HomeMy WebLinkAbout065-90TOWN OF NANTUCKET
)ARD OF APPEALS
UCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: C)C�t �) I , 19 90
To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.: 065 -90
Owner /Applicant: JOHN SYDNEY CONWAY AND PATRICIA A.
CONWAY
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of 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 an 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.
Linda F. Williams, Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
Map 87
Parcels 79,80
Residential -2
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
30 Western Avenue
Lots 3 and 4
LC Plan 8597 -F
At a Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals held
on October 19, 1990, at 1:00 P.M. in the Town and County
Building, Nantucket, on the Application of JOHN SYDNEY
CONWAY AND PATRICIA A. CONWAY, (065 -90) the Zoning Board of
Appeals made the following Decision:
1. Applicants are seeking a VARIANCE under SECTION 139 -32
of the Zoning By -Law from the frontage requirements of
SECTION 139 -16A to enable each of their two lots to be
used as a separate building lot, subject to relocation
of the existing dwelling to conform to applicable set-
back requirements.
2. The Board's Decision is based upon the Application and
papers and documents filed therewith, the evidence,
oral and documentary, presented at the hearing, two (2)
letters in opposition to the requested relief from
abutters, and an unfavorable recommendation from the
Planning Board.
3. The Applicant presented evidence to show that the lots
have been shown separately on Land Court Plans since
1956 and are separately assessed at the same address
for tax purposes by the Town, with the building being
assessed on one lot only.
4. Applicants have owned both lots with the existing
dwelling since 1965, when both lots were acquired at
the same time, with one deed, and could then have been
placed in different ownership, one from the other, but
Applicants did not do so and were subsequently advised
by counsel that such action was not necessary to ensure
that merger of the lots for zoning purposes did not
occur. Applicants' hardship may arise from such counsel
but not from topography or soil conditions, which are
typical in this district for ocean front properties.
The narrowness of the two lots and resulting short -fall
of their frontage are cured by their common ownership
and merger for zoning purposes.
S. According to Applicants' plan, each lot has 66.70 feet
of frontage, and the existing dwelling straddles the
(065 -90)
-2-
boundary between the lots; the frontage required in the
district is 75.00 feet.
6. Applicant alsopresented evidence that, due to the requirement
in the Zoning By -Law for a twelve foot separation between the
primary and secondary dwelling on a lot, if they tried to site
a secondary dwelling on the lot, it would have to be sited near
the top of the coastal bank,which crosses both lots, without
relocating the existing primary dwelling.
7. The Applicants cited the Board's Decision inihe Application of
Toner, (059 -89), in which this Board granted a Variance for two
lots which had been merged for zoning purposes, but
acknowledged that the Toner Decision clearly states that it is
not to be relied upon as precedent due to the special circum-
stances presented in that case.
8. Applicants agreed to limit each lot to one dwelling to avoid
increasing the density of development in the area.
9. The Board finds that, unlike the Toner case, the Applicants
purchased the two-`lots at the same time and in the same trans-
action; the existing building straddles the lot line between
the two parcels; the lots share the same street address; and
there is opposition to the grant of the variance from abutters
ad the Planning Board.
10. The Board is not able to find that owing to circumstances
relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or
structures and especially affecting such land or structures but
not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is
located, the requested relief can be granted without substan-
tial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the
Zoning By -Law.
11. Upon a motion by Mr. Beale, seconded by Mr. Leichter, to grant
the requested variance from the frontage requirement upon the
condition that only one dwelling be permitted per lot, by a
vote of 3 -2, Williams, Waine and Leichter in favor, Beale and
Balas opposed, the request for relief was DENIED.
Dated: G'�.?� `�% , 1990
Ii'?)\danF. lliams Dale Waine
�1
obert Leichter C. Mar hall Bea e
Ann Balas
j 4 G I
NOTICE
A public hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on FRIDAY,
OCTOBER 19, 1990, at 1:00 P.M. in the TOWN and COUNTY BUILDING,
FEDERAL AND BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET, on the Application of JOHN
SYDNEY CONWAY and PATRICIA A. CONWAY, (WoS'-90), seeking variance
relief from the frontage requirement to enable each of their two
lots to be used as a separate building lot, subject to relocation
of the existing dwelling to conform to applicable setback
requirements. The lots have been shown separately on the applicable
Land Court Plan since 1956 and are separately assessed by the
5ec�(or) I39-/(o v
Town. The frontage requirement under the zoning by -law is 75
feet per lot; the existing frontage for each lot is 66.70 feet.
The premises are located at 30 WESTERN AVENUE, (Assessor's Parcels
87 -79 and 80) , Land Court Plan 8597 -F, Lots 3 and 4, and are
zoned RESIDENTIAL -2.
f
r
Li da F. Williams, Chairman
Board of Appeals
kah #28 /CONWAY
BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING
NANTUCKET, MA 02554 (j
CASE No.� -_
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
owner's name(s): John Sydney Conway and Patricia A. Conway
Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P. C., 6 Young's Way, P.O. Box 2669, NNaantu2keet4,
Applicant's name: John Sydney Conway and Patricia A. Conway
Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P. C., 6 Young's Way, P.O. Box 2669, Nantucketr
Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 87 - 79 and 80
Street address: 30 W.estern Avenue
iisq}c}i Land Ct Plan, i' ' - ^' - ^" - 8597 -F Lot 3 and 4
Cert.
Date lot acquired: IL/20 j 65 Deed Ref 5157 Zoning district R -2
Uses on lot - commercial: None X or MCD ?_
- number of: dwellings I duplex_ apartments_ rental rooms_
Building date(s): all pre -8/72? Yes 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
1.39 -32A if Variance, 139-30A X if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A
if to alter or extend a noncom orming use). If appeal per 139 -3 ;A
&-B _ attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum-.
The owners request variance relief from frontage requirement (75 feet)
in order to enable each of their two lots (shown separately on the
applicable Land Court Plan since 1956, and separately assessed by the Town)
to be used as a separate building lot, subject to relocation of
the existing dwelling to conform to applicable setback requirements.
Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl addendum2
Locus map X Site plan X showing present X +planned structures
Floor plans present_ proposed_ elevations (HDC approved ?_)
Listings lot area frontage setbacks GCR parking data
Assessor- certifieaaddressee list 4 sets X ma ;lig labels 2 sets
200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket X proof 'cap' covenant
(If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to senT—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 p .jury.
SIGNATURE:
Applicant Attorney / agr X
3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority)
' FOR BoA FFICE USE '/
Application copies reed: 4 or for BoA on e( �Uby
One copy filed with Town Clerk onA/( / C'�by (complete ?_
One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept �`v by�
$200 fee check given Town Treasurer or)� )) by (- !waived ?
Hearing notice posted/�� & M� �bLIT;E�
Hearing(s) on__/,J_ cont'd to__j withdrawn ?__/__/_
Decision due by.�_fJ_ made /__/_ filed TC�_„/_ mailed^/_
See related cases lawsuits _ other