
In that respect and, to some extent in diminishing general welfare by
increased vertical intensity, a lack of harmony with the general purposes
of the By -Law is also found.
17. On the foregoing basis, this Board by UNANIMOUS vote GRANTS
to Applicant the requested SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -33A to allow
addition of the balustrade about the flat roof to form a "roof walk" and
to allow a new front gable extending no higher than 30 feet above front
grade, and DENIES all other relief requested.
Dated: May 13, 1988
Nantucket, MA 02554
`��'( ' /�V -� / ) l� l.� ✓:-i 'fit'
William R. Sherman
Dorothy D. Vollans
L Cu-
Dale W. Waine
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held
on Monday MarchcW, 1988, at 1:30 P.M. , in the TOWN AND COUNTY
BUILDING, FEDERAL AND BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET, on the
application of RICHARD M. SCAIFE ( 035--88), seeking a SPECIAL
PERMIT under Zoning By -Law Section 139 -33.A (Alteration of
Pre - existing Non- Conforming Structures), to allow alteration
of a single- family dwelling, claimed to pre -exist the zoning by-
law, by adding an addition exceeding the maximum height of 30
feet under Section 139.21, but of the same heiiit as the existing
roof line, and the construction of an ornamental roof structure.
':ze LDremises are located at 17 LINCOLN AVENUE (Assessor's Parcel
30 -118), Land Court Plan 8751 -H, Lot 1, and are zoned as
Residential -1.
n Act'ng Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS
7 d"
130A form 1 -87
ARPELCATION-
NANTUCKET "ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ")
NoC�
Owner's name(s): Richard M. Scaife
Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger Professional Corp., Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, MA
Applicant's name
Mailing address:
Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel: 30 -118
Street address 17 Lincoln Avenue
Registry LC PL, PL BK & PG, PL FL8751 -H Lot 1 Deed ref e8771
Subdivision no Endorsed _ /_/ ANR? no
Date lots) acquired: 11/16/ 87 Zoning district Residential -1
Number of dwelling units on lot(s): two Rental guest Looms no
Commercial use on lot(s): no MCD? no
Building date(s): all pre -172 zoning? yes or
Building permit application Nos. and dates C of 0?
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 a Special Permit under Nantucket By -Law Section 139 -33.A
(Alte=ration of Preexisting nonconforming structure),to permit the alteration of a
sincile-family dwelling now exceeding 30 feet in height above mean grade to permit
construction of an addition to the same level as the existing roof line, and,to the extent
relief is required, to permit construction of an ornamental roof structure consisting
of a cupola and walk.
Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement Go above
Site /Blot plan(s) X with present /proposed structures X
Locus map Floor plans present /proposed Appeal.record'
Needed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data
Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets) X .Mailing labels) (2;,.se't-s)_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 truo to tie best of my k owledge, under pains and penalties of perjury.;
Signature: 1 -�Q�Z Applicant- Attorney /agent X
(If not owner, show basis for authority•to� apply:)
FOR 01'FICE USE C- ¢`r-C�
Application copies received: 4((or o ) fo BOA 3/�/
One copy given Town Clerk by Complete? - C
One copy sent to Planning Board and to Buildi g Dept. �-� by
$150.00 check given Town Treasu er� /? � —
Notices of hearing posted /A /mailed I /2/_ publishe� _/1F / �/
Ilearing(s) held on _ /_ /_ continued to _ /_ /_, _ /_ /_ withdrawn?
Decision made _ /_ /_ filed with Town Clerk _/ /_ mailed
See related files: application - litigation - other