Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout083-92TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date: October 1� 1 1992 To: Parties in Interest and.Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Application No.: 083 -92 Owner /Applicant: EDMUND J. CORRY AND JUDITH M. CORRY 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_ Massa husetts 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. Dale W. Waine - Chairman cc: Town Clerk _ Planning Board Building Commissioner ;- I TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS Decision: At a public hearing of the Nantucket Board of Appeals, duly held on September 11, 1992, at 1:00 P.M., at the Town and County Building, Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket, the Board made the following decision upon the application of EDMOND J. CORRY and JUDITH M. CORRY (083 -92), c/o Reade & Alger Professional Corporation, Post Office Box 2669, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584, relating to premises situated at 33 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, Madaket (Assessor's Parcel 60.3.1 -186), shown as Lots 41 -46, inclusive, Block 26, upon Land Court Plan 2408 -V (the "Locus "): 1. The applicants have requested relief of several different types in order to validate extension of the deck of the dwelling upon the Locus to its present location, about seven feet from the southerly boundary of the Locus with New Hampshire Avenue. Required front yard setback in this Residential -2 zoning district is now 30 feet. The forms of relief proposed by the applicants are: (a) A special permit under Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139 -33.A, for the extension of an existing structure which violates a setback distance so as to not make the nonconforming distance more nonconforming, with regard to the existing deck. (b) A variance under Section 139 -32, to reduce the required setback from New Hampshire Avenue from thirty feet to seven feet in order to validate the siting of the existing deck. (c) A finding that New Hampshire Avenue" is not a "street" as defined in the Nantucket Zoning by -law and that front yard setback need not be maintained from it, together with a special permit, as provided for Residential -2 zoning districts under By -law Section 139- 16.C(1), to reduce the ten -foot setback from the southerly line of the Locus to five feet. (d) A determination that the Locus, as a lot of record in separate ownership from all adjacent land continuously since prior to the advent of zoning in Nantucket in 1972, is exempt from all setback requirements pursuant to applicable language of Massachusetts General Laws, c. 40A, §6. 2. The relevant zoning and building history of the Locus is as follows, as presented by the applicants in their application and at our public hearing: (a) The Locus was, when the Nantucket zoning by -law was adopted, a vacant lot in separate ownership from all adjacent -1- land, and has not thereafter come into common ownership with any abutting parcel. (b) At the effective date of the Nantucket zoning by -law, pursuant to its approval by the Attorney General on July 27, 1972, under the former provisions of General Laws, c. 40A, as it existed prior to the adoption of c. 808 of the Acts of 1975, the Locus was zoned as Residential, with minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet 'and no setback requirements. (The Locus contains about 12,000 square feet of lot area, as defined in the by -law.) (c) On April 10, 1973, a building permit for the construction of a dwelling upon the Locus was issued by the Nantucket Building Inspector. The plans submitted therewith showed a proposed deck, to be situated up to about ten feet from the southerly line of the Locus, along its boundary with New Hampshire Avenue. The applicants do not know exactly when this dwelling was completed. (d) Meanwhile, the Locus was later rezoned as Residential -2, with minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. Initially, front yard setback was 20 feet, and side and rear yard setback were three feet. Later, these setback requirements were amended to the present 30 feet for front yard and 10 feet for side and rear yard. The applicants bought the Locus on January 30, 1981. (e) A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the dwelling upon the Locus by the Nantucket Building Inspector on February 12, 1990. (f) In early 1990, after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a contractor engaged by the applicants demolished the deck of the dwelling upon the Locus and replaced it with a new deck, situated as close as about seven feet to the line of New Hampshire Avenue, as shown upon the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The applicants inform us that they had no idea that their contractor had not secured a building permit for the new deck until after it was finished; nor did they realize the existence of any attendant zoning issues. 4. New Hampshire Avenue appears as a street upon the relevant Land Court plans and Assessor's map; however, an examination of the site shows that, beyond the applicants' driveway, it is not constructed and, because of wetlands constraints (it traverses an area of coastal dunes) undoubtedly will never be opened up for travel. The portion of "New Hampshire Avenue" lying seven feet from the applicants' deck is indistinguishable from adjacent dunelands. -2- 5. No neighborhood opposition to the applicants' request for relief was received; one neighbor spoke in favor of it. The Planning Board recommendation was unfavorable. 6. Based upon the foregoing unusual history, the application, materials submitted with the application, and testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, a majority of the Board finds that, owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions and topography of the Locus (in that the portion of the Locus between the dwelling and New Hampshire Avenue, and the adjacent portion of New Hampshire Avenue itself, are dunelands not susceptible of development) and especially affecting the Locus but not affecting generally the Residential -2 zoning district, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning by -law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise (the demolition of the existing deck), to the applicants, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the by -law. The Board further finds that the dwelling and former deck upon the Locus conformed to zoning requirements when built, and later became nonconforming as a result of zoning changes; and that the 1990 alteration, insofar as it did not make the nonconforming setback more nonconforming, will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. 7. Accordingly, based upon a finding that New Hampshire Avenue is a street, by a vote of four members in favor and one ( Balas) opposed, the Board grants relief by variance under Section 139 -32.A from front yard setback requirements to confirm and validate the location of the existing dwelling and deck upon the Locus, as shown upon Exhibit A hereto. 8. The applicants withdrew at our hearing all of their other requests for relief, and such withdrawal, without prejudice, was allowed by a unanimo vote of the Board. IN Dated: ejw /18 /CORRYBOA 992 Dale W. Waine AM 61A Anr}°} G. Balas Linda . William �i) Mi 1� 1 ) ael J. ' ara P. �C.I� William P. Hourihan � OCR • , (, i -3- S �ssTT�rG� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 South Beach Street Nantucket, Mass. 02554 NOTICEAU A Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held at 1:00 P.M., Friday, September 11, 1992, in the Town and County Building, Broad Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of: EDMUND J. CORRY and JUDITH M. CORRY Board of Appeals File No. 083 -92 Applicant is seeking relief by Variance under §139 -32A from the requirements of §139 -16A (Intensity regulations - setbacks) or a Special Permit under §139 -33A to validate the alteration and extension of a nonconforming structure and the siting of an existing deck within a required setback. The building is nonconforming as to setback, being 16± feet from the lot line abutting New Hampshire Avenue, and the deck is 7± feet from the same lot line at its closest point. The structure is on a lot which has 12,500 S.F. A minimum lot size of 20,000 S.F. and thirty (30) foot front yard and ten (10) foot side /rear yard setbacks are required in the district. If New Hampshire Avenue is not a "Street" as defined in §139 -2 of the Bylaw, then the lot lacks the required seventy -five (75) feet of frontage and a side /rear setback would be required. If New Hampshire Avenue is a "Street ", then the lot would have adequate frontage and a front setback would be required. In addition and in the alternative, if New Hampshire Avenue is not a "Street ", Applicant requests relief by Special Permit under §139- 16C(1) to reduce the required side /rear setback from the lot line abutting New Hampshire Avenue from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. In the alternative, Applicant requests a finding that the lot is protected by the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, §6, and is exempt from any increase in yard requirement adopted after the date on which this lot came into separate ownership from all contiguous parcels, which was before the adoption of zoning on Nantucket, and, therefore, no relief is required. The premises are located at 33 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, Assessor's Map 60.3.1, parcels 186 -191 (inclusive), as shown on Land Court Plan 2408 -V, Lots 41 -46. The property is zoned R -2. Dale Waine, Chairman BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE No.0Opp 3- Q-7 *PPL'CAmTnu vnn RELIEF Owner's name(s): Edmund J. Corry and Judith M. Corr Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C.,, P O Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584 Applicant's name: same Mailing address: same Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number 6031 - 186 Street address: 33 New Hampshire. Avenue 41-46 inclusive Registry Land Ct Plan, Plan Bk & Pg or Plan File 2408 -y Lot Block 26 Cert. of Title 9551 Zoning district R -2 Date lot acquired: �Lj84 Read Aar —,— Uses on lot - commercial: None X or MCD? — - number of: dwellings 1 duplex No or C o f O? Yes — apartments— rental rooms — Building date(s): all pre -8/72. No Permit appl'n. Nos. 259 -73 Case Nos. all BOA applications, lawsuits: State fully all zoningg relief sought and respective Code sections and subsections, specifically what you propose compared to present and what grounds you urge far BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A x if Variance, 139 -30A x if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A if to alter or extend a nonconforming use). If appeal per 139 -3JA & g — attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum . Applicant requests variance or special permit to alter or extend a pre- existing nonconforming use to validate extension of deck seven feet from line of New Hampshire Avenue, an unconstructed way, at its closest point. Required front yard setback in this district is thirty feet. Alternatively, based upon finding that New Hampshire Avenue is not a "street" as defined in Section 139 -2 of the by -law, applicant requests a special permit to reduce side yard setback to five feet pursuant tot Section 139- 16.C.(1) to validate extension of said deck. Required side yard setback is 10 feet in this district. Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl addendum2 Locus map x Site plan x showing present�x +planned structre; Floor plans present proposed elevations (HDapproved? Listings lot area 'x frontage x setbacks x GCR x parking data — Assessor- certifie3 addressee ITst 4 sets x majll—ng labels 2 sets 200 fee payable to Town.of Nantucketx proof 'cap' covenant — (If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to sen3 Bldg Comr 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 Pe uu�ry. Applicant Attorney /agent x SIGNATURE: — 3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority) FOR BOA OFFICE USE Application copies rec d: 4 41 L or_ for BoA one Ybm One copy filed with Town Clerk on /,�&Y complete? L� one copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept ��Y� &ty/ %-� waived ?_ $200 fee check given Town Tr��ea //surer on �°' C} Hearing notice posted ( j?- 1n & /�. 15�� Hearing(s) on_/ _/— con t'd to_/ _j_, — withdrawn ? —/—/_ Y��— filed TC_J�_ mailed��_ Decision due b made _/— See related cases lawsuits other