HomeMy WebLinkAbout075-90I
d 75 - 4}?7
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: December 10 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.: 075 -90
Owner /Applicant: Walter C. Wilson and Nancy N. Wilson
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Aooeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 0A, , assachusetts General L -=w-=.
Any action appealing the Decision must be brougnt by
filing an comp.•lai t In court itiltnln Tvi -.'QTY ; C �yS after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of t,':e
cam lai:,� and cert��-ed coot' of the Decision m:s- �:e given
p :� •
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such 'TViENl T
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
DECISION:
The BOARD OF APPEALS at a PUBLIC HEARING on Friday, November
16, 1990, at 1:00 p.m. at the Town and County Building,
Nantucket, made the following DECISION on the application of
WALTER C. WILSON and NANCY N. WILSON (075 -90) with an address of
333 Clay Street, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77002.
1. The Applicants seek a Variance pursuant to Section
139 -32A of the Zoning Code to relocate an existing single - family
dwelling away from the eroding Sankaty bluff and to legitimize
their non - conforming lot which was created after the enactment
of the Nantucket Zoning By -Law in July, 1972. The Premises are
located at 21 SANKATY HEAD ROAD, SIASCONSET, Assessor's Parcel
48 -004, Lot 3, Land Court Plan No. 23903 -B at the Nantucket
Registry District for the Land Court and zoned LIMITED USE
GENERAL -3.
2. Our findings are based upon the application papers,
correspondence, plans, representations and testimony received at
our hearing on November 16, 1990. The subject lot was created
on September 27, 1982 when the Nantucket Planning Board endorsed
Page One
a plan "Approval Not Required" pursuant to Section 81P of the
Subdivision Control Law, M.G.L. c.41. The subject lot includes
approximately 90,604 square feet of area and 91.39 feet of
frontage along Sankaty Head Road. The minimum area requirements
for the LUG -3 zoning district are 120,000 square feet and
minimum frontage requirements for this zoning district are 200
square feet and the subject lot is non - conforming as to minimum
area and minimum frontage requirements. We take notice of the
fact that the subject lot is bounded on its easterly side by the
Sankaty bluff and the Atlantic Ocean and the bluff is undergoing
serious erosion which threatens to destabilize houses in
Siasconset along the bluff. The Applicant proposes to move the
existing single - family dwelling on the subject lot away from the
Sankaty Bluff, to the west in accordance with the site plan
submitted with the application. The current footprint of the
dwelling will not change tihrl the house is moved. The Applicant
seeks a Variance to move the house from its existing location -..o
the new location. We note that the recently amended Nantucket
By -Law now provides for a definition of "Front Yard" which, in
effect, requires that a house in the LUG -3 zoning district be
set back 35 feet from any street adjoining the lot. The
Applicants, therefore, seek a Variance from the 35 foot
frontyard setback requirement along their southerly lot line.
The Applicants also seek a Variance from area and frontage
intensity requirements so as to legitimize their existing lot.
Page Two
3. We find that the Applicants' subject lot was created by
the Planning Board on September 27, 1982 and, at the time of its
creation, did not meet the minimum area and minimum frontage
requirements for the LUG -3 zoning district of the Nantucket
Zoning By -Law. We are, therefore, unwilling to grant Variance
relief to "legitimize" these area and frontage
non - conformities. The Board does note, however, that the
Massachusetts Zoning Enabling Act, M.G.L. c.40A, section 7, as
amended, provides that no enforcement action is available to the
Town unless it is commenced within 10 years next after the
alleged zoning violation and, accordingly, the area and frontage
non - conformities at issue will be "cured" under the Statute as
of September 27, 1992. We note further that a recent
Massachusetts Land Court decision McKenzie v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Wayland et al, Misc. Case No. 131524,
states that any changes to the existing footprint of the house
after the 10 year statute of limitations expires-Yna-� require a
Special Permit based upon a finding by this Board that "such
change, extension or alteration is not substantially more
detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the
neighborhood." We find further that the on -going erosion of the
Sankaty bluff constitutes circumstances relating to the soil
conditions and topography of the subject lot which do not affect
generally the LUG -3 zoning district, that a literal enforcement
of the provisions of the Zoning By -Law would involve a
Page Three
substantial hardship to the Applicants, and Variance relief may
be granted to the Applicants to enable them to relocate the
existing single- family dwelling on the subject lot to its new
location without undermining the intent of the Nantucket Zoning
By -Law on the conditions set forth herein. We find further that
the same circumstances allow this Board to grant Variance relief
from the frontyard setback requirements of 35 feet along the
southerly boundary of the lot. We specifically grant to the
Applicants such Variance relief so as to enable them to obtain a
Building Permit from the Nantucket Building Commissioner to
relocate the subject dwelling as proposed on the condition that
the existing footprint of the house remains the same in its new
location. Any changes, extensions or expansions of the house
footprint Tnay require Special Permit relief after the 10 year
statute of limitations expires on September 27, 199.
4. For the reasons set forth herein, the BOARD, by
UNANIMOUS VOTE, hereby GRANTS the requested Variance so as to
allow the relocation of the subject house, as proposed; and so
as to waive the 35 foot frontyard setback requirement from the
street to the south of the subject lot, and so as to enable the
Applicants to obtain a Building Permit from the Nantucket
Building Commissioner to allow such relocation. The BOARD by
UNANIMOUS VOTE, hereby DENIES the requested Variance so as to
legitimize the area and frontage non - conformities affecting the
Page Four
subject lot.
Dated: December 1990 (�
Linda F. Williams
�' l G2 -d•� /�t�a�Pk
am A. .-Sher an
Rt&ert Lei:chter
Q .
C.—
4e0 \,;,z I b I ( q 9 0 J/o- 1 e(--,Ovk
Page Five
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Septemberp?p, 1991
To: Parties in interest and others
concerned with the Decision of the
Board of Appeals in Application No.: 075 -90
of: Walter C Wilson and Nancy N. Wilson
Enclosed is the Decision of the Board of Appeals which has this
day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk. This Decision
provides a Clarification (not a Modification) or authorizes a
Temporary Permit under Zoning By -Law Section 139 -26H with no
twenty (20) day appeal period required.
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
.� ..
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
CLARIFICATION OF DECISION:
The BOARD OF APPEALS at a PUBLIC HEARING on Friday,
September 13, 1991, at 1:00 p.m. at the Town and County
Building, Nantucket, made the following CLARIFICATION of
DECISION on the Application of Walter C. Wilson and Nancy N.
Wilson (075 -90) with an address of 333 Clay Street, Suite 300,
Houston, Texas 77002.
1. The Applicants seek a clarification of the variance
relief the Board granted on December 10, 1990 in Case No.
075 -90. In that Decision, the Board granted unanimously a
Variance to the Applicants to allow the relocation of the
Applicants' house away from the Sankaty Bluff to the west in
accordance with the site plans submitted, to waive the 35 foot
frontyard setback requirement from the street to the south of
the subject lot, and to enable the Applicants to obtain a
Building Permit from the Nantucket Building Commissioner to
allow such relocation. The premises are located at 21 SANKATY
HEAD AVENUE, SIASCONSET, ASSESSOR'S MAP 48 -004, Lot 3, Land
Court Plan No. 23903 -B at the Nantucket Registry District for
the Land Court and zoned LIMITED USE GENERAL -3.
2. The Board noted in its Decision No. 075 -90 that the lot
includes approximately 90,604 square feet of area and 91.39 feet
of frontage along Sankaty Head Road and the minimum area and
minimum frontage requirements for lots in the LUG -3 Zoning
District are 120,000 square feet and 200 feet, respectively.
The Board noted further that the subject lot was created on
Sept-ember-27, 1902 when the Nantucket Planning Board endorsed
the plan for the lot "Approval Not Required" pursuant to Section
81(P) of the Subdivision Control Law, M.G.L. c.41. Technically,
these area and frontage non - conformities were created after the
enactment of the Zoning By -Law and constitute zoning
violations. In its prior Decision, the Board was not inclined
to "legitimize" these area and frontage non - conformities but
noted that under the Massachusetts Zoning Enabling Act, M.G.L.
c.40A, section 7, as amended, "... no enforcement action is
available to the Town unless it is commenced within ten (10)
years next after the alleged zoning violation and, accordingly,
the area and frontage non - conformities at issue will be "cured"
under the statute as of September 27, 1992." Because these
zoning violations affecting the lot currently exist, the
Page One
Nantucket Building Commissioner refuses to issue a Building
Permit to the Applicants to relocate their house as requested
and to make renovations to the relocated house on the condition
that the existing footprint of the house remains the same and
there is no increase in zoning non - conformities. The Building
Commissioner's point is well taken and the Board agrees that, in
general, no building permits should issue until zoning
violations have been eliminated. In this particular case,
however, the Board made specific findings to support the
issuance of a Variance to the Applicants to relocate the house
and we reaffirm our directive to the Nantucket Building
Commissioner to issue a Building Permit to allow such relocation
and to allow the Applicants to renovate the relocated house
without expanding its existing footprint and without increasing
any zoning non - conformities which affect the lot. The Board's
grant of Variance relief to the Applicants in effect
"legitimizes" the lot for the limited purpose of relocation and
renovation as stated herein. Any enlargement of the existing
footprint of the house or construction of new buildings on the
lot will require relief from this Board given the zoning
non - conformities which affect the lot.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Board, by unanimous
vote, hereby CLARIFIES the VARIANCE (075 -90) so as to enable the
Applicants to obtain a duly issued Building Permit from the
Nantucket Building Commissioner to allow for the relocation of
the house away from the Sankaty Bluff and to allow for
renovations to the relocated house on the condition that there
is no increase in the existing footprint of the house and that
no zoning non - conformities are increased or created. In all
other respects, the Board reaffirms its Varian a Decision
(075 -90) in this matter. /_2 A 1
I CERTIFY THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AFTER THE DECISION
WAS FILED IN Tk6E OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK, AND THAT
NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, PERSUANT TO GENERAL LAWS
AQ A SECTION 11 TV^ CLERK
lVole•- ^10
-171 10fl-
aw belay
Dated: September o2_0_1 1991
Nantucket, MA _ Ld _ fZ�
Asi
Page Two
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held
on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1990 at 1:00 P.M. in the Town and
County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, on the
Application of:
WALTER C. WILSON AND NANCY N. WILSON
Board of Appeals File No.: 075 -90
Applicants seek a VARIANCE under SECTION 139 -32A from the
provisions of SECTION 139 -16A of the Zoning By -Law, to
validate and confirm a lot created under the Subdivision
Control Law in 1982, when a pre- zoning lot was allowed to be
subdivided into two (2) lots due to the existence of a
pre -1955 structure on each lot. The lot is non - conforming as
to frontage having 91.39 feet (200 feet being required) and
area, having 90,604 square feet (120,000 square feet being
required). Applicants desire to move the existing dwelling
because of erosion of he bluff, and they propose to move it
to another location on the lot without any change in the
footprint and it will be in compliance with applicable
setback requirements for the district.
The premises are located at 21 SANKATY HEAD ROAD, SIASCONSET,
Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 4, as shown on Land Court Plan
23903 -B, Lot 3, and zoned LIMITED USE GENERAL-3.
Linda F. Williams, Chairman
BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s): Walter C. Wilson and Nancy N. Wilson
10 -26 -90
Date
CASE No.G) �-- 1�0
Mailing address: 333 Clay Street, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77002
Applicant's name:
Mailing address:
Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 48 -
Street address: 21 Sankaty Head Road, Siasconset
004
mnlatri Land Ct Plan, X%,d CX XjXr*xUgx)p2aW M7J 23903 -B Lot 3
Document No.
Date lot acquired: 28 90 XKj0= ({f 5'519 Zonipg district LUG -3
Certificate No. 14581
Uses on lot -x e=x 1xA4=Rxxxxx0r residential MCD ?_
- number of: dwellings 1 duplex_ apartments_ rental rooms_
Building date(s): all pre -8/72? __yesor C of 0 ?_
Building Permit appl'n. Nos. none
Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: 10 -87 (withdrawn)
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 noncon- orming use). If appeal per 139 -3JA
& B , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum .
See Addendum
PI
Items enclos d as part ohis Application: orderl addendum2_-
Locus mapX Site plan X showing present +planned "structures
Floor plans present proposed_ elevations (HDC approved? )
Listings lot area frontage setbacks_ GCR parking dataj�
Assessor- certifie—ddressee fist 4 sets ma�ling labels 2 sets_
200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket proof 'cap' covenant
(If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to sennBldg 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 /acgent X
• Rachel C. Ho a t, Esqu re
3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority)
FOR Bo OFFICE USE
Application copies recd: 41/ or_ for BoA onF�y
One copy filed with Town Clerk onz/-V r(by_ %_ -- complete ?kw5o
One copy each to Planning Bd and Buildin Defb
�/`� by�
200 fee check given Town Treasurer jo waived ?Hearing notice posYeO�/ 7Jmailed /Zu ����!/
Hearing(s) on _/_!!_ cont'd to--/ __/_, �_/_ withdrawn ?_/__/_
Decision due by_/_/_ made__/__/_ filed TC__/--/_ mailed _/_/_
See related cases lawsuits other_
Applicant seeks variance relief pursuant to Section 139 -32A
to bless a lot validly created under the subdivision control law
in 1982. A pre - zoning lot was subdivided into two (2) lots due
to the existence of a pre -1955 structure on each lot.
Applicants' lot has 91.39 feet of frontage and a lot area of
approximately 90,604 square feet. The LUG -3 Zone requires
120,000 square feet of area and 200 feet of frontage.
Applicants seek the validation of this lot due to their
desire to move the existing structure on the premises away from
the top of the bank. A copy of Land Court Plan No. 23903 -B
showing the existing house is attached as Exhibit A. This lot
along the bluff in Sconset continues to experience the
significant amount of erosion that has affected this area in
past years. The Applicants would like to safeguard their
structure by moving as far away from the edge of the bank as
possible. The Applicants propose to relocate the existing
house, without any changes to the footprint and in compliance
with the 35 -foot front yard setback and the 20 -foot side line
setbacks as shown on Exhibit B.