The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About033-89C) -3.3 - S"I NANTUCKET ZON: BOARD OF APPM NANTUCKET, MASS ACRUSI 1989 File No. (033 -89) To: Parties in interest and others Re: Decision in the Application of JOHN J. AND NOREEN C. SLAVITZ 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 filing ay action appealing the decision must be brought by g 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 4 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, May 26, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (033 -89) of JOHN J. and NOREEN C. SLAVITZ having an address c/o Reade & Alger Professional Corporation, 6 Young's Way, P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02554, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1.Applicants' seek a Variance from the 12 -foot front -to -rear spacing requirement of zoning Bylaw Section 139- 7A(2)(b) to allow construction of a one -story secondary dwelling in the northeast corner of the lot without the required spacing from their existing principal dwelling on the lot. 2. The premises are located at 34 Meadowview Drive, Assessor's Parcel 56 -136, Lot 4 of Land Court Plan 14830 -T, zoned Residential -2. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers including plans marked 19,524/89 received Mar 2, 1989 by the HDC consisting of site plan, floor plan and elevations for the proposed secondary dwelling, also correspondence and viewing as well as representations and testimony received at our hearing. 4. Applicants' lot has an area of 20,000 SF, the minimum required in the R -2 zone. Of particular significance is its shape, elongated in the direction of the curving street and narrow transverse to the street. The shape is generally trapezoidal but with the front lot line curved inwardly rather than parallel to the rear lot line. The existing single - family dwelling with 2,060 -SF ground coverage is set back slightly more than the required 30 feet from the street line and sited with a small clockwise rotation from a squared off relationship with the (generally) northerly and easterly lot lines. The northwest rear corner of the dwelling is about 10 feet south of the required 10 -foot setback from the rear (northerly) lot line. 5. In addition to the principal dwelling, a swimming pool is located on the lot filling the area between the easterly side of the dwelling and the required setback from the easterly lot line. (Assuming Attorney General approval of zoning Article 21 adopted at the 1989 Annual Town Meeting, the pool is not included in reckoning ground coverage ratio.) From the southwesterly corner of the lot, File No. 033 -89 a driveway extends from the street to the west side of the house. only a triangular area northwest of the driveway remains for siting a building with the 20' x 22' dimensions of the proposed secondary dwelling. Its added 440 SF would bring ground cover up to the allowable 2,500 SF (12.5% of lot area). 6. In that triangular area, Applicants propose to site the secondary dwelling with a generally southeasterly orientation of the front facing the driveway. The need for a Variance arises from nonconformity with Section 139- 7A(2)(b) requiring, for a detached secondary dwelling, that it be "located at least twelve (12) feet behind the rear building line of the principal dwelling or at least twelve (12) feet in front of the front building line of the principal dwelling." If the principal dwelling had originally been sited to accommodate the required 12' spacing, no need for a Variance would have arisen. To that extent, any hardship is self- created, by Applicants' predecessor if not by themselves. Given the actual siting unless the principal dwelling were moved at considerable expense, no conforming location on the lot can now be found. 7. Counsel for Applicants argues that a hardship warranting Variance relief arises here from the particular lot shape. However, for Assessor's Parcel 56 -284 just up the street, with elongated shape and curving frontage, we found that principal and secondary dwellings could be sited without Variance relief, provided that the principal dwelling were not first sited so as to make that impossible. Counsel cites two other cases on the street where Variances were granted to bring secondary dwellings into conformity but these were already existing and involved other factors not present here. 8. Guided by precedent, we construe the provisions for secondary dwellings strictly, as an exception to the preferred single dwelling per lot. (By contrast, Accessory Apartments are seen as favored to provide relatively affordable housing for year -round occupancy.) We are moved by the desire here to provide suitable accommodation for Applicants' relative - a main purpose we understand in the Town's providing for a secondary dwelling on a lot. We are mindful of the support for Applicants expressed by neighbors. And we trust that housing can be provided on the lot which meets her needs - and, at the same, conforms with the zoning regulations which we are obligated to uphold. 9. For the reasons given, we are unable to make the findings necessary for Variance relief. The hardship arises more from the siting of the principal dwelling than any uniqueness in the shape of the lot. Relief would be 2 - File No. 033 -89 detrimental to the public good in allowing increased intensity of use with dwellings spaced side to side not front to rear on the lot, a substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of the Bylaw. Nonetheless, in our vote, we recognize that the question is a close one, considering the particular equities favoring Applicants. 10. Upon motion to grant the relief requested, the vote was three in favor and two (Beale and Leggett) opposed. Since a quorum of 4 voting favorably is required to grant the requested relief, relief is here DENIED. Dated June �, 1989 ter.-- f�-- -- William R. Sherman Ann 9aias, d J. gge - 3 - NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 May 11, 1989 NOTICE A public hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on Friday, May 26, 1989, at 1:00 P.M. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application of: JOHN J. and NOREEN C. SLAVITZ Board of Appeals File No. 03__3 -89 seeking a Variance from the 12 -foot front -to -rear spacing requirement of Section 139 -7A(b) to allow construction of a one - story, one - bedroom secondary dwelling in the northeast corner of the lot with no front -to -rear spacing. The premises are at 34 Meadow View Drive, Assessor's Parcel 56 -136, Land Court Plan 14830 -T, Lot 74, zoned Residential-2. William R. Sherman, Chairman BOA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS D t — TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE NO APPLICATION FOR RELIEF Owner's name (s) John J. Slavitz and Noreen C. Slavitz o Reade & Alger Professional Corporation, 6 Young's Way, c Mailing address: poSt OffiQQ BOX 266!1., Nanturkptt Applicant's name: -- Mailing address: -- Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 56 - 136 Street address: 34 Meadow View Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 148_ 30T Lot 74 Registry Land Ct Plan, Cert. of Title 12,773 Date lot acquired: �24 86 Deed Ref Zoning district 3-2 Uses on lot - commercial: None X or MCD ?_ - number of: dwellings 1 duplex_ apartments_ rental rooms_ Building date(s): all pre -8/72? _ or C of O ?yam Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 2816 -83 2981 -8 - Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: State fully all zoning relief sought andrresspctive Codetsectionst and subsections, specifically what you P r e P per Section and what grounds you urge for BOA to make ecia1 Permit p(and 139 -33A 1.39 -32A X- if Variance, 139 -30A if a Sp per 139 -31A if to alter or extend a noncon�ormiealede). if0appealhper 139um . & B _ , attach decision or order app The Applicants seek a Variance under Nantucket Zoning By -Law Section 139 -32A from the 12 -foot spacing requirement of Nantucket Zoning By -Law Section 139- 7A(2)(b). The Applicants seek to construct a detached secondary dwelling which cannot meet the 12 -foot requirement due to the shallow, strangely shaped configuration of the lot. addendum2 Items enclosed as part of this Application: ordelanned structures Locus map X Site plan- showing Present elevations P (HDC approved ?�) Floor plans present proposed X parking data Listings lot area frontage setbacks_ GCRT_ P g gAssessor- certifier addressee ist 4 sets X ma lingcap' covenant - 1(If aneappeal, ask Town Nantucket Bldg Comr's,record to BOA.) I certify that the requested information subbmittedeistsubstantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, penalties of perjury . SIGNATURE: Applicant _ Attorney /agent 3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BOA OFFICE USE Application copies recd: d: 4 or_ for BOA on �, �— by complete? one One copy filed with Town Clerk on: �/ by —> One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept-sj�by rypy waived? $200 fee check given Town Treasurer on/�j 1�/ —/bY (�' (� Hearing notice posted /�/U Lmailed -//�z I & M_/�J ' ✓�� Hearing (s) on_/__/_. cont' d to _J_/_., _j_l— withdrawn ?__/--/— � made filed TC� ._ See related cases _/— mailed _j_/ Decision due byf_/— . —/--J— lawsuits other