The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About011-90Form 3 -89 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 March odd 19 90 To: Parties in interest and others concerned.with the decision of the Board of Appeals in Application No. 011 -g0 of: JOANNE SKOKAN AND DAVID SKOKAN 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. Willi m R. Sherman, Chairman cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, March 9, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (011 -90) of JOANNE SKOKAN and DAVID SKOKAN having an address at 27 Old South Road, Nantucket, MA 02554, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1. Applicants appeal from the February 15, 1990 decision of the Building Commissioner denying them a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises because the as -built plan showed an incursion into the required front -yard setback. In the alternative, Aplicants seek a Variance from the front -yard setback requirements of Section 139 -16A to validate the siting of their single- family dwelling with its front entry steps intruding to within 1616" of the front lot line. 2. The premises are located at 20 Tom's Way off Ticcoma Way, Assessor's Parcel 68 -077, Lot 10 at Page 38 of Plan Book 18, and zoned Residential Commercial -2. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers including the as -built plot plan of Nov. 29, 1989, by John J. Shugrue, surveyor, also the Building Department record from which this appeal is taken. Further basis lies in the memorandum of Applicants' counsel, plans, representations and testimony received at our hearing. 4. Applicants' almost square lot at the interior end of Tom's Way has an area of 7,857 SF. Their 832 -SF dwelling is sited toward the southerly corner with ample setbacks except as to the front yard. The front building line, which with the front lot line defines the "front yard" (see Section 139 -2A), is setback almost exactly the required 20 feet (Section 139 -16A). However, the low, bricked front entry steps extend some 316" into the required front yard. They extend in the direction toward the street, that is, Tom's Way. 5. Applicants' counsel represents that responsibility for the front -yard intrusion is not entirely clear. An architect's presentation drawing titled "Salt Shaker" clearly shows the brick entry steps, also a sidewalk extending from them to the street. An "east elevation" version of that drawing apears in the Building Department file along with a site plan prepared locally by civil engineer Norman Chaleki, a former Nantucket Building Inspector. The latter shows the outline of the dwelling's File No. 011 -90 foundation set just 20 feet back from Tom's Way, absent any entry steps. If the siting were based solely upon this plan, the entry steps would necessarily intrude upon the 20' front -yard setback. Counsel tells us that the siting was effected by surveyor Shugrue at the locus. 6. Considering, first, the issues raised on appeal, the denial of a Certificate of Occupancy was based solely on the violation of the 20' front -yard setback requirement of Section 139 -16A which provides, in part: "No building shall be constructed - -- unless in conformity with -- after which follows the intensity regulation table with column headed "Front Yard" and the applicable listing of 1120" feet. In Section 139 -16C, the text continues: "No building or structure shall be erected within the following distances from a rear or side lot line. (Front yard setbacks shall be governed by the front yard requirements of the Intensity Regulation Table.)" 7. Counsel argues that the required "front yard" is, by definition, limited to the area bounded between the front lot line and the front "building line ", i.e., the front exterior foundation wall line. The front entry steps are said to be not part of the foundation and thus not to define a front building line closer than the minimum 201. His conclusion is: "Thus any part of a structure outside the foundation is ignored in measuring the front yard and therefore may exist within the front yard without violating the setback requirement." 8. The Building Commissioner tells us that such conclusion, if adopted in our decision, would contradict the long - settled interpretation of the front -yard setback requirement of the Building Department and this Board. We agree. The zoning purpose of a "yard" is to be free of structures. Doubtless our zoning Bylaw could be better written to express that within the confines of Section 139 -16A. Nonetheless, the portion of Section 139 -16C quoted above leaves no ambiguity. We need not go on to question whether there is an exterior foundation wall beneath the front riser of the brick steps. 9. Accordingly, Applicants' appeal must be denied and is so DENIED by unanimous vote of this Board. 10. However, in seeking Variance relief, counsel represents that the intrusion was an unintentional error, not one from which Applicants derive a benefit. He likens - 2 - File No. 011 -90 the bricked entry steps as in the nature of an entry sidewalk (which is permissible in a front yard), somewhat raised as is required by the Building Code for safe entry into the front door. They cannot be removed without relocating the front entry and consequently rearranging interior space, clearly a hardship. 11. We are left to consider relief out of equitable considerations for Applicants and again admonish builders to obtain competent surveyor assistance when siting a structure - not waiting to discover errors "as- built ". The Planning Board rightly questions the strict legal basis for the findings requisite to Variance relief. On balance, this Board is disposed to grant relief in the specific circumstances of this case. No neighborhood opposition was heard. 12. Accordingly, by unanimous vote, this Board grants to Applicants the requested Variance from the front -yard requirements of Section 139 -16A to validate the as -built siting of their dwelling and, specifically, its brick entry steps. Dated March 90, 1990 A 0"Y,( Ay�-� da F. i11iams Peter F. Dooley �Vj - 3 - Ic ��.r g6, k NOTICE A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1990, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, on the Application of JOANNE SKOKAN and DAVID SKOKAN (d // -90) appealing from the Building Inspector's decision dated February 15, 1990, denying a Certificate of Occupancy under SECTION 139 -16A and in the alternative seeking a VARIANCE from the requirements of SECTION 139 -16A to reduce the required front yard setback distance from 20 feet to 16 feet 6 inches to validate an existing single- family dwelling sited 20 feet from the front lot line with a front step sited 16 feet 6 inches from the front lot line. The premises are located at 20 TOM'S WAY, Assessor's Parcel 68 -77, Plans Book 18 Page 38, Lot 10, zoned RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL 2. NOTICE A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1990, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, on the Application of JOANNE SKOKAN and DAVID SKOKAN (d // -90) appealing from the Building Inspector's decision dated February 15, 1990, denying a Certificate of Occupancy under SECTION 139 -16A and in the alternative seeking a VARIANCE from the requirements of SECTION 139 -16A to reduce the required front yard setback distance from 20 feet to 16 feet 6 inches to validate an existing single- family dwelling sited 20 feet from the front lot line with a front step sited 16 feet 6 inches from the front lot line. The premises are located at 20 TOM'S WAY, Assessor's Parcel 68 -77, Plans Book 18 Page 38, Lot 10, zoned RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL 2. Chi a.c.�rr cw BoA Form 1-89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING Date NANTUCKET, HA 02554 / CASE No. Ol - owner's name(s): APPLICATION FOR RELIEF ,7nanne Skokan and David Skokan Mailing address: 27 Old South Road, Nantucket MA 02554 Applicant's name: (sue) Mailing address: Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 68 - 77 Street address: 20 Tom's way Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 18/38 Lot 10 Date lot acquired: 87 Deed Ref 275 0238 Uses on lot - commercial: None x or Zoning district RC =2 MCD? - number of: dwellings 1 duplex 0 apartments 0 rental rooms0 Building date(s): all pre -8/72? or 1990 C of O? no Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 657089 Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: NONE 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 y if Variance, 139 -30A if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A i to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -31A &-B , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum . Appeal of Building Commissioner's denial of C.O. under 139 -16A, and in the alter- native a variance under 139 -32A to reduce the required front yard setback distance from 20 feet to' to validate an existing sing ?e - family dwelling sited 20 feet from the front lot line with a front step sited-1 6'6" from the front lot line. Variance is sought on the grounds of unique topography ana substantial hardship to applicant. Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl addendum2 Locus maps_ Site plan _X_ showing present, x +planned "structures Floor plans present proposed elevations (HDC approved? v Listings lot area frontage setbacks GCR parking data Assessor- certifie3 addressee Yi t 4 sets ma�ling labels 2 setsX Si200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket X proof 'cap' covenant (If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr's record to BoA-.T- I certify,-that. the requested information submitted is substantially complete and true to the be 9t of my knowledge, under the pains and penalties of perjury. SIGNATURE: Applicant Attorney /agent X 3(If not owner or owne 's attorney, enclose proof of.authority) FOR BoA OFFICE USE Application copies recd: 4 or for BoA on �J(�),Dy February 15, 1990 Mr. David Skokan Tom's Way Nantucket, MA 02554 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS U2554 Telephone 228-6800ext. 230 Your request for a Certificate of Occupancy for the single family dwelling authorized by Building Permit #657O-89 has been reviewed and for the following reason DENIED: The "As -Built" plot plan provided shows the front (easterly) exterior stairway to the dwelling, to be within in the twenty foot (20) front yard setback required by Chapter 139-16A of the Code of Nantucket. Please be advised that you may appeal this decision c)-f: the Building Inspector to the Board of Appeals pursuant to 139-29D(1)(b) of the Code of Nantucket. Very truly yours, Bernard Bartlett Building Inspector TOWN OF NANTUCKET