The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About049-88TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 May 13 , 1988 Re: Decision in the Application of WILLIAM T. BURDICK, JR. AND ALBERTA M. BURDICK (049 -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. cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS BOARD 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 WILLIAM T. BURDICK, JR. AND ALBERTA M. BURDICK (049 -88) address 26 Appleton Road, Nantucket, MA 02554. 1. Applicants seek a VARIANCE from the 20,000 SF minimum lot size requirement of Zoning By -Law SECTION 139 -16A to allow redivision of their 3 commonly owned lots into new Lots 1 and 2 respectivelyjof 17,496 SF and 16,277 SF, with the existing single- family dwelling on Lot 1 and a new single- family dwelling buildable on Lot 2. The premises are a corner lot at 26 APPLETON ROAD (Lot 1), and 4 THURSTON'S WAY (Lot 2), and zoned RESIDENTIAL -2. 2. The present 3 lots are, respectively: - Assessor's Parcel 66 -029 (Lot 28, of about 15067$' SF) - Assessor's Parcel 66 -030 (Lot 9, a.oa i�=SF ) - Assessor's Parcel 66 -121 (Lot 1A, SF in a thin triangular shape), now treated as one lot for zoning purposes. Plan Book 18, Page 127, Plan Book 17, Page 70 of Plan File 8e), of 2174 3. Our findings are based upon the record in this and prior Application 041 -85, including "sketch plan of land" dated 4/8/88 (our Exhibit "A ") showing new Lots 1 and 2, viewing and plans, neighbors' petition,representations and testimony received at our hearing of 4/29/88. rr (049 -88) -2- 4. Applicants' Lots 9 and 28 are shown on a plan endorsed by the Planning Board "approval not required" 6/17/74 with respective 100 -foot southerly lot lines confronting property of the Thurstons. Next of record is the Thurstons' subdivision endorsed by the Planning Board 4;'20/76 and locating then -new Thurston's Way running past the Burdick Lots 28 and 9 but with Lot lA blocking them from having any (southerly) frontage on Thurston's Way. Our record does not show why Applicants' frontage was deliberately blocked or why Applicants' counsel, now deceased, had them acquire Lot 28 with the same join_- ownership as Lot 9. We are told that Donald Visco who endorsed the plans as a member of the Planning Board, was the road contractor who put in Thurston's Way and later, as owner of Lot lA, sold it to Applicants. Visco is shown as a joint owner of Lot IA as early as 1981, and the joint developer on an ANR plan endor- sed by the Planning Board 6/12/78, in lieu of the Thurston's. 5. In any event, having since our adverse decision in 041 -85', acquired Lot lA from Visco, Applicants now have adequate frontage on Thurston's Way for new Lot 2. Normally, we would still not be able proper - lv to validate each of new Lots 1 and 2 as buildable for lack of 20,000 SF. Unusual circumstances, however, here support variance relief. Specifically, were relief denied and the matter fully litigated, equities favorable to Applicants involving blocked frontage for Lot 28 and Town official involvement might be adduced. The 5/77 upzoning of Applicants' Lots to R -2 also raises que5tions.in that zoning districts are typically bounded by streets, not the Burdicks' Lot 28 back property line, again with involvement of Planning Board officials. Lots just across that back lot line are buildable with only 5,000 SF. Lots 9 and 28 (and new Lots 1 and 2) are comparable in size to others on the same side of Thurston's l%av and larger than those on the other side. Lot 28 is odd only in not being built upon. 6. Applicants' neighbors are clearly supportive of relief. However, in view of the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Board, we condition relief upon barring a secondary dwelling on either of Lots 1 and a.We understand this is acceptable to Applicants. Presumably they r� (049 -88) -3- will need a sewer entry permit to build on new Lot 2, since it lacks 40,000 SF for a septic system. 7. With the foregoing condition, we are able to find that the requested lot size variance relief for new Lots 1 and 2 may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By -Law. We find the requisite hardship involved, in the unusual circum- stances relating to lot shape in the above - described interrelationship of Lot lA and Lots 28 and 9. 8. Accordingly, by UNANIMOUS vote, this Board GRANTS to Applicants the requested VARIANCE from the minimum lot size requirements of SECTION 139 -16A to allow redivision of the premises into new buildable Lots 1 an 2 in substantial conformity with Exhibit "A" so that a single- family dwelling may be built upon Lot 2 but with the condition that no secondary dwelling shall be built upon either Lot 1 or Lot 2. Dated: May 13, 1988 Nantucket, MA 02554 William R. Sherman An� ' r - Andrew J. Leddy, Jr. Dale W. Waine vv BOA" norm 1 -87 No. - APPLICATION - NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ") Owner's name(s): William F. Burdick, Jr. and Alberta M. Burdick Mailing address: 26 Appleton Road, Nantucket. MA 02554 Applicant's name Same Mailing address: Same Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel. 66 - Parcels 29, 30 & 121 Street address 26 Appleton Road, 4 Thurstons Way Registry LC PL, PL BK & PG, PL FL Lot Deed ref. Subdivision Endorsed /_ /_ ANR? Date lot(s) acquired: _ /_ /_ Zoning district Number of dwelling units on lot(s): one Rental guest rooms none Commercial use on lot(s): none MCD? Building date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? N.A. or Building permit application Nos. and dates N.A. C of 0? _ Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications: 041 -85 - June 11, 1985 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: Application under Section 139 -32A for variance. Applicant has owned Lot 9, Plan Book 17, Page 70, containing 15,950 S.F.± with dwelling house thereon (26 Appleton Road) and Lot 28, Plan Book 18, Page 127, containing 15,578 S.F.± being vacant land to which he has added Lot 1A, Plan File 8A containing 2,174 S.F. creating two new lots, both under 20,000 S.F.. Applicant seeks variance to permit creation of the two new lots, each as a residential building lot and separation of of ownership thereof. Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement to above Site /plot plan(s) x with present /proposed structures N.A. Locus map Floor plans present /proposed Appeal record Needed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets) x .Mail•ing labels) (2.se'ts)_x Fee check for $150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket "Cap" covenant I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and t to the be of my knowledge, under pains and penalties of perjury. Signa re: illiam `(F. Bu dick, Jr. and Alberta'M. Applicant Attorney /agent X ur i k T-HIMURE L. TILLOTSON, ESQUIRE (If n o t o e r, ow S or authority t o' a pp l y ) SHERBURNE, POWERS & NEEDHAM By: 1c nenen 0'r0=r 8/8/88 minutes 049 -88 The Chairman asked Board consideration of an amendment to the 5/13/88 decision now of record in the Registry of Deeds. He had been contacted by the Visco's who (mistakenly) thought the decision at page 2 blamed Mr. Visco as the basis for variance relief. While the Visco's now understand that the references to actions of a Town official simply lent court -type equities to support relief and forestall reliance on the decision as a precedent in other cases, the record should be made clear that the Board had no evidence which would support a finding or inference of official wrongdoing. The Chairman suggested that page 2 of the decision be modified to replace any reference to Visco with "a Town official" and adding the sentence: "We have no basis in evidence to infer or find any wrongdoing here." After Board discussion, the consensus was reached not to amend the decision lest that call inappropriate attention to the question but simply to clear up in the minutes any misreading of the decision. Ftle& and- Octet (-uq us-f -- 60, 1°I(?g