HomeMy WebLinkAbout077-90TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date:December 14 , 19 go
To: Parties in Interest and.Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.: 077-90
Owner/Applicant: Louise Evans-
is the Decision of the 30 ' 1 ' RD OF APPE-ILS which has
this d_=v been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
n !.-Deal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of C-=-Dte-- 40A, General La-'-S.
'.ay action the i;ecis-ion must '--e broucht v
� � I _. r W 4 n rT",.-
an cc __a t y
A=te.
C -3 C� the aCt4 Z;,
t h a cc_
_ainz a.-'J c =_ r f e copy Deci-sion Imust e - i* ea
to the Town Cler,i so as -o '-e received wit hin = o.:cn -7 -- '
."..,...T'
(20) days.
cc: Town Clerk
Plannina Board
Building Commissioner
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
Decision:
At a public hearing held on Friday, December 7, 1990, at
1:00 P.M., at the Town and County Building, Broad and Federal
Streets, Nantucket, the Board of Appeals made the following
decision upon the application of LOUISE EVANS (077 -90):
1. This is an application for a variance from Zoning By -law
Section 139 -16A, which imposes a front yard setback requirement
of 10 feet, and from the requirement of providing one off - street
parking space pursuant to Section 139 -181, in connection with the
construction of a proposed single - family dwelling. The subject
property (the "Locus ") is situated at 11 FRONT STREET, SIASCONSET
(Assessor's Parcel 73.1.3 -99), and is zoned as RESIDENTIAL -1.
2. The Locus now contains an existing garage, which we are
told pre- exists the 1972 effective date of the Nantucket zoning
by -law. This garage is situated about 1.09 feet from the
easterly sideline of Front Street. The applicant proposes to
remove this garage from the Locus, and to construct a new
single- family dwelling, to be sited with a front yard setback of
1.09 feet from Front Street, as shown upon the site plan and
elevations attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The applicant came before us with similar plans in 1987,
in our file 127 -87, and variance relief was therein granted as
requested. However, we are informed by the applicant that she
was unable to proceed under that variance grant by reason of
financial constraints, and the variance accordingly lapsed.
4. The applicant's plans have changed from those presented
in 127 -87 in that the height of the building has been reduced
from 24 feet above surrounding mean grade to 22 feet above such
grade, with second floor living area being reduced through
diminution of dormer areas; roof pitch has been lowered. To
compensate for the living area thus lost, the first floor has
been expanded somewhat. The lessened height of the new plans
will result in the new dwelling having less visual impact upon
the neighborhood than that previously proposed.
5. As discussed in our decision in 127 -87, the soil
conditions and topography of the Locus present unique problems
for the siting of a dwelling. The lot fronts on Front Street,
and on Bank Street. Between these streets, the Locus includes an
area of steep bank, which extends from a line some twenty feet
from Front Street down to a line close to Bank Street. The only
portion of the Locus which may practically be used for
construction of a building is the strip between Front Street and
the edge of this bank. The required 10 -foot front yard setback
-1-
results in the practical inability of the Locus to be used for
any permitted use. We are told that other dwellings on the
easterly side of Front Street are similarly situated with regard
to front yard setback; in fact, the westerly side of Front Street
is zoned as Residential -Old Historic, with no front yard setback
required. The existing garage upon the Locus is nonconforming
with zoning requirements as to use, because a garage is not a
permitted use in a Residential zoning district, except as an
accessory use under Section 139 -15; absent a permitted principal
use to which it can be accessory, the garage is a nonconforming
use.
6. As set forth in the decision in 127 -87, provision of the
required parking space off Front Street would be impractical and
.contrary to the historic development of that street.
Furthermore, a garden upon the Locus, which we found to be
"treasured in the neighborhood ", would be sacrificed. If the
parking space were to be provided off Bank Street, excavation of
the bank would be required, and the bank would be traversed to
reach the house. As we then found, the unstable, sandy soil
condition makes it preferable to grant relief from the parking
requirement, so long as the garden remains upon the portion of
the Locus lying to the south of the proposed dwelling, and to
impose a condition prohibiting structures from being built on the
face of the bank (except for the proposed porch on the bank side
of the proposed dwelling, and its footings).
7. Based upon the foregoing, and subject to the conditions
set forth in Paragraph 8 hereof, we find that, owing to
circumstances relating to the soil conditions ar.d zarographp of
the Locus, and especially affecting the Locus but no;: : +ffeccing
generally the Residential -1 district in which the Locus is
located, a literal enforcement of the front yard setback and
parking requirements of the By -law would involve substantial
hardship to the applicant. We further find that, in the light of
the substantial (although not unanimous) neighborhood support,
and the fact that the proposed project will eliminate a
prohibited use and replace it with a permitted one, desirable
relief may be granted as requested without substantial detriment
to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent or purpose of the By -law.
8. The relief hereby granted is subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in
substantial conformity with the plans attached hereto as Exhibit
A, and a-& such plans may be modlriedSli�i+bi ir1 connection with the
granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness of the Historic
District Commission.
(b) The peak of the roof of the proposed dwelling
shall not exceed 22 feet above mean grade, as shown upon the
plans attached hereto as Exhibit A (not considering the area
-2-
lying easterly from the top of the bank upon the Locus).
(c) No structures shall be constructed upon the
portion of the Locus lying southerly of the proposed southerly
line of the proposed dwelling and northerly of a line parallel
thereto running easterly from the bound at the southwesterly
corner of the Locus. In the event that the garden now lying
within this area is discontinued, no obstruction shall be placed
which would prevent establishment of an off - street parking space
within this portion of the Locus.
(d) No structures shall be constructed easterly from
the top of the bank upon the Locus, or extending over the top of
the bank, except for the proposed porch extending over the top of
the bank, and its footings, as shown upon Exhibit A.
9. For the reasons stated, and subject to the conditions
contained in Paragraph 8, this Board grants the requested
variance from the front yard setback requirement and the
off - street parking requirement for construction of a
single - family dwelling upon the Locus, by a ynanimous vote.
WMA
•• be r A
William R. Sherman
C. Marshall Beale.
Aw
4.inda F. Williams
Ann G. Balas
(hjf #7 /EVANS)
BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING
NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE Nd6-7
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s):
Louise Evans
Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C., 6 Young's Way, P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA
Applicant's name: Louise Evans
Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C., 6 Young's Way, P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA
Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 73.1.3 -99
Street address: 11 Front Street Siascons *
Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File Lot
Date lot acquired: 12_/�71 Deed Ref 136 -3415 Zoning district
Uses on lot - commercial: None X or MCD? No
(proposed)
- number of: dwellings 1 duplex_ apartments_ rental rooms No
Building date(s) : all pre -8/72? Yes or C of O ?—
Building Permit appl'n. Nos. None
Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: 127 -87
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 X if Variance, 139 -30A if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A
if to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -3JA
& B _ attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum .
Applicant requests a variance from zoning By -law Section 139 -16.A. (Intensity
Regulations -Front Yard Setback), reducing the required setback from ten feet
to one foot, in order to permit construction of a new single - family dwelling
upon the site of a pre- existing garage, with front yard setback proposed to
be 1.09 feet, the maximum setback of the existing garage. Applicant also
requests a variance from the one off - street parking space requirement in Zoning
By -Law Section 139 -18.I. for a single family dwelling.
Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl addendum2
Locus map x Site plan X showing present x +planned X structures
Floor plans present proposed elevations (HDC. approved ?_)
Listings lot area frontage setbacks_ y GCRT_ parking data
Assessor - certifies- addressee ist 4 sets X ma'ling labels 2 sets X
51200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket proof 'cap' covenant
(If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to sen —BBldg Comr's record to BoA.)
I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially
complete and tru to the best of my knowledge, under the pains and
penalties of perry. �1
SIGNATURE: / �1� Applicant Attorney /agent X
3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority)
FOR B OFFICE USE `
Application copies recd: 4 or_ for BoA onLJ�� by�
One copy filed with Town Clerk ono /1&14Y compllet '7
one copy each to Planning Bd and Building DeptA/& % byzE�
$200 fee check given Town Treasurer on_j&4 )b� waived?—
Fiearing notice posted -&& 6mailedL&I I & MJ ?�./b ZZIL CC -20
Hearing(s) on___/__/_ cont'd to_/_/_, withdrawn ? —/_ /_
Decision due by_/__J_ made /__J_ filed TC_/---/_ mailed^/_
See related cases lawsuits other