Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020-89oao -- <2 <' � � r BOARD OF APPEALS OF NANTUCKET TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File No. U Map Parcel L3 1 3z IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF "-, Cl(- okm d he-4 -�7 Upon the request of the Applicant(s) made prior to (check one) after publication of notice of a public hearing on the above captioned application, we acknowledge as a matter of right and without prejudice (check one) ✓- approve without prejudice approve, but with prejudice the withdrawl / in full of the said application. (check one) of so much of the said application as t Dated;_ E1A EDWARD FOLEY VAUGHAN KEVIN F. DALE MELISSA D. PHILBRICK RACHEL G. HOBART VAUGHAN, DALE AND PHILBRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHALERS LANE NANTUCKET, MASS 02554 TE0508) 228-4455 PAX:(508) 228 -3070 June 9, 1989 HAND DELIVERY William R. Sherman, Chairman Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals Town and County Building Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 RE: G. Robert Ayd Board of Appeals No. 020 -89 Dear Chairman Sherman: In response to your letter of May 12, 1989, this letter will serve to confirm that my client, G. Robert Ayd, has received a duly issued Building Permit from the Nantucket Building Commissioner to construct a single family dwelling on the Mattapoisett Road and Westerwyck Way property in accordance with the revised plans submitted to the Building Inspector. A copy of Building Permit No. 6863 -89 is enclosed for your review. f of my c1�r��t, I respectfully request that "4 of jkppeals allow Mr. Ayd to withdraw his h¢ ✓3, Diu ki ng Commis s pry ` ithrawa :. al ain mare /1011/1 /7 1/ William R. Sherman, Chairman June 9, 1989 Page Two I believe this request for withdrawal of the application is appropriate pursuant to the remand voted by the Board at its last meeting. Please mark this matter for hearing on June 23, 1989. Sincerely, KFD /bal Enc. cc: Nantucket Building Commissioner Nantucket Town Clerk Nantucket Planning Board Mr. and Mrs. G. Robert Ayd 1) -n -� n -1 4 = 33 n 'q U) Arno n Unam n :X) Ti D � z0= �C^ D�� V < �re,0U1 m m 0 v nn� to -4 mm 0 O Z D D0< U] - -p > -� r- r7 m ( v z� Z O� D �O n Os z m m U) m m -v a O 0 Z s C G) 2 O nm C zv -A D \•� � Z 1 i r O O C7 c m m cn O <c z -q m --q 0- 0 m C3 m 0= K m M m0 -U a C] x Z �o o (n D -M c� r rnD r m � m iot MA m� vm rz 0 V / -n 0m -i o 0C: zm =z Dn a� M r mW (nm Oin zin me am a zc vo DZ --I m 0--j �c M z i0 M -n Da -a Zn- lu 0-0 am m0 Z z cn r- m o TI �O�/�9 m ..AJ M 200-10 -0 --1 �azmz m 1: m z r ° .� --v Zm M v' m 00Zo� z K in z z -1 Omm0 "� m � r D�m O � z-4 r- -o -n Z v--q m -10zz c --q 0 G7 --� M mD�� Dox�'�, m 0z x r --i z --� �U' mc;A,= .2r.0z> �. D -- or- (/) 0 --j �- n 00 = >3:Zi rCZmo0 ju (n z u' O U) 0m DDZm -gzU) � 1 moOm � z�F �- -U MU) M z0U)Q 00> :r.0 0Z--imM p0 4>< mm`0- maain -oa r -4C. —m O G ©Da O C7 -1 D z -t - m --d m0> m D cnmz -4 v in r 1 R. O co 6- W V O m C) G) c� arcs A 0 m m 0) mmi � �e NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, April 28, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (020 -89) of G. ROBERT AYD, for himself as purchaser under contract and for owners THERESA L. DEVINE, TRUSTEE OF THE VIOLA McCOY TRUST and the ESTATE of MARY BELYEA, Middlesex Probate No. 88P0511, having an address at 347 New Providence Road, Mountainside, NJ 07092, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following INTERLOCUTORY DECISION TO REMAND: 1. Applicant seeks reversal of the March 10, 1989 decision of the Building Commissioner refusing to grant a building permit for a proposed single - family dwelling set back 10 feet, not the 35 -foot front -yard setback required by Section 139 -16A, from Mattapoisett Avenue. Such relief is sought pursuant to zoning Bylaw Sections 139 -31A and -31B. 2. Alternatively, Applicant seeks a Variance from that 35 -foot front -yard setback requirement to allow siting with only a 10 -foot setback. 3. The premises are located at the northwest corner of Mattapoisett Avenue and Westerwyck Way, Assessor's Parcels 82 -368 and 370, Proprietors' Plan Book 1, Page 95, Lots 74 and 75, zoned Limited Use General -2. 4. Our findings are based upon the Application papers including Addendum "A ", the 3/10/89 denial letter and a site schematic, also correspondence and a copy of the Building Department record (with counsel's 1/19/89 affidavit of non - contiguous ownership stating that Applicant is a contract purchaser from one Bruce Poor, together with elevations showing 11/17/85 approval by the Historic District Commission, C. of A. 15,368). A letter from the attorney for the owners named above affirms Applicant's authority to act in these proceedings. At our hearings of March 31 and April 28, 1989, we received, in addition to testimony and representations, photoprints with views of the respective ways, proposed first- and second -floor plans and a 4/24/89 site plan showing a proposed driveway off Westerwyck Way. 5. We find that, as to this corner lot, Westerwyck is the more travelled way, extending in a generally north -south direction to the ocean and along the easterly perimeter of this very old Share 13 subdivision. Mattapoisett, likewise an unimproved way, ends at the westerly perimeter. The corner Lot 74 has 50' frontage on Westerwyck and, with Lot M File No. 01-_61-89 75, has 123.5' frontage on Mattapoisett. Lot 75 has a 40' width and, being merged for zoning purposes with Lot 74, provides an L- shaped Lot 74 -75. Applicant proposes to site an elongated house oriented east -west with 11' setback from Mattapoisett and 50' from Westerwyck. The building permit application lists first -floor area as 1,073 SF and second -floor 1,270 (likely reversed). 6. Some 12 communications in opposition were received voicing concern about siting the house so close to Mattapoisett with attendant questions of safety and adverse aesthetic impact in this coastal plains area. (Counsel for Applicant identifies only one as from a "party in interest ".) 7. Counsel objects to the rationale for the 3/10/89 denial. After quoting relevant text from the controlling decision in DeGennaro, Land Court case No. 125148, the denial reads: "The lot frontage on Mattapoisett Ave (120 linear feet) provides the most access and is most conforming to Chapter 139 -16A - it is therefore the most logical 'front' of the lot. "It is clear from the H.D.C. plans and the floor plan provided that the architectural and the 'main orientation' of the structure is Mattapoisett Ave. "Therefore the 'front' setback is to be from Mattapoisett Ave." Counsel apparently accepts that the rationale of the second - quoted paragraph is in accord with the law applicable to our zoning Code - but not the first. At our hearing, the Building Commissioner appeared to rely more heavily on the rationale of the first than the second paragraph as the simpler for him to apply, i.e., the "front" of a corner lot is taken from the least nonconforming frontage. 8. In any event, Applicant is able to amend his application for a building permit to construct a dwelling which does have its architectural "main orientation" facing Westerwyck. To allow opportunity for this and to avoid unnecessary litigation, this matter is appropriately remanded to the Building Commissioner to consider an appropriately amended presentation of the proposed dwelling. If a dwelling with front orientation proper in relation to required setbacks is given a building permit for the premises, and no party in interest challenges the approval, further proceedings before this Board could be terminated by our favorable vote on a motion to withdraw. - 2 - File No. 02,c,-89 9. For guidance in any further proceedings, we note that the interior area layout of a proposed dwelling should not be a factor in deciding the zoning question. Driveway entry has been considered in making a determination of "front" only in the Kateman case 093 -88, there involving a pre- existing house without setback due to layout of a street with Planning Board endorsement prior to the DeGennaro decision. Frontage is not mentioned as a factor in the zoning Code nor in the DeGennaro decision in determining the front yard of a corner lot. 10. As required, we note the following votes preceding our decision to remand: - On motion to reverse the appealed denial of a building permit, three members Leggett, Balas and Sherman voted in the negative, defeating the motion. - On motion to grant the requested variance, the vote was unanimously in the negative. If proceedings on the merits are resumed and a final decision reached, grounds for the decision will be set forth. As this is not a final decision, copies to parties in interest are not required. 11. Upon motion to remand this case to the Building Commissioner for the purposes set forth above, the vote in favor was unanimous. Accordingly, this Application is REMANDED. Dated May , 1989 Ann G. Balas ell Willia R. Sherman Mic a J. Vlmara - 3 - EDWARD FOLEY VAUGHAN KEVIN F. DALE MELISSA D. PHILBRICK RACHEL C. HOBART VAUGHAN, DALE AND PHILBRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHALER'S LANE NANTUCKET, MASS 02554 TE0508) 228-4455 PAH:(508) 228 -3070 April 25, 1989 William Sherman, Chairman Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals Town and County Building Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 RE: G. Robert Ayd B.O.A. No. 020 -89 Dear Chairman Sherman: Enclosed herewith in support of Mr. Ayd's Board of Appeals application is a site plan showing the proposed driveway and walkway on the Westerwyck Way premises. Sincerely, KFD /bal Enc. cc: Ronald Santos, Nantucket Building Commi. i.oner Joanne Holdgate, Nantucket Town Clerk Nantucket Planning Board Mr. G. Robert Ayd NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 March 16, 1989 NOTICE A public hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on Friday, March 31, 1989, at 0-:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application of: G. ROBERT AYD, for himself as purchaser under contract and for owner THERESA L. DEVINE, TRUSTEE OF THE VIOLA McCOY TRUST, Board of Appeals File No. 020 -89 seeking reversal of the 3/10/89 decision of the Building Commissioner in which he refused to grant a building permit for a proposed dwelling set back 101, not the required 35' from Mattapoisett Avenue, relief being sought by appeal under Section 139 -31A and B. The premises are at Mattapoisett Avenue, Assessor's Parcels 82 -368 and 370, Plan Book 1, Page 95, Lots 74 and 75, zoned Limited Use General -3. William R. Sherman, Chairman EDWARD FOLEY VAUGHAN KEVIN F. DALE MELISSA D. PHILBRICK RACHEL C.HOBART VAUGHAN, DALE AND PHILBRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHALER'S LANE NANTUCKET, MASS 02554 TEL:(508) 228 -4455 FAX:(508) 228 -3070 March 10, 1989 BY HAND Mr. William Sherman, Chairman Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals Town and County Building Broad Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 RE: Application of G Robert Ayd Mattanoisett Avenue Dear Bill: Enclosed please find the above - referenced application, the abutters list with two sets of mailing labels and our check in the amount of $200.00 for the filing fee. If you or Linda have any questions prior to the hearing, please let me know. S'ncerely, W KFD /md encl. cc: Mr. G. Robert Ayd Ms. Joanne Holdgate, Town Clerk BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF March /0, 1989 Date CASE No.(-5?0-V Owner's name(s): Theresa L. Devine, Trustee Mailing address: P.O. Box 1857, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332 Applicant's name: G. Robert Ayd (Contract Purchaser) Mailing address: 347 New Providence Road, Mountainside New Jersey 07092 Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 82 - 368 and 370 t t dd ess: Mattapoisett Avneue, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 S ree a r Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 1/95 Date lot acquired: Uses on lot - commercial: Lot s 74 nad 75 Deed Ref 267, 172 Zoning district LUG -3 None XX or MCD? - number of: dwellings_ duplex_ apartments_ rental rooms Building date(s): all pre -8/72? _ or Building Permit appl'n. Nos. Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: C of O? 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 if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A if to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -3]A -&—B , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendumJ'. See Addendum "A" annexed hereto. Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl x addendumlx Locus map x Site plan x showing present +planned x structures Floor plans present_ proposed_ elevations (NDC approved-;Y ) Listings lot area 8,159frontage 123.E &tbacks GCR parking data Assessor - certifies— addressee list 4 sets A mailing labels 2 sets x 200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket proof 'cap' covenant (If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr's 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 SIGNATURE: pp icant Attorney /agent XX G. Rober Ayd, bylHis Attorney, Kevin F. Dale 3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BoA OFFICE USE Application copies reed: 4 (/ or for BoA on3 / /O -- One copy filed with Town Clerk on,�/ �Y (- F- O complete? One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept_3j)6/ by L - $200 fee check given Town Treasurer on3 / Y waived? & M�=j d hearing notice postec3//6-/,F�,ailed-3/b _ Bearing (s) one_/_ cont' d tom_/_, ��_ withdrawn ?_ /_/ _ Decision due by__/_-/_ madeJ /_/_ filed TC_/ -J_ mailed__j __ See related cases lawsuits _ other —_- March 10,1989 Dear Mr Ayd; re file82 -368 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 228 -6800 ext. 230 Your application for a building permit for a dwelling located at Westerwyck Way, Assessors Map 82 parcels 368 & 370 has been reviewed and is hereby DENIED. I have examined the application using the standards set forth in the Land Court case number 125148 dated 5 \25 \88 sustaining the DeGennaro appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals has in the cases of Bassano (file No. 076 -88), Kateman (file no. 093 -88), and Linquest (file no. 100 -88) based it's decision upon the Land Court's findings, quoting from Z.B.A File no 076 -88; "In that decision Judge Sullivan there held that: - it is only proper to give the word front its normal and ordinary meaning" - "front yard means ... the yard between the street and the front of the house. There can be only one front to any building and consequently only one front yard." -In the context of a house angled toward the abutting street corner, the "main orientation" of the house sets where the front yard is to be measured. - Which is the front yard is "a question of fact which in the first instance is to be determined by the Building Inspector when an application for a building permit is filed with his office." Based on the above I make the following findings; The locus is the LUG -2 zone, and while deficient in both area and frontage it is, as represented by attorney Dale, entitled to the protections of Chapters 139 -16 and 139 -33 of the Code of Nantucket. The lot frontage on Mattapoisett Ave (120 linear feet) provides the most access and is the most conforming to Chapter 139 -16A it is therefor the most logical "front" of the lot. BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 228 -6800 ext. 230 It is clear from the H.D.C. plans and the floor plan provided that the architectural and the "main orientation" of the structure is Mattapoisett Ave. Therefore the "front yard" setback is to be from Mattapoisett Ave. The front yard set back in the LUG -2 zone is 35 feet The application and the plot plan show the set back from Mattapoisett Ave to be ten feet. For the above stated reasons I find the application as proposed to be in violation of Chapter 139 -16 of the Code of Nantucket and is DENIED. Please be advised that you may appeal the decision of the Building Commissioner to the Zoning Board of Appeals as allowed for in Chapter 139- 291)(1)(b) of the Code of Nantucket. ry trul Y s ona o o Building Commissioner ADDENDUM "A" The applicant appeals from the Decision of the Nantucket Building Inspector denying him a Building Permit for construction of a single family dwelling on the premises in accordance with Building Permit Application No. pursuant to Section 139. As grounds for his appeal, the Applicant says that the Building Inspector's determination that where, as in this case, the lots at issue abut two (2) different streets (Westerwyck Way and Mattapoisett Avenue), the front yard set back of thirty -five (35) feet must be measured from Mattapoisett Avenue, the longer of the two (2) streets abutting the premises, is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonably, and effectively renders the lot unbuildable. In support of its appeal, the Applicant refers the Board to DeGennaro v. Sherman et al, Land Court Case No. 125148, which holds that the owner of a lot which abuts on more than one (1) street must comply with the front yard setback requirements as to only one (1) of such streets. Sullivan stated: In DeGenarro, Chief Justice As used in conjunction with "yard" the term "front yard" means, to the lay person and to an experienced conveyor alike, the yard between the street and the front of the hoiuse. _There can only be one front to any building and consequently only one front yard. Page One In the instant case, the Applicant's house design clearly shows that the front of the proposed dwelling faces Westerwyck Way not Mattapoisett Avenue. Under the DeGenarro decision, the Applicant is entitled to deem his front vard to be the area between Westerwyck Way and the front of the house. The Building Inspector's determination that the Applicant must treat the area between Mattapoisett Avenue and his house as a "front yard" for setback purposes is not supported by any provision of the Nantucket Zoning By -Law and, as a practical matter, is at odds with the true location of the front of the house. Moreover, in the Bassano et al Board of Appeals decision dated August 30, 1988 (076 -88), this Board upheld the decision of the Building Inspector which determined that the owner of a pre- existing, non - conforming lot which abutted two (2) streets was entitled to measure his front yard setback distance from the shorter of the two (2) streets, Mayhew Avenue, on the ground that the principal or main entry to the house faced the shorter street, Mayhew Avenue. In the instant case, the facts clearly show that the principal or main entry to the house faces Westerwyck Way. Specifically, the submitted plans show that the front of the house faces Westerwyck Way, there are steps leading to a porch in front of the door, this front door has a centered, axial orientation, and there is an open foyer through the front door with interior stairs to the second story of the house are just inside the front door. Page Two The Building Inspector's determination that the 35 foot front yard setback requirement must be measured from Mattapoisett Avenue is not supported by the DeGenarro case, is contrary to his interpretation as set forth in the Bassano et al Board of Appeals decision, is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and should be reversed by this Board. The Applicant asks this Board to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector denying the issuance of a Building Permit to the Applicant and further requests this Board to order the Building Inspector to issue said permit forthwith. In the alternative, the Applicant seeks a variance from the thirty -five (35) feet setback requirement set forth in Section 139 -16A which reduces the thirty -five (35) foot setback to a ten (10) foot setback on the ground that requiring a thirty -five (35) foot setback from Mattapoisett Avenue would render the lot " unbuildable." Specifically, the shape of the lot is unique ( "L shaped ") and different from the shapes of lots in this particular zoning district. A literal enforcement of the front yard setback requirement as interpreted by the Nantucket Building Inspector would render the lot, for all practical purposes, "unbuildable" insofar as it would create a five (5) foot wide building envelope on the lot. The Board may grant this requested relief without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By -Law. Page Three EDWARD FOLEY VAUGHAN KEVIN F. DALE MELISSA D. PHILBRICK RACHEL C.HOBART VAUGHAN, DALE AND PHILBRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHALER'S LANE NANTUCKET, MASS 02554 TE0508) 228-4455 FAX:(508) 228 -3070 March 10, 1989 BY HAND Mr. William Sherman, chairman Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals Town and County Building Broad Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 RE: Application of G Robert Ayd Mattapoisett Avenue Dear Bill: Enclosed please find the above - referenced application, the abutters list with two sets of mailing labels and our check in the amount of $200.00 for the filing fee. If you or Linda have any questions prior to the hearing, please let me know. BOA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF March /0, 1989 --t —e CASE No. -_ Owner's name(s): Theresa L. Devine, Trustee Mailing address: P.O. Box 1857, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332 Applicant's name: G. Robert Ayd (Contract Purchaser) Mailing address: 347 New Providence Road, Mountainside New Jersey 07092 Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 82 - 368 and 370 Street address: Mattapoisett Avneue, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 1/95 Lots 74 nad 75 Date lot acquired: __/ �_ Deed Ref 267, 172 Zoning district LUG -3 Uses on lot - commercial: None XX or MCD ?_ - number of: dwellings_ duplex— apartments_ rental rooms_ Building date(s): all pre -8/72? _ or C of O. — Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 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 if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A if to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -3 A & B , attach decision or orderl appealed. OK to attach addendum . See Addendum "A" annexed hereto. Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl x addendum2x Locus map x Site plan x showing present +planned x structures Floor plans present_ proposed— elevations (HDC aapproved ?Y ) Listings lot area 8,159frontage 123.&S!tbacks GCR parking data Assessor- certified addressee list 4 sets majling labels 2 sets x- �200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket( proof 'cap' covenant (If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr's 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 SIGNATURE pp icant Attorney /agent XX G. Rober Ayd, by His Attorney, Kevin F. Dane 3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BOA OFFICE USE Application copies rec'd: 4— or for BOA on_J___f_ by One copy filed with Town Clerk on__/_J_ by complete ?_ One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept_f__/_ by $200 fee check given Town Treasurer on_J_ waived? /_ by — Hearing notice posted_/_ mailed_/— I & M--J—J—, Hearing(s) on_/__/_ cont'd tom _/_, _/�_ withdrawn ?__J_ /_ Decision due bye_/_ made) / _J_ filed TC_/ _J_ mailed__J__J__ See related cases lawsuits�j other _ _ March 10,1989 Dear Mr Ayd; re file82 -368 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 228 -6800 ext. 230 Your application for a building permit for a dwelling located at Westerwyck Way, Assessors Map 82 parcels 368 & 370 has been reviewed and is hereby DENIED. I have examined the application using the standards set forth in the Land Court case number 125148 dated 5 \25 \88 sustaining the DeGennaro appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals has in the cases of Bassano (file No. 076 -88), Kateman (file no. 093 -88), and Linquest (file no. 100 -88) based it's decision upon the Land Court's findings, quoting from Z.B.A File no 076 -88; "In that decision Judge Sullivan there held that: - it is only proper to give.the word front its normal and ordinary meaning" - "front yard means ... the yard between the street and the front of the house. There can be only one front to any building and consequently only one :front yard." -In the context of a house angled toward the abutting street corner, the "main orientation" of the house sets where the front yard is to be measured. - Which is the front yard is "a question of fact which in the first instance is to be determined by the Building Inspector when an application for a building permit is filed with his office." Based on the above I make the following findings; The locus is the LUG -2 zone, and while deficient in both area and frontage it is, as represented by attorney Dale, entitled to the protections of Chapters 139 -16 and 139 -33 of the Code of Nantucket. The lot frontage on Mattapoisett Ave (120 linear feet) provides the most access and is the most conforming to Chapter 139 -16A it is therefor the most logical "front" of the lot. BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 228 -6800 ext. 230 It is clear from the H.D.C. plans and the floor plan provided that the architectural and the "main orientation" of the structure is Mattapoisett Ave. Ave. Therefore the "front yard" setback is to be from Mattapoisett The front yard set back in the LUG -2 zone is 35 feet The application and the plot plan show the set back from Mattapoisett Ave to be ten feet. For the above stated reasons I find the application as proposed to be in violation of Chapter 139 -16 of the Code of Nantucket and is DENIED. Please be advised that you may appeal the decision of the Building Commissioner to the Zoning Board of Appeals as allowed for in Chapter 139- 291)(1)(b) of the Code of Nantucket. 4 ory trul Yf2 na o Building Commissioner ADDENDUM "A" The applicant appeals from the Decision of the Nantucket Building Inspector denying him a Building Permit for construction of a single family dwelling on the premises in accordance with Building Permit Application No. pursuant to Section 139. As grounds for his appeal, the Applicant says that the Building Inspector's determination that where, as in this case, the lots at issue abut two (2) different streets (Westerwyck Way and Mattapoisett Avenue), the front yard set back of thirty -five (35) feet must be measured from Mattapoisett Avenue, the longer of the two (2) streets abutting the premises, is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonably, and effectively renders the lot unbuildable. In support of its appeal, the Applicant refers the Board to DeGennaro v. Sherman et al, Land Court Case No. 125148, which holds that the owner of a lot which abuts on more than one (1) street must comply with the front yard setback requirements as to only one (1) of such streets. In DeGenarro, Chief Justice Sullivan stated: As used in conjunction with "yard" the term "front yard" means, to the lay person and to an experienced conveyor alike, the yard between the street and the front of the hoiuse. _There can only be one front to any building and consequently only one front yard. Page One In the instant case, the Applicant's house design clearly shows that the front of the proposed dwelling faces Westerwyck Way not Mattapoisett Avenue. Under the DeGenarro decision, the Applicant is entitled to deem his front yard to be the area between Westerwyck Way and the front of the house. The Building Inspector's determination that the Applicant must treat the area between Mattapoisett Avenue and his house as a "front yard" for setback purposes is not supported by any provision of the Nantucket Zoning By -Law and, as a practical matter, is at odds with the true location of the front of the house. Moreover, in the Bassano et al Board of Appeals decision dated August 30, 1988 (076 -88), this Board upheld the decision of the Building Inspector which determined that the owner of a pre- existing, non - conforming lot which abutted two (2) streets was entitled to measure his front yard setback distance from the shorter of the two (2) streets, Mayhew Avenue, on the ground that the principal or main entry to the house faced the shorter street, Mayhew Avenue. In the instant case, the facts clearly show that the principal or main entry to the house faces Westerwyck Way. Specifically, the submitted plans show that the front of the house faces Westerwyck Way, there are steps leading to a porch in front of the door, this front door has a centered, axial orientation, and there is an open foyer through the front door with interior stairs to the second story of the house are just inside the front door. Page Two The Building Inspector's determination that the 35 foot front yard setback requirement must be measured from Mattapoisett Avenue is not supported by the DeGenarro case, is contrary to his interpretation as set forth in the Bassano et al Board of Appeals decision, is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and should be reversed by this Board. The Applicant asks this Board to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector denying the issuance of a Building Permit to the Applicant and further requests this Board to order the Building Inspector to issue said permit forthwith. In the alternative, the Applicant seeks a variance from the thirty -five (35) feet setback requirement set forth in Section 139 -16A which reduces the thirty -five (35) foot setback to a ten (10) foot setback on the ground that requiring a thirty -five (35) foot setback from Mattapoisett Avenue would render the lot " unbuildable." Specifically, the shape of the lot is unique ( "L shaped ") and different from the shapes of lots in this particular zoning district. A literal enforcement of the front yard setback requirement as interpreted by the Nantucket Building Inspector would render the lot, for all practical purposes, "unbuildable" insofar as it would create a five (5) foot wide building envelope on the lot. The Board may grant this requested relief without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By -Law. Page Three