The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About100-88NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF A3?pBAL8 NANTUCKET# KABOACHUSETT8 02554 960a%ber 7 , 1988 File No. 100 -88 To: Parties in interest and others Re: Decision in the Application of KARL and CAROL LINDQUIST Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has this day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk. An appeal from this decision may be taken pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws. Any action appealing the decision must be brought by filing a complaint in court within twenty (20) days after this date. Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint and certified copy of the decision must be given to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such twenty (20) days. cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, October 14, 1988, at 2:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (100 -88) of KARL and CAROL LINDQUIST having an address at P. O. Box 724, Nantucket, MA 02554, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1. Applicants appeal the September 19, 1988, decision of the Building Commissioner, pursuant to Sections 139 -31A and B of the zoning Bylaw, seeking reversal of his refusal to grant Applicants a Building Permit for the proposed renovation of their existing single - family dwelling. In the alternative, Applicants seek a Special Permit under Section 139 -33A to alter their nonconforming dwelling by adding a wrap- around porch which would extend no closer to the "C" Street lot line than the existing entry steps, leaving at least a 10 -foot setback. Otherwise, Applicants ask a variance from the Section 139 -16A requirement of a 30 -foot front yard to allow addition of the porch with only the 10 -foot setback from "C" Street. At issue for Applicants' corner lot is a determination of whether the front yard is taken from Tennessee Avenue, as Applicants urge, or from "C" Street, as the Building Commissioner found. 2. The premises are at 6 Tennessee Avenue, Assessor's Parcel 60.2.1 -021, shown as Lot 454 on Land Court Plan 3092 -39, zoned Residential -2. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers, and Applicants' photoprints of the existing house, and site, floor and elevation plans marked as our Exhibit "A" received at the hearing, together with testimony and representations. The Exhibit "A" elevations are those approved by the Historic District Commission, Certificate of Appropriateness 18,801 with date of 8/16/88. 4. We find that Applicants' house has historically fronted on "C" Street, notwithstanding its having an address at 6 Tennessee Avenue, the latter being a more primary street. We are guided in this finding by the 5/25/88 decision in DeGennaro v. Nantucket Board of Appeals, Land Court Case No. 125148. Judge Sullivan there stated that the front yard is the yard between the street and the front of the house. It is a question of fact to be determined in the first instance by the Building Commissioner. One looks to the main orientation of the house. 5. Here, the main orientation of the existing house is File No. 100 -88 squarely toward "C' Street. The broad west facade of the house is toward that street with dormers spaced symmetrically on either side of a central entry door. (We are told that the door has long been closed to any use, but opening and closing of a door cannot properly be determinative of a question of front -yard setback.) By contrast, a south - facing end gable is set back from Tennessee Avenue with a door centered amoung 4 windows and opening onto a stoop adjacent a driveway off "C" Street. Nothing marks this south elevation as the "front" of the house. 6. The proposed renovation leaves the west facade clearly the front of the house. By the DeGennaro test, the Building Commissioner has made that finding. While his decision letter is cast in terms of required frontage, it can equally be read as footed on the greater frontage on "C" Street and the corresponding predominance of the broad west facade fronting on that street. Architectural detailing predominates on the west facade with symmetry about double french doors defining the front entry. At the second -story level, a deck is recessed between the west - facing dormers above the broad porch roof. A cupola centered above that deck is fully visible. By contrast, the south elevation is changed only by enhanced fenestration and addition of the full -width porch which wraps around the west side as well. A presentation sketch indicates that driveway entry will be moved from "C" Street to Tennessee Avenue. While we attached some significance to driveway entry in our decision on front yard in Kateman, file 093 -88, that cannot alone be determinative here since it is so readily changed from time to time. (We note also that the single -car garage, which also violates the front -yard setback, will apparently be altered by changing the car -entry from the "C" Street side to the back side but assume this alteration will be approved by the Building Commissioner following grant of relief here.) 7. By contrast to driveway entry, the broad side of a house facing the wider street frontage is a more reliable determinant of "front ". Cf. Bassano et al 076 -88. 8. Having found the west facade of the house its "front" with the front yard thus taken from "C" Street, we necessarily affirm the Building Commissioner's 9/19/88 decision. While we are unable to make the requisite findings for relief by variance absent uniqueness of lot shape, topography or soil condition underlying a claim of hardship, we are able to make the findings necessary for relief by Special Permit under Section 139 -33A. 9. Applicants' house pre- existed zoning and violates the front -yard setback from "C" Street. The 5700 SF lot is - 2 - File No. 100 -88 undersized, and the 21.5% ground cover ratio exceeds the allowable 12.5% GCR. We are thus able to issue the requested Special Permit for extension of this nonconforming structure provided the nonconforming distance is not made more nonconforming and the result is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Here, the front -entry stoop is only 10' from the "C" Street frontage, and the proposed porch across the west facade will extend no closer than 10' from that frontage. The overall effect of the proposed renovation is seen as an upgrading of the property, to which no objection has been voiced. The Planning Board's concern about preserving front -yard setback is answered by limiting extension of the porch, as noted. Moreover, "C" Street ends just north of the premises. We further find that relief would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning Bylaw, as required by Section 139 -30A. 10. Accordingly, this Board by unanimous vote denies Applicants' requested reversal of the Building Commissioner's decision, also the request for a variance, but grants to Applicants the requested Special Permit under Section 139- 33A.to alter and extend their existing house in substantial conformity with the Exhibit "A" plans. Dated MoVe*er q , 1988 r C P / William R. Sherm n \ "\"- hOXU^0&OOOOI ,e. k,. ,fzi 6a/ A&k - 3 - NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD PY APPZALS NANTUCXZT, NAPBACSUBZTT8 02554 September 29, 1988 NOTICE A public hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on Friday, October 14, 1988, at 2.:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application of: KARL and CAROL LINDQUIST Board of Appeals File No.U)6 -88 seeking reversal of the 9/19/88 decision of the Building Commissioner by appeal pursuant to Sections 139 -31A and 31B from his refusal of a Building Permit; alternatively, a Variance or a Special Permit under Section 139 -33A to alter and extend a nonconforming u e; in either case, to add a wrap- around porch to their eilisting 1 -1/2 story, single - family dwelling, specifically, a porch extending westerly within 10 feet of the lot line on "C" Street (which, unlike the Tennessee Avenue lot line, meets the 501- frontage requirement) and thus into what the Building Commissioner finds to be the front yard (required by Section 139 -16A to be 30' deep in this Residential -2 zone). The premises are at 6 Tennessee Avenue at the corner of "C" Street, Assessor's Parcel 60.2.1 -021, Land Court Plan 3092 -39, Lot 454. William R. Sherman, Chairman 110A Dorm 1 -87 APPLICATION NANTUCKET 'ZONING BOARD 0V APPI ?ALS ( "IWA ") %M mf 1)wner's name s : ( ) Karl and Carol la i. 1 i.ng address: Post Office 724 Nantucket, Massachusetts A p p l i c a n t ' s name Same — 1 a i. 1 i t I g address: Same ---- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- -- - — I.00it tLOil 0l loL(s): Assessor's map 1,(1 parCel.: -- 60.2.1 - 21 -- Stree-L address 6 Tennessee Avenue - -- - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- — -- G e r t-i-fiet e e f Title Registry LC PL, XMXXJWX%XVWXI? TX)jXV - 3092_39 _ 1,o 1: 454 xlg YKx X , 13,613 Suh(livisiOt) pre -1972 -__ -- I•:udor: ;eel / / ANICI Unte l.ot(s) ac(Iuired: 4_/29/ 88 ---------- %oni.n}; district— —_ NIIIIIl)er of dwelling units or) IOL(s): - - -_1 ' - - - - -- Rental guest rooms 0 ( :onl(nerc.ial use On l.OL(s): None No Imi lding date(s): all pre-'72 zol►in };'I - - - -- - -0i1: Building pernli t applicati.on Nos. and (late.,; -- -_ C of 07 Case No(s). or elates all pl :iOr BOA application:;: None Mate fully all zoning relief so(1 },ht to };other wi.Lll al l respective Code sections and sul)secti-ons, specif ical.l.y, what: you propose compared wi 1:11 present and what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each f-i- rl(link; per ecti -on ]3c) -32A if Variance, -30A if Special Permit) -33A if I:O al ter or exteild norl- conforming use, Or to reverse Btlildil -ig Inspector hy�,'Appeal- per -31A & Il: i See Exhibit A attached hereto 1'.I1C1.OSUI'eS forII1L1) }, pi)rt of Lhi.s App1.l.caLLUl1 ��lll)I)Ll'Ill(!Clt tiO i1hOVE! Si Ce /lil.ot plans) - X With 1) re.. It. /pr'oposed sLrtictures _ X Locus clap X_ floor. plans 1)tesent /pr0p0:;(!(I _ Apper►1 record Needed: areas, X fronLal,e X sethaCks X (;(;IZ/ X - - -- ___ -_ park inp; df) to ASSI?SSOr' S Cert bled 11(1(Ire:;Se(_' I. 1 SL (�l set:;) Fla l.3 iIl , labels) Fee check for $a 50.00 payal)le to '1'owll O1: Nantui keC ft ('Z .�t-t :s)�� X Cap" covenant I certify thElt the re(luested lnf ormal :ion suhnli CCed is slll)sLanCi,al.ly complete and trtlEl Lo the I)esL of my Icnowle(I},e, lln(Jcr Pain!; and pc!nal.Lies of perjury.; '; i },nature AppLical ►t: ALLOrneyhlgenL X (l f [lot n(ti�t�,iss2 )D ,P?;lilbricl(� Attorney - for- Zindquists -- -- EXHIBIT A Board of Appeals Application of Karl and Carol Lindquist. Applicant hereby appeals from the denial by the Building Inspector of a building permit by letter dated September 19, 1988, pursuant to SEction 139 -31, or in the alternative for Special Permit relief pursuant to Section 139 -33A of the Zoning Code. A copy of the decision of the Building Inspector is attached. The Applicant proposes to add porches to the North, West, and South sides of the existing single family dwelling as shown in the elevation and sketch plans attached. The front of the house has faced, and will face, Tennessee Avenue. The Building Inspector has found that since the side of the Lot facing C Street has more than 75 feet of frontage, any front yard setbacks must be measured from C Street. The Building Inspector's requirement of "front yard setback" being measured from the street line used for "frontage" is incorrect. Alternatively, given the grandfathered use of Tennessee Avenue as the front yard, a Special Permit is necessary to alter this pre- existing non - conforming structure. If the Board declines to overturn the Building Inspector or acknowledge the front yard setback from Tennessee Avenue, Applicant requests a variance to allow a 3 foot wide porch to be added to the west side of the structure. 3teotembar |?, 190� ]r' karl . Linqu�dst 13') Hai`` S'reet Martucket HIss.02354 Dea Ur. Linq'�idst I h`ve revjewed your application for a building permit and find plecti^r of the "front" for the purposes of " front yard set hack' is in `.ch in como1iance with 139-16C of the Code of the Town Of k' be ;.n cnmoliance the street from which the "front yard to be measured must have at the minimum frontage as 'pnu�'e� bv lao-i6C for that district. The locus is in the R-2 zone frontage requirement of seventy Five feet (75) your 1c\ hos iy fif/�,� (59) feet of frontage on Tennessee Ave and is jcf,r>ert, Exewi'.tion of the plot provided, shows "C" street /ndrrd o,d fourtsen (114) feet of frontagr, therefore "C" `tr+et is tie or1y strret that conforms to the 139-16C. The R-2 zono /r(...,! yard ss\bcck o+ thirty (30) fcet, the exiting structure is (|,) feet rem the front lot 1ine and is a pre-cxtistinq ccv.|itzon, e,joving protect ion under 139-33 of Nantucket's �c�'y. |hc proposed porch projects into the required set hack by therefor is in violation of 139-160. stated reason your application for a building permi t 's DENIED P]e,se be advised that you have the right to appeal a icci'`!cn cf ;`e yujldinu Inspector to the Zoning Board of Appeals within of this Jake. Nantucket Zoning By-law Chapter ' prompt attention regarding said matter. �,' , |r./;`/ ynors,