Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout009-89oe-_ - T? NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, 1ASSACHUSETTS 02554 February 21 , 1989 File No. 009 -89 To: Parties in interest and others Re: Decision in the Application of NANTUCKET SAVINGS BANK 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. William R. Sherman, Chairman cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, February 10, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (009 -89) of NANTUCKET SAVINGS BANK having an address at 104 Pleasant Street, Nantucket, MA 02554, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under Section 139 -16C of the zoning Bylaw to reduce the side lot line setback distance from the required 10 feet down to 5 feet to validate the existing siting of a recently constructed two - family residence. The premises are at 3 Surfside Drive and Dias Way, Assessor's Parcel 67- 252.1, Land Court Plan 26439 -S, Lot 100, zoned Residential -10. 2. Our findings are based upon the Application papers including 'as- built' plot plan dated 1/12/89, viewing, correspondence, elevations and floor plans, topographical map, and representations and testimony received at our hearing. 3. Applicant's 13,863 -SF triangular lot was layed out as a corner lot with 180.91' frontage on Surfside Drive and 161.98' frontage on Dias Way. Either frontage more than meets the 75 -foot minimum frontage required by Section 139 -16A. Minimum lot size, per that Section, is 10,000 SF and required front -yard setback is 20 feet. According to the plans submitted with the application for Building Permit 6213 -88 of 7/25/88, the 2 -story duplex dwelling was to be constructed with its front facing Dias Way and with the full 20 -foot setback from the Dias Way street line. As required by Section 139- 8A(3), the single front -entry door provided for access in common to each of the dwelling units of the duplex. on the side toward Surfside Drive and opening onto a porch are two entry doors for access to the respective units. 4. We find that the 20 -foot front -yard setback is required from the street line of Dias Way, rather than Surfside Drive. Since the setback intrusion is into the front yard and not a side yard, the relief sought by Special Permit is not available to validate the siting and must be denied. 5. From the 'as- built' plan, it appears that at least two of the three bounds defining the triangular lot were found in place. The builder who sited the duplex foundation said that he could not find the remaining bound, at the File No. 009 -89 intersection of the two streets. Rather than find this corner by simply measuring the intersecting lot lines from the two available bounds, he said that he noticed a piece of surveyor's tape near the intersection and relied on this as well as the grass verge for setting the batter boards. Because Parcel 252 across Dias Way was in nonconforming commercial use, he wanted to site the house so as to preserve a backyard to the rear of the house, away from that property. He thought he was siting the house's front building line with an 11 -foot setback from Dias Way to obtain that backyard. 6. Unfortunately, the front building line proved to be 5 feet back from the street line and the front -entry stoop even extends across it into Dias Way. Provisions were made for parking in front of the house, treating Dias Way as part of the lot. 7. Counsel for Applicant submitted plans showing the front -entry door lowered so that the stoop could be removed, leaving the intrusion into the front -yard just 15 feet. Then, by removing one of the two side doors and making interior re- arrangements for the other to be the entry giving access in common to both duplex units, counsel would have us find that house presents its side, not its front, to Dias Way. According to the DeGennaro case, Land Court No. 125148 decided 5/25/88, the front of a house is to be determined by its main orientation, a question of fact in the first instance for the Building Commissioner. In any event, we are not able to find that such superficial changes change the house's front to a side. 8. To grant relief by Special Permit would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning Bylaw but contradictory to its basic concerns in requiring setbacks, particularly from the street line. A most unfortunate precedent would be claimed by others similarly inobservant of the setback requirements. Neighbors rightly opposed relief, particularly those having use of Dias Way. 9. We realize that correction of the zoning violation by relocating the structure out of the setback will be expensive and, in that sense, a hardship, especially as a basement has been constructed under the house. Nonetheless, we are unable to find such condition upon relief as to warrant its grant in this case. 10. Upon motion to grant relief (with certain conditions as to parking off - street in the rear yard and plantings or fence along Dias Way), the vote was two in favor (O'Mara and Dooley) and 3 (the rest) opposed. Accordingly, relief is DENIED. - 2 - File No. 009 -89 Dated February 21, 1989 (acs will m R Sherman i z Peter Dooley Mic 1 J. ,:O' Mg-vra David J Leg t - 3 - NO'_:'J CE A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS jaill be held on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1989 at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, on the Appli- cation of NANTUCKET SABINGS BANK (009 -89) seeping a SPECIAL PERMIT under SECTION 139 -16C to reduce the required sid<, lot setback distance from 1.0 to 5 feet to validate an existing duplex structure sited five feet from the side lot line. The premises are located at 3 SURFSIDE DRIVE, Assessor's Parcel 67- 252.1, L..,.:' Court Plan 26939 -S, Lot 100, zoned RESIDENTIAL -10. William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS BoA Form 1 -89 Owner's name(s): Mailing address: Applicant's name: Mailing address: NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE No 021zl_ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF Nantucket Savings Bank 104 Pleasant Street, Nantucket, D'fA 02554 same same Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number Street address: 3 Surfside Drive 67 - 252.1 Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 2643A -s Lotloo Date lot acquired: �� 88 Deed Ref 13,696 Zoning district R -10 Uses on lot - commercial: None X or MCD ?no - number of: dwellings 1 duplex x apartments rental rooms Building date(s): all pre -8/72? or C of O? N, Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 6213 -88 7/25/88 Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: State fully all zoning relief sought and respective Code sections and subsections, specifically what you propose compared to present and what grounds you urge for BoA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if Variance, 139 -30A x if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A if to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -31A & B _ , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum . Grant of Special Permit to reduce the side lot setback distance from 10 to 5 feet in R -10 District to validate an existing structure 5 feet from side lot line, as allowed by Section 139 -16C. Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl addendum2 Locus map X Site plan x showing present x +planned structures Floor plans present proposed elevatis (HDC approved ?_) Listings lot area frontage setbacks GCR parking data Assessor- certifieU addressee ist 4 sets X mailing labels 2 setsxx 200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket x proof 'cap' covenant (If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr record to BoA.) I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the pains and penalties of perjury. 9� SIGNATURE: `11, Applicant At nrn y /agent X C. Richard Loftin 3 (If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) ,mnn a..r nrvT_or i4CF.