The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About067-89r at v Form 3 -89 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 December 15 , 19 89 To: Parties in interest and others concerned with the decision of the Board of Appeals in Application No. of: Mary Ellen Hall 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 day's 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: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS DECISION: At a public hearing of the Nantucket Board of Appeals, held on Friday, December 8, 1989, at 1:00 P.M., at the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, the Board made the following decision upon the application of MARY ELLEN HALL (067 -89): 1. This is an application for relief by variance from Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139 -16.A (Intensity Regulations - Ground Cover Ratio), seeking ratification and approval of construction of her partly- completed dwelling, commenced by a prior owner, said to contain 2,563 square feet of ground cover. The subject property (the "Locus ") is situated at 8 Sesapana Road (Assessor's Parcel 54 -38), is shown on Land Court Plan 14664 -C as Lot 8, and is zoned as Limited Use General -3. 2. The subdivision in which the Locus is situated (originally called "Milestone Village ") has a long and checkered history with regard to applicable land use requirements. Briefly, the original subdivider filed his subdivision plan prior to original adoption (effective July 27, 1972) of the Nantucket Zoning By -law, and accordingly state law provided a seven -year "freeze" period, during which zoning requirements applicable at the time of filing the plan (that is, no requirements) would remain applicable. The starting date for this "freeze" period is, by law, the date of endorsement of the plan; in this case, the plan was never endorsed, but a Court - entered judgment deemed it approved. Furthermore, several matters of litigation affected the project. For these reasons, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to definitely determine the expiration date of the "freeze" period. 3. We are told that the former Building Inspector, with the acquiescence of the Planning Board, effectively established a date of April 5, 1984, to be the cutoff date for expiration of the zoning "freeze "; complete building permit applications prior to this date would be allowed, regardless of ground cover ratio, while applications filed after that date would be limited to 1500 square feet of ground cover under the first footnote to By -law Section 139 -16.A. (It is to be noted that new owners had by then purchased the project from the original subdivider and, apparently in a gesture of cooperation with the Planning Board, imposed restrictions limiting each lot to one single - family dwelling and gifted four lots to the Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc., which was given the right to enforce the restrictions.) 4. A complete building permit application was filed for the Locus by April 5, 1984, showing a dwelling with ground cover of 2,480 square feet. The Locus changed hands several times, and an owner submitted a revised set of plans, which appears to show the ground cover as being 2,563 square feet. The building upon the Locus has been constructed in accordance with the latter plans. However, we are told at the public hearing by a general contractor, formerly affiliated with the project, that with the area of open porches without living space situated above them in a vertical plane deducted pursuant to the amendment to the definition of "ground coverage ratio" by Article 81 of the May 24, 1988 Town Meeting, actual ground cover will be correctly computed as 2,485 square feet. 5. We are reluctant to grant variance relief in this matter. We are, however, mindful that the Applicant and her predecessors have built in accordance with plans submitted in advance to the Building Department, and that there is substantial neighborhood support for a solution that will enable the Applicant to complete her building now under construction. 6. In order to resolve the situation, we therefore determine that, with actual ground cover of the structure now under construction being about 2,485 square feet, any deviation from the original 2,480 square -foot footprint is de minimis, and is within the scope of the original building permit application, filed before the date of expiration of the zoning "freeze" period as established by the then Building Inspector and never challenged as such. Therefore, we deny variance relief on the basis that it is unnecessary, with the expectation that the Building Commissioner will (as he indicated at our public hearing) issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the present structure if completed properly and in accordance with the plans on file with his office, and with reasonable diligence. 7. Accordingly, by unanimous vote to relief. Dated: ('010— ejw /94 /HAL for the reasons set forth herein, we act deny the Applicant's request for variance Wil iam R Sherman da J Williams obert . Leichter -2- NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 November 22, 1989 NOTICE A public hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on Friday, December 8, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application of: MARY ELLEN HALL Board of Appeals File No. 06-7-89 seeking a Variance from the maximum ground cover ratio ( "GCR ") allowed by Section 139 -16A to validate the 2,563 SF of ground cover of her single - family dwelling now under construction. Allowable GCR in this Limited Use General -3 zone is 3% of the 33,380 -SF (undersized) lot area. Construction was begun by a predecessor with 1984 Building Permit 3652 -84 for a 2,480 -SF dwelling. The premises are at 8 Sasapana Road, Assessor's Parcel 54 -038, Lot 8 of Land Court Plan 14664 -C. William R. Sherman, Chairman BOA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS D to TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, 1A 02554 CASE N0.00- APPLICATION FOR RELIEF owner's name(s): M c/o- uaas e cs 0 2669, Mailing address: ong Way ,NantukSsahusett Applicant's name: Same Mailing address: Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 54 - 38 Street address: 8 Sesapana Road '" � Land Ct Plan, " °1 -" `�'' " 14664 -C Lot 8 — � Cert. 13315 Toning district LUG -3 Date lot acquired: j01 J87 = ,_e' -"e+ —'— MCD? Uses on lot - commercial: None X or - - number of: dwellings 1 duplex_ apartments— rental rooms Building date(s) : all pre -8/72? No or Under construction C of O? N 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 per to Section nt and what grounds you urge for BOA to make each finding p 139 -32A X if Variance, S139-3-OA if agSuse). f appeal (apeT1139331A if to alter or extend a noncontormiealede OKltoaattachp addendum 22. & B _ , attach decision or order app Applicant requests a variance from By -law Section 139 -16.A (Intensity Regulations - Ground Cover Ratio) to ratify construction of her building under construction commenced by a prior owner, which contails ?,S63 square feet of ground cover; 2,480 square feet were shown upon the c,riyia�l permit application filed prior to the extended ej ' ;;f a zoning free2e period. addendum2 Items enclosed as part of this Application: ordelanned structures ( Locus map X Site plan X showing present X _ P HDapproved?_) proposed— e Floor plans present elevations parking data Listings lot area frontage setbacks GCR X ma l ni g labelsg2 setsX Assessor - certified addressee $200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket X proof 'cap' covenant L(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 PeA ury. SIGNATURE: Applicant Attorney /agent x —' 3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BOA �FICE USE �.-(�- Application copies rec d: 4 or for BOA on�� Y complete? C. One copy filed with Town Clerk on�� Y —p¢, ,, —, One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept_�Q1%p�by� -��=� - �aived? $200 fee check given Town Treasurer on�� by pr, d Hearing notice posted�/J maile 1/� I & M� _1. Hearing(s) one _/_ cont'd to_-J--J_, __j__I— withdrawn ?__J,_/_ Decision due byf�_ made �_/_ filed TC_/�_ mailed_/_ _ See related cases lawsuits other •