The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About036-90Form 3 -89 TOWN Or NANTUCKET C11-`% .. BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 June oZ I , 19 90 To: Parties in interest and others concerned with the decision of the Board of Appeals in Application No. 036- 90 of: EDWARD T. CONRAD Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has this day been filed with the Nantuc }•:et 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) clays 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. Wi.11ihm R. Sherman, Chairman cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner .' 'a NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, June 1, 1990, at 1:00 PM in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of Edward T. Conrad, c/o Glidden & Moretti, 37 Centre Street, Nantucket, MA 02554 (File No. 036 -90), the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1. Applicant seeks a SPECIAL PERMIT pursuant to Section 139 - 16C to validate the siting of an existing swimming pool intruding into the required 10 -foot rear -yard setback and a VARIANCE, pursuant to Section 139 -32A from the 20% maximum ground cover ratio allowed by Section 139 -16A so that a Certificate of Occupancy can be obtained for his existing single - fanny dwelling which exceeds the allowable ground coverage by 28+ square feet, when measured at the corner boards. 2. The premises are located at 2 Newtown Road, in the R -10 Zoning District. The property is shown as Lot 48 on a plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 40, at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds, and the lot is slightly undersized for the District. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers, the testimony, representations and submissions made at the public hearing first above mentioned. We note that no opposition to the application was made known to the Board at the hearing. 4. With regard to the Special Permit, we find that our granting this permit is in keeping with the intent and purposes of the By -law and will not cause detriment to the neighborhood. Whereas, the in- ground pool (not included in the calculations for ground coverage) intrudes into the rear setback 0.5+ feet virtually at grade, this intrusion is dtLnimis. The Zoning By -law contemplates situations where a 10 -foot setback shall be reduced to 5 feet. Here, where the alternative is the removal or attempted relocation of an in- ground pool, relief to the extent of the encroachment is appropriate. 5. With regard to the Variance, we find that removal of the excess ground cover would constitute a hardship upon the Applicant which can be said to arise from the topography and shape of the premises. We caution, however, that absent the other circumstances involved here, demonstrating the good(faith of Applicant and reliance upon the interpretation of ground cover render at the time of the granting of the building permit, such a finding might not have been reached by this Board. In the instant case, however, the Applicant built the present structures substantially in accordance with Building Permits (No. 170 -73, 671- 77, 3724 -84 and 6135 -88) issued by the Building Department. At the time of issuance of the last permit for expansion of the e , single- family dwelling, grounddover was said to be measured at the foundation wall, and testimony to that effect was heard from the then appointed Building Inspector. Given the existing perimeter of the house, 220± feet, the nonconforming square footage of groundcover can be accounted for as a 1.5 inch strip around the perimeter of the building. Insofar as Applicant has built in good<taith and substantially in accordance with the issued permit, we find that relief will not derogate from the intent and purpose of the By -law and should be granted. 6. ACCORDINGLY, this BOARD, upon a motion duly made and seconded, grants relief by SPECIAL PERMIT to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 9.5+ and relief by VARIANCE to expand the maximum allowable ground cover ratio on the lot from 20% to 20.3+,,W-4 Kkeda to validate the placement and existence of the existing in- ground swimming pool and single- family dwelling, respectively, as shown on the annexed sketch plan. Dated: JuneAk ' 1990 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 May 1 1 , 1990 NOTICE A public hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on Friday, June 1, 1990, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, on the Application of: EDWARD T. CONRAD Board of Appeals File No. 0790 seeking a Special Permit under Section 139 -16C to validate the siting of an in- ground swimming pool intruding 0.5 feet into the required 10 -foot rear -yard setback, also a Variance from the 20% maximum ground cover ratio allowed by Section 139 -16A so that a Certificate of Occupancy can be obtained for his existing single- family dwelling now barred by a 28 SF excess of ground cover. The premises are at 2 Newtown Road, Assessor's Parcel 55 -203, Plan Book 18 at Page 40, zoned Residential 10. ,/f �Z,/_ William R. Sherman, Chairman BoA Form 1 -89 Owner's name(s): Mailing address: Applicant's name: Mailing address: NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING Date NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE CASE No.�- CJ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF Edward T. Conrad c/o Glidden $ Moretti, P.C., 37 Centre Street, Nantucket, MA 02554 Edward T. Conrad Same as above Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 0055- 203 Street address: 2 Newtown Road 00 18 Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Fq(X=xPAx=xF!x1a Page 40 Lot 48 Date lot acquired: _L/ �?3 Deed Ref 140, 173 zoning district R -10 Uses on lot - commercial: None x or - number of: dwellings 1 duplex Building date(s): all pre -8/72? No or MCD? apartments rental rooms Building Permit appl' n. Nos. 170-73; 671-77.. 3724 -84; 61 SS -89 Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: C of 0? No 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 -31A _&_B , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum . Applicant requests relief by SPECIAL PERMIT pursuant to 139A -30A and 139 -16 for re- duction of the rear setback line from 10' to 5' and further for relief by VARIANCE pursuant to 139 -32A from the ground cover limitations of 139 -16. If the SPECIAL PERMIT is granted, Applicant will be allowed to maintain an existing in- ground swimming pool which has been placed /constructed 9.5 feet from the rear boundary line of the property instead of the required 10 feet setback. If relief by VARIANCE is also granted, Applicant will be allowed to maintain and receive a Certificate of Occupancy for The existing The dwelling exceeds t F n , n thanheallowed (see next page; 40• 20% in the R -10 district. Given the perimeter of the building, the nonconformi`y can be substantially accounted for in the aggregate area between the foundation wall and the finished exterior surface around the house. 40,