HomeMy WebLinkAbout067-94TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: January // , 1995
To: Parties in Interest and.Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No.:
Owner /Applicant:
067 -94
STEPHEN A. SOHN
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.
G
Linda F. Williams, Vice Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
t
Assessor's Map 86
Parcel 2
MMD
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
50 West Miacomet Road
Land Court Plan 17368 -Q
Lot 52
Cert. of Title 12,670
At a Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals held at
1:00 P.M., Friday, October 14, 1994, continued to 1:00 P.M., Friday,
December 9, 1994 and subsequently continued, with the agreement of
the Applicant to extend the time limit, to 1:00 P.M., Friday,
January 6, 1995, in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town and County
Building, Broad Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application
of STEPHEN A. SOHN, c/o Reade and Alger, P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket,
MA 02584, Board of Appeals File No. 067 -94, the Board made the
following Decision:
1. Applicant seeks a VARIANCE pursuant to Nantucket Zoning
By -Law §139 -32A from the intensity regulations (ground cover ratio)
of Nantucket Zoning By -Law §139 -16A to be allowed to maintain the
existing garage upon the property. The Locus is said to have the
benefit of 1984 Limited Use General -II zoning regulations pursuant
to a "plan freeze ". Under the 1984 Zoning By -Law covered porches
were considered ground cover. The original 1989 dwelling contained
1,863+ square feet, 607+ square feet of which were covered porches.
In 1991, a 408+ square foot garage was constructed. The new primary
dwelling constructed in 1994, added 1,438+ square feet of ground
cover. The three structures totalled 3,710+ square feet of ground
cover under the 1984 freeze period restrictions. Under current
By -Law ground cover calculations, covered porches are no longer
counted as ground cover and current total ground cover is now 3,103±
square feet, which is under the allowable 3,303+ square foot
maximum, or 4% ground cover ratio. in February, 1994, Applicant
agreed to demolish the garage as a condition upon which issuance of
a Building Permit to construct the new primary dwelling was
granted.
The premises is located at 50 WEST MIACOMET ROAD, Assessor's
Map 86, Parcel 2, as shown as Lot 52 on Land Court Plan 17368 -Q.
The property is situated within the Moorlands Management Zoning
District.
2. The Decisions is based upon the Application and materials
submitted with it, the testimony and evidence presented at the
Hearing, five (5) letters in objection and one (1) letter in support
in the file, as well as photographs of the premises. The Planning
Board made an unfavorable recommendation stating that there were no
grounds for a grant of a Variance, further noting that the Applicant
should fulfill the obligations to which he agreed in order to obtain
( 067 '94) -2-
his building Permit. Several abutters present at the Hearing spoke
in opposition. They raised concerns about the intensification of the
use and number of structures on the Lot. It was pointed out that the
Lot was located in the MMD which was created to preserve the
integrity and openness of this area and that integrity would be
severely compromised if the Applicant was allowed to maintain the
existing structures in their entirety instead of adhering to the
original deal with the Building Department to remove the garage and
also felt that there were no grounds to support the Variance. One
letter said that Applicant had built another garage on the property
that was attached to the new primary dwelling and questioned why
there was a need for two garages on the Lot.
3. The Lot is situated in the Moorlands Management District that
was created at the April 3, 1984 Annual Town Meeting and modified at
a later date. In that District there is a ten (10) acre minimum and
allowable ground cover ratio is 1/2 of 1/. However, Applicant's
predecessor in title had applied to the Planning Board for an
Approval Required Subdivision Plan that was ultimately endorsed in
1986. As a result, under the applicable local and state law there
was a freeze period of eight (8) years pertaining to the lots in
that subdivision starting from the date of endorsement of the plan,
March 24, 1986, said freeze period to expire on March 24, 1994.
Prior to MMD adoption, the area was zoned Limited Use General -II,
that required 80,000 square feet of minimum lot size and 4/ maximum
ground cover. The Locus had the benefit of LUG -II zoning
requirements til March 24, 1994.
Dr. Sohn bought the subject property in October of 1986 fully
aware of the plan freeze period and intending to build a primary and
secondary dwelling within that time limit. He proceeded to costruct
a 1,438+ square foot "cottage" in 1989 with a duly issued Building
Permit and subsequently received a Certificate of Occupancy,
intending to build the primary dwelling at a later date. At the
time, the Historic District Commission had been concerned about the
impact and design of structures built in what was considered a very
visible, sensitive and unprotected outwash plain of the south shore
area. In 1991, Applicant constructed a 408+ square foot garage used
for car, bike and furniture storage.
Recognizing that the end of the freeze period was at hand,
Applicant began to develop plans to build his primary dwelling in
the fall of 1993. Applicant and his builder represented that they
proceeded to design a dwelling under the assumption that unenclosed
porches did not count for ground cover. Upon application to the
Building Department for the Building Permit they were informed that
the Lot was held to the LUG -II zoning restrictions under the plan
freeze and that in 1984, unenclosed porches were counted for ground
cover. Thus, due to the fact that the Lot was under said freeze,
Applicant could not now take advantage of a May 17, 1988 Zoning
By -Law change at the Annual Town Meeting that took unenclosed
porches out of ground cover calculations. The porch on the cottage
(067 =94) -3-
counted for ground cover and the Applicant could not build the
primary dwelling as proposed without removing the garage
structure or removing the roof of the cottage's porch. The cottage's
porch would then become a deck has never been counted as part of
ground cover calculations.
Applicant then returned to the HDC to seek a modification of
the porch structure on the cottage and was told in an informal
polling of the Commission Members that they would not grant the
modification. The HDC had sponsored the 1988 change in the By -Law
that removed unenclosed porches from the ground cover calculations
as they had determined that this type of structure was a desirable
design feature and by including it in calculations would limit the
addition of porches in favor of more living space. Applicant's porch
had actually been featured on page 122 of the HDC's "Building with
Nantucket in Mind" publication as a model of the type of design they
preferred. That avenue effectively closed to the Applicant, major
alterations had to be made to the original design of the primary
dwelling, and at that point, expiration of the freeze period was
immediately at hand. Applicant represented that there was no time to
come to the Board of Appeals for relief prior to March 24, 1994 and
in order to secure a Building Permit agreed to remove the
free - standing garage in order to build the primary dwelling as
planned, intending to come to the Board of Appeals after issuance
of the Building Permit toask for relief to allow the garage to
remain. Under LUG -II requirements, the total amount of ground
cover of the exiting structures is over what is allowed by
approximately the square footage of either the garage or the roofed
unenclosed porch. As the HDC would not allow removal of the roof of
the porch, Applicant is currently under agreement to remove the
garage prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant
pointed out that the total ground cover of all of the current
structures on the Lot is still under the 4% allowed in the LUG -II
zoning district under current Zoning By -Law. If Applicant had not
agreed to remove the garage to obtain the Building Permit for the
primary dwelling before the freeze period had expired, the Lot would
have been subject to the current MMD regulations and no further
building would have been possible.
4. Three members felt that there were sufficient grounds for the
grant of relief by Variance but two members felt that Applicant had
failed to offer testimony to support the grant of said relief.
Specifically, the two members felt that there was not a unique
condition relating to soil, shape or topography. Further, the removal of
the free - standing garage did not constitute a hardship substantial
enough to support the grant of relief by Variance. Applicant should
abide by the agreement he entered into with the Building Department
and that any hardship arising from said agreement is of the
Applicant's own making. Either a Lot had to abide by the zoning in
effect at the time of the freeze period or, by the zoning currently
in effect. Applicant can not take advantage of benefits afforded
under both zoning periods.
( 067 -�4 )
5. Upon a motion made an seconded, to grant relief by Variance
under Zoning By -Law §139 -16A, three (3) members voted in favor
(Williams, Leichter and O'Mara) and two (2) members voted in the
negative ( Balas and Sevrens) and, needing a four (4) to one (1)
voted to grant relief, relief is hereby DENIED.
Dated: January 11 1995 P
inda F. Williams
Robert J. Leichter
ael O'Mara
4� T6&LLd_jX2:kd
A n Balas
Nancy Sev ns
R E C Er EEC
FOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
NANTUCKET. Mf, 02664
JAN 111995
DIME. _------ � -'- - --
CLERK._fL
c�',�
(067-94)
-4-
.,;,() a -1-4-0 - „--r
5. Upon a motion made an secondedr to grant relief by variance
under Zoning By -Law §139 -16A, three (3) members voted in favor
(Williams, Leichter and O'Mara) and two (2) members voted in the
negative (Balas and Sevrens) and, needing gEa four (4) to one (1)
voted to grant relief, relief is hereby
Dated: January , 1995
Linda F. Williams
Robert J. Leichter
Michael O'Mara
LV5-
Ann Balas
Nancy Sevrens
_- I I MWkI PS : 4L S66T- OT--wr
ForM 6 -89
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
File No.V Y4
Assessor's Parcel ��- 02,
THIS AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE BOARD OF
APPEALS TO MAKE A DECISION (or to hold a public hearing or
take other action) concerns the Application of:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Acts of 1987, Chapter
498, amending the State Zoning Act, Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws, Applicants) /petitioner(s) and
the Board of Appeals hereby agree to extend the time limit
- for a public hearing -k' on the Application, or
- for a decision -k---'of the Board, or
- for any other action
by the Board,
(whether such Application is an appeal from the
decision of any administrative official,tition for
a Special Permit or for a Variance or for any
extension , modification , or renewal thereof)
to the NEW TIME LIMIT of midnight on ( . 13, R �
but not earlier than a time limit set by statut6 or bylaw.
The Applicant(s), or the attorney or agent for .
Applicant(s) represented to be duly authorized to act in
this matter for Applicant(s), in executing this Agreement
waives any rights under the Nantucket zoning Bylaw and the
State Zoning Act, as amended, to the extent, but only to
the extent, inconsistent with this Agreement.
FOR APPL ANT(S)
Y F
FOR THE BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Effective date of Ag ement NANTUCKET. Mt, 0 ?5 '14
cc: Town Clerk DEC 121994
Planning Board z ��
Building Commissioner TIME - -- _ -�-
CLERK:_�__
Agreement filed in the office of the Town Clerk:
Date Town Cler
Zoning Board of Appeals
South Beach Street
Nantucket, Mass. 02554
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS will be held
at 1:00 P.M., Friday, October 14, 1994, the Selectmen's Meeting
Room, in the Town and County Building, Broad Street, Nantucket,
Massachusetts, on the Application of:
STEPHEN A. SOHN
Board of Appeals File No. 067 -94
Applicant seeks a VARIANCE pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By-
Law §139 -32 from the intensity regulations (ground cover ratio)
of Nantucket Zoning By -Law §139 -16A to be allowed to maintain the
existing garage upon the property. The Locus is said to have the
benefit of 1984 Limited Use General -2 zoning regulations pursuant
to a plan freeze. Under the 1984 Zoning By -Law covered porches
were considered groundcover. The original 1989 dwelling
contained 1,863± square feet, 607± square feet of which were
covered porches. In 1991, a 408± square foot garage was
constructed. The new primary dwelling constructed in 1994, added
1,438± square feet of ground cover. The three structures
totalled 3,710± square feet of ground cover under the 1984 freeze
period restrictions. Under current By -Law ground cover
calculations, covered porches are no longer counted as ground
cover and current total ground cover is now 3,103± square feet,
which is under the allowable 3,303± square foot maximum, or 4%
ground cover ratio. In February, 1994, Applicant agreed to
demolish the garage as a condition upon which issuance of a
building permit to construct the new primary dwelling was
granted.
The premises is located at 50 WEST MIACOMET ROAD, Assessor's
Map 86, parcel 2, are shown as Lot 52 on Land Court Plan 17368 -Q.
The property is situated within the Moorlands Management Zoning
District.
do � I WZ—Alz L �-,,
Dale W. Waine, Chairman
THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT OR
OTHER ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. FOR ASSISTANCE
CALL (508) 228 -7215.