Loading...
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.