HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Court APPEAL 36-21 (Cross-Ref. ZBA 21) /
ANDERSON
KREIGER
NINA PICKERING-COOK ire. c' '
-n
npickeringcook@andersonkreiger.com i-n ,4.- : -
T: 617.621.6536 cn dSw2 ..').
t C-
F: 617.621.6636 ‘g (--) `
.0 r" .
February 9, 2022 ' . rn
N
N '
BY HAND { '
Clerk '
Town of Nantucket
16 Broad St.
Nantucket, MA 02554
Re:. 'Catherine S. Ward y. Town of Nantucket, Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals,Susan McCarthy,Lisa Botticelli, Edward S. Toole,Michael J. O'Mara,and
'Elisa H.Allen,as they are Members of The Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals,Peter A. Grape and Linda Oliver Grape ,
Dear Sir%Madam:
Enclosed please fmd a copy of the Complaint, including the Board of Appeals Decision, filed in
Land Court yesterday.
I have also enclosed a copy of the front page of the Complaint to be date stamped and returned to
us.
Thank you:
, i,,:.%.''',t4.,...N/6-ik.
\f/ . -
Nina Pickering-Cook
Encl. . . , . ..
ANDERSON &KREIGER LLP 150 MILK STREET, 21st FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02109 I 617.621.6500
. .
-t4,4R7. cu
2
COMMONWEALTH'0 ' ' • SETTS
Nantucket,ss. Land.Court Department
CaseNo. yI-
r4,
)CATHERINE S. WARD )
Plaintiff, )
c.
v. )
TOWN OF OF NANTUCKET,TOWN OF )
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF )
APPEALS;SUSAN MCCARTHY, LISA )
BOTTICELLI,EDWARD S.TOOLE, )
MICHAEL,J.O'MARA, and ELISA.H. )
ALLEN„as they are members of THE TOWN )
OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF ) rr7
APPEALS,PETER A. GRAPE AND LINDA )
OLIVER GRAPE. ) 0
Defendants. ) --o
r--- ,
) 111
7.\.5
•
)
1\3 -
COMPLAINT
• The plaintiff Catherine S. Ward files this complaint to appeal,pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A,
§.17,a.deCision by the Nantucket Board of Appeals upholding the Building Commissioner's
determination that use of 9 West Dover:Street in Nantucket(the "Property") as a short-term
rental ('STR")is a permitted use by right in the ROH residential zone. As an STR,the Property
does,not comply with the Bylaw's use restrictions for the ROH district in which it is located. As
such,the Property is an unpermitted commercial use and more properly characterized as a
transient reSidential facility"under the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw (the-Bylaw").
The Parties
1. Plaintiff Catherine S. Ward owns the real property at 4A Silver'Street in
Nantucket Massachusetts and is a dired abutter to The Property:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Nantucket, ss. Land Court Department
Case No.22 MISC 000064
)
CATHERINE S. WARD )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
TOWN OF NANTUCKET,TOWN OF )
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF )
APPEALS, SUSAN MCCARTHY,LISA )
BOTTICELLI,EDWARD S. TOOLE, )
MICHAEL J. O'MARA, and ELISA H. )
ALLEN, as they are members of THE TOWN )
OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF )
APPEALS,PETER A. GRAPE AND LINDA )
OLIVER GRAPE. )
. Defendants. )
)
)
COMPLAINT
The plaintiff Catherine S.Ward files this complaint to appeal,pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A,
§ 17, a decision by the Nantucket Board of Appeals upholding the Building Commissioner's
determination that use of 9 West Dover Street in Nantucket(the"Property") as a short-term
rental("STR") is a permitted use by right in the ROH residential zone. As an STR,the Property
does not comply with the Bylaw's use restrictions for the ROH district in which it is located. As
such,the Property is an unpermitted commercial use and more properly characterized as a
"transient residential facility"under the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw(the"Bylaw").
The Parties
1. Plaintiff Catherine S.Ward owns the real property at 4A Silver Street in
Nantucket,Massachusetts and is a direct abutter to the Property.
2. Peter A. Grape and Linda Oliver Grape, of 61 Lowell Road, Wellesley,MA
02481,are the record owners of the Property(the "Owners").
3. The Town of Nantucket is a body politic located in Nantucket County with a
principal address of 16 Broad Street Nantucket,MA 02554.
4. The defendant Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals (the"Board") is the Town of
Nantucket's duly constituted board of appeals pursuant to G.L. c. 40A with offices at 2
Fairgrounds Road,Nantucket,Massachusetts, 02554.
5. The following defendants are the Chair and members of the Board:
a. Susan McCarthy, Chair; 26 Goldfinch Drive,Nantucket,MA 02554;
b. Lisa Botticelli,Vice Chair;24 Pine Street,Nantucket,MA 02554;
c. Edward S. Toole,28 Burnell Street,Nantucket,MA 02554;
d. Michael J. O'Mara,240 Polpis Road,Nantucket,MA 02554
e. Elisa H.Allen,•9 Pond Road Nantucket,MA 02554
The Property
6. The Property is a.13 acre parcel located in the downtown Historic District of
Nantucket.
7. The Property consists of a four-bedroom house as well as a separate, detached
garage with a bedroom, bathroom, and living room.
8. The Property is located in the ROH District,which permits only residential uses
except in very limited circumstances that do not apply here.
9. The ROH District allows rooming, lodging and guest houses for non-residents of
the Property, but only if(a)the lot is located entirely within a quarter mile radius of the CDT
District and (b)the owner has obtained a Special Permit for the property for use as a"transient
residential facility" as defined in the Bylaw.
{A0272189.1} 2
10. The Owners have not obtained this permit type for the Property.
11. Based on information and belief,no one currently uses the Property as their.
primary residence. The Owners represented that their family occasionally use the Property, at
most a few times per month,provided it is not being used as an STR.
12. The Owners advertise the Property on multiple luxury vacation websites,
including Sotheby's International Realty,Lee Real Estate, and Atlantic East Nantucket Real
Estate, as available for rent year-around at weekly rates.1
13. Based on the advertisements, it is available for rent on a weekly basis 365 days
per year.
14. Prices to rent the Property range from$4,250 per week during the winter months
to $8,000 per week during peak weeks in the summer and fall.
15. Based on information and belief,no one has lived in the Property as its residence
for tax or voting purposes since at least 2017 when the Owners purchased the Property.
The Bylaws
16. Town Zoning Bylaw § 139-25 defines"commercial"as"a trade, occupation,or
business, including transient residential facility, but excluding governmental,religious or private
residential uses."
17. Town Zoning Bylaw§ 139-25 defines"transient residential facility"as "hotels;
rooming,lodging or guest houses; and time-sharing or time-interval-ownership dwelling unit(s)."
1.8. On Nantucket,no commercial or transient residential facilities uses are allowed in
the"Town Residential" districts (R-1, SR-1,ROH, SOH,R-5,.R-5L,R-10,R-20 and R-40)or in
1 https://www.themaurypeople.com/nantucket-rentals/property/49505-9-west-dover-street-nantucket(last visited Jan
25,2022),https://www.leerealestate.com/nantucket-rental/town-9-west-dover-street/(last visited Jan 25,2022),
https://nantucketrealestate.com/nantucket-vacation-rentals/11517/?page-no=15(last visited Jan 25,2022).
(A0272189.1) . . 3 -
the Country Residential districts (V-R,LUG-1,LUG-2,LUG-3 and MMD),with the exception
of rooming, lodging or guest houses,which are only allowed in ROH districts with a special
permit.Bylaw§ 139-7A.
The Board's Decision
19. On September 17, 2021, after years of living next to the Property being used as an
STR, Ward sent an enforcement request to Zoning Enforcement Officer Marcus Silverstein,that
he deem the Property as in violation of the Bylaw as a"commercial use" in a residential ROH
zoning district.
20. On September 24,2021,Building Commissioner Paul Murphy responded via
letter stating that he"respectfully decline[d] to pursue enforcement at this time because, in [his]
opinion,the use of the property for short term,rentals does not violate the Town's Zoning
Bylaw."
21. A true and accurate copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit A("Murphy Denial
Letter").
22. Commissioner Murphy did not offer any explanation as to why the use of the
Property did not violate the Town's Zoning Bylaws.
23. In a letter dated October 24,2021, Ward appealed the Murphy Denial Letter to the
Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals.
24. After a public hearing,held on November 22,2021 via Zoom,the Board voted to
deny the Plaintiff's appeal and uphold the decision of the Building Commissioner that use of the
Property as a STR does not constitute a commercial use.
25. On January 20,2022 the Board filed its written decision(the"Decision")with the
Town Clerk. A certified copy, of the Decision is attached as Exhibit B.
{A0272189.1} 4
The.Plaintiffs' Harm
26. Ward is a direct abutter of the Property.
27. The Property is configured such that the area where renters congregate and
socialize outside is approximately 20 to 25 feet from Ms. Ward's sliding back door,which she
enjoys leaving open in the summer months.
28. Ward is intimately familiar with the neighborhood,having owned the house at 4a
Silver Street since 1993.
29. Since at least when the Owners purchased the_Property in 2017, Ward has been
harmed by the Owners' use of the property as an STR in a manner that zoning commercial and
residential properties separately is intended to protect.
30. Specifically,Ward's ability to use and enjoy her property has been diminished as
a direct result of the Property being used as an STR.Ward has experienced, among other harms,
the following:
a) Frequent outdoor parties with groups of young men playing drinking
games and blaring music so loudly that Ms.Ward cannot watch television
or entertain guests in her home.
b) On at least one occasion, a guest walking from the outdoor shower to the
home unclothed. .
c) Bright lights facing the Ward property left on all night long.
31. Many Property renters have exhibited little to no care or concern for their impact
on neighbors like Ward. Even those that do moderate their behavior after complaint by Ward,
have no long-term impact on the situation as, by their very nature,these renters are here only
{A0272189.1} n 5
short term and another set of renters will arrive the very next week.Particularly during the peak
season months,this is a never-ending cycle for Ward.
32. The Grapes are often not on island during times when the Property is rented to
handle these troublesome circumstances, and have informed Ms. Ward that as long as the renters
are quiet after 10pm,they are entitled to make noise up until that time.
33. The use of the Property as an STR is impacting Ward's private property interests,
and as such, she is a person aggrieved under M.G.L. c.40A, § 17 and thus has standing to bring
this appeal.
COUNTI
G.L. c. 40A, § 17
34. Ward incorporates into this paragraph all the allegations set forth above.
35. The Board found that the evidence of harm was not sufficiently compelling to
warrant overturning the decision of the Building Commissioner with respect to the Property.
36. Thus,the Board improperly interpreted Sections 139-2.A and 139-7.A of the
Bylaw.
37. Ward has been aggrieved by the Board's Decision.
38. The Board's Decision is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, exceeds
the Board's authority, and is based on legally untenable grounds.
COUNT II
G.L. c.240,§ 14A
39. Ward incorporates into this paragraph all the allegations set forth above.
40. The Board upheld the Building Commissioner's decision that the use of the.
Property as an STR is not a violation of the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw.
{A0272189.1} 6
•
41. In doing so,the Board improperly interpreted Sections 139-2.A and 139-7.A of
the Bylaw.
42. As a direct abutter impacted by the use of the Property as an STR,that zoning
decision has a direct effect on Ward's enjoyment of her land.
43. Thus,pursuant to G.L. c. 240, § 14A, Ward is entitled to a declaration that the
Nantucket Zoning Bylaw prohibits S'I'Rs in the ROH district.
WHEREFORE,the plaintiff requests that this court:
1. Annul the Board's decision upholding the Building Commissioner's
determination that use of the Property exclusively as an STR is permitted in the ROH zoning
district;
2. Enter judgment that the manner in which the Property is used as an STR is a
transient residential facility, and therefore a commercial use prohibited in the ROH zoning
district;
3. Enter a judgment declaring that use as an STR is an unlawful use of the Property
under applicable zoning; and
4. Grant the plaintiffs such other relief as it deems just and proper.
CATHERINE C. WARD
By her attorney,
Lek
pfri;14,;:„1
Nina Pickering-Cook(BBO#669030)
npickeringcook@andersonkreiger.com
ANDERSON&KREIGER LLP
50 Milk,21 st Floor
Boston,MA 02109
617.621.6536
Dated:February 8th,2022
{A0272189.1} 7
Exhibit 'A
{A0160866.1)
kia.eifrottA/vv• a
i Planning and Land Use Services
Building'Historic District Commission s Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals
.„__it R eki ttie.-•'-- BUILDING DIVISION
September 24, 2021.
Catherine S. Ward
4A Silver Street
Nantucket, MA02554
,
Reference: Request for Zoning Enforcement at 9 West Dover Street
Dear Ms. Ward,
I am in receipt of your zoning enforcement request dated September 18, 2021,
with regard to the property located at 9 West Dover Street, Nantucket(the
"Property"). I respectfully declineto pursue zoning enforcement at this time
because, in my opinion,the use of the property for short term rentals does not
violate the Tbwn's Zoning Bylaw.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you may appeal to the Nantucket
Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to G.L. c.40A Sections 8 and 15'. .
Ve truly yours,
atte7Will,0 -
p
Paul Murphy
Building,Commissioner
Town of Nantucket
Cc: Andrew Vorce, Director of Planning
Leslie Snell, Deputy Director of Planning.
Certified Mail#7019 2970 0001 3017 0902
Telephone 508-325-7587•2 Fairgrounds Road• Nantucket,MA02554 .508-228-7298 facsimile
Exhibit B
{A0160866.1}
2.154
IA
2022 JAN 20 PH 3: 06
T ; ,
L=.7
" i\ t ,
711C-'N,
A ei
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
•
BOARD OF APPEALS-
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: January 18,2022
To: Parties in Interest. and Others concerned with. the
Decision Of The BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
Application No: 36-21
Applicant! PRIOR OWNER:CATHERINE S.WARD
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD or APPEALS which has this
day been filed with 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 a
complaint in Nantucket Superior Court or Land 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. .
4 „
,IT
Leslie Woodson Snell, ATCP
Zoning Administrator
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner/Zoning 'Enforcement Officer
,PLEASE NOTE; MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME LIMIT
AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING TO NANTUCKET ZONING
BY-LAW SECTION 139-30 (SPECIAL PERMITS) ; SECTION 139-32
(VARIANCES) . ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS OFFICE AT S08-325-7587.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554
Assessor's Map 55.1.4,Parcel 189 Book 1581,Page 238
9 West Dover Street Plan Book 7, Page 29
Residential Old Historic(ROH)
OWNERS: Peter A. Grape and Linda Oliver Grape
DECISION:
1. At a public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") on Thursday,
November 22,2021,held remotely via Zoom',the Board made the following decision on the
appeal filed by Catherine S. Ward, with a mailing address of 4A Silver Street,Nantucket,
Massachusetts 02554, File No. 36-21.
2. Appellant brings an appeal,pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Sections
8& 15 and Zoning By-law Sections 139-29.E and 139-31,of a determination by the Building
Commissioner that the use of 9 West Dover Street as a short-term rental ("STR") is not a
prohibited use in the residential zone in which it is located.Appellant requests that the Zoning
Board of Appeals overturn the Commissioner's determination with respect to the property
and further that zoning enforcement action be taken by issuing an order to the owner to cease
and desist using the property as a STR. The Locus is situated at 9 West Dover Street, is
shown on Assessor's Map 55.1.4 as Parcel 189, and in Plan Book 7, Page 29. Evidence of
title to 9 West Dover Street is recorded in Book 1581, Page 238 on file at the Nantucket
County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic(ROH).
3. Our decision is based upon the application and accompanying materials,representations,and
testimony received at our public hearing. There was no Planning Board recommendation on
the basis that no matters of planning concern were presented. There was oral and written
testimony and comments from the various parties during the public hearing.
4. Appellant Catherine S. Ward did not have legal representation at the meeting. Attorney
Robert McLaughlin spoke on behalf of the owners of the subject Locus, namely Peter A.
Grape and Linda Oliver Grape. Building Commissioner Paul Murphy also spoke at the
hearing, along with several interested parties.
1This.Open Meeting of the Nantucket Zoning Board ofAppeals was conducted remotely consistent with
Governor Baker's Executive Order of March 12,2020,due to the current State of Emergencyin the
Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the "COVID-19 Virus."
2
5. In a letter, dated September 24, 2021, addressed to Catherine S. Ward, the Commissioner
declined a request for enforcement against the Locus based upon a determination that the use
of the property for short-term rentals does not violate the zoning by-law. The Appellant
subsequently requested that the Board overturn the decision of the Building Commissioner
and fmd that the owner renting their property on a short-term basis is a commercial use not
allowed in the ROH district and further require the owner to immediately cease and desist
this use of the premises as a short-term rental. The Appellant maintains: the use of the
property for Short Term Rentals (STRs) constitutes a commercial use in a residential zone
and therefore violates the By-law.
6. The appellant, Catherine S. Ward, stated that she has owned her home at 4A Silver Street
since 1993 and has resided there full time since 2010. During those years,in her opinion the
neighborhood had always been"stable" and residents respected the privacy of others. She
addressed her belief that multiple STR's exist in the area and described 9 West Dover as a
"hotel" and incompatible with the ROH zoning district. Ms. Ward stated the arrival of
"happy vacationers" spending time on the patio at 9 West Dover Street and enjoying the
property disrupts her use of her property. Some of the disruptions coming from the patio
area of 9 West Dover Street she mentioned to the Board included, but were not limited to,
people playing games, music in the outdoor shower, use of cell,phones, lights being left on
at night, and babies crying. Ms. Ward expressed the opinion that the "unsupervised mini-
hotels"that have"sprung up"are ruining the summer for other residents of the area.
7. Various owners of abutting properties and interested parties to the appeal expressed support
for the appeal,describing how STRs for profit are disruptive,transient,and adversely impact
the character and quality of life in the neighborhood.
8. Attorney McLaughlin represented that his client's current use of 9 West Dover Street is
lawful and refuted the basis of the request for enforcement and appeal, maintaining that the'
Appellant does not have the proper standing to file an appeal. He stated that even if she did
have standing,the house is principally being used as a single-family house,regardless of who
stays there or for how long. He noted the frequency the owners use the property for personal
use with their family, and that they stay in the garage apartment during the times the main
house is used as a short-term rental. He pointed out that the Board should focus on matters
pertaining to zoning which regulate use and dimensions.He suggested that Town Meeting is
the appropriate way for the community to address this if it is considered a community-wide
' concern.He urged the Board to uphold the Building Commissioner's determination and deny
the Appeal.
9. Building Commissioner Paul Murphy spoke at the hearing and stated that short term rentals
do not violate the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw.
3
10. The appeal is filed pursuant to the following provisions:
M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 8.
An appeal to the permit granting authority as the zoning ordinance or by-law may provide,
may be taken by any person aggrieved by reason of his inability to obtain a permit or
enforcement action from any administrative officer under the provisions of this chapter, by
the regional planning agency in whose area the city or town is situated, or by any person
including an officer or board of the city or town, or of an abutting city or town aggrieved by
an order or decision of the inspector of buildings, or other administrative official, in violation
of any provision of this chapter or any ordinance or by-law adopted thereunder.
The relevant sections of the Nantucket Zoning By-law are:
Section 139-29.E(1)
(1) The Board of Appeals shall have the following powers:
[...]
(d) To hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Zoning Enforcement
Officer.
Section 139-31.A(1) AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS (OR TO THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR IF AUTHORIZED TO HEAR SUCH APPEAL)MAYBE TAKEN.'
By any person aggrieved by reason of his inability to obtain a permit or enforcement action
from the Building Commissioner[see§139-25B(1) above], the Zoning Enforcement
. Officer, or from any other administrative officer under the provisions of this chapter: or
11. After taking testimony from the above-cited legal representatives,their clients, and the
Building Commissioner, a majority of members of the Board found the evidence
insufficient to overturn the Building Commissioner. They determined that Commissioner
Murphy appropriately applied the plain language of the By-law and that his decision to
decline the request for zoning enforcement action was based upon an appropriate
determination that the use of the Locus complies with allowable residential use. The Board
felt it was important to focus on interpreting and applying the specific provision of the
Nantucket Zoning By-law to this specific property. Questions of policy creation and
enforcement should fall to the community in the context of Annual Town Meeting.
Consequently,the Board members arrived at a consensus that the evidence presented was
insufficient to prove that Commissioner Murphy's refusal to pursue zoning enforcement
was improper.
12. There was discussion of what has become customary with rentals of private properties where
frequent turnover occurs. The Appellant and interested parties reiterated that the anonymity
and frequency of rentals occasionally lead to a lack of deference for the other residents of the
neighborhood and as a result impinge upon their quiet enjoyment of their own properties.
Board members concluded that the Appellants complaints, including, but not limited to,
music playing in an outdoor shower,babies crying, cell phone calls,and use of the backyard
4
resulting in sounds being heard by neighbors are consistent and typical with single family
use and might occur at any or all single-family properties,whether or not the property is used
as a STR.
13. The Board agreed that, as a regulatory body rather than a policy-making body, they are
charged with determining whether the use in this particular instance could be construed as
commercial according to the Zoning By-law as it currently exists. The Board arrived at a
consensus that the evidence and testimony brought to bear were not sufficiently compelling
to warrant overturning the decision of the Building Commissioner.
•
14. Furthermore, the Board concurred that Town Meeting is the appropriate forum to address
and regulate STRs in order to establish more specific guidelines regarding what constitutes
an acceptable threshold for this type of use. Conversely, such proposed By-Laws should
take into consideration unintended consequences for the island and its inhabitants.
15. A MOTION was made by Geoff Thayer and duly seconded by Elisa Allen to,for the reasons
discussed during the Board's deliberations, uphold the determination of the Building
Commissioner and to deny the appeal. The vote was conducted by roll call vote with five
(McCarthy,Allen,Thayer, O'Mara,and Poor)in favor of the motion and zero (0)against the
motion. The Motion carried unanimously and; therefore; the APPEAL IS DENIED and
the decision of the Building Commissioner is upheld.
5
•
Assessor's Map 55.1.4,Parcel 189 1Book 1581,Page 238
9 West Dover Street Plan Book 7, Page 29
Residential Old Historic(ROH)
Dated: November 22,2021
an McC - •
Elm.Allen
Geo er çj
N:9,5
PlickereG Illara
Michael O'Mara. 41.P.5
•
Mark Poor
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
County of Nantucket, ss •
On the ck day of 2022, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared
, one of the above-named
members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Nantucket,Massachusetts, personally known to me
to be the person whose name is signed On the preceding document, and acknowledged that they
signed the foregoing instrument as their free act and deed and voluntarily for the purposes therein
expressed..
Offelc a igMe and Seal of Public
My commission expires:
V (N4e- 2,o)
5n1-e_t910(&‘, Ma •
e, ESMERALDA C. MARTINEZ
• Notary Public
it ifcommonwéalth of Nicasachusefts
My Commission'Expires
March 28, 2028 6
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FILE NO. 36-21
RE: 9 West Dover Street (Appeal by Catherine Ward)
AFFIDAVIT OF LINDA OLIVER'GRAPE
I,Linda Oliver Grape,being on oath do depose and say as follows:
1. Together with my husband,Peter A. Grape,we own the property at 9 West Dover Street
in Nantucket,Massachusetts(the"Property").
2. We purchased the Property in March 2017. The property consists of a four-bedroom
single-family house (the"main house"), as well as a separate, detached garage(with a
garage area and bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor,and a living area above) (the
"garage cottage"). At the time we purchased the property,the prior owners had rented it
out, and there were rentals booked for the summer of 2017. We essentially inherited and
assumed those bookings, and they occurred as booked.
3. Our primary residence is in Wellesley,Massachusetts,but we do use the Property as a
second,vacation home. We visit approximately 1-2 times per month in the colder
months,but 3 times(or more)per month in the warmer months. Our adult daughter and
adult son(and his family)have also stayed at the Property, staying in either the main
house or the garage cottage, depending on how many people they are visiting with and
whether the main house is rented at that time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our
daughter lived at the Property for six weeks while working from home.
4. Like many others who own property in Nantucket,we do rent out our Property to short- -
term visitors to Nantucket. We only rent the main house, and have only rented the garage
1
cottage once(for three nights, in 2017). And we only rent the main house for regular
residential use; it is not and cannot be rented to host large events,reunions,meetings,
functions or the like.
5. There are times when the main house is rented,and we stay in the garage cottage, and are
thus actually on-site during a rental period. And there are significant periods of time that
•
the Property is completely vacant.
6. Our Property shares a boundary line at the rear of the Property with property owned by
Catherine S. Ward(who resides at 4a Silver Street),who is the Applicant in this ZBA
Appeal.
7. Since we acquired our Property in March 2017,Ms.Ward has made assorted complaints
to us about the use of our Property. These have included noise complaints and a recent
complaint about a bamboo plant from our Property that was allegedly encroaching onto
Ms. Ward's property. The issue with the bamboo plant was addressed and amicably
resolved in July 2021.
8. I have promptly responded to and addressed the issues raised by Ms. Ward. After
receiving a letter from Ms. Ward in August 2019,which noted her concerns about noise,
we researched the rules related to quiet hours on Nantucket,and included specific
information about Nantucket's quiet hours in the materials provided to all renters to our
Property.
9. In an attempt to be a good neighbor I also have provided Ms.Ward with my cell phone
number, in case of problems or issues,but Ms.Ward has never called me directly. As to
the issue with the bamboo in July 2021 we communicated via text message. With regard
2
to one tenant who was allegedly loud and used inappropriate language,we promptly
informed her that that tenant would not be returning as a renter in the future.
10. I understand from her Appeal,that Ms. Ward alleges "increased noise and light"as the
basis for her letter to the Building Commissioner.
11. Based on her communications with me, she has made complaints that include: the sound
of a toddler in the morning, our daughter's dog barking(during the day,usually only
when Ms. Ward was in her own yard doing yard work),the closing of barbecue lids,a
beeping smoke detector,and the sound of adults dining outside at 7:55 PM in the evening
on October 10,2020.
12. As for the outdoor dining incident,Ms.Ward responded by twice shining a bright
floodlight into the faces of the adults dining outside(of which we have a photograph).
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS 18th DAY OF
NOVEMBER 2021.
/s/Linda Oliver Grape
Linda Oliver Grape
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Peter A. Grape and Linda Oliver Grape—Owners of 9 West Dover Street
RE: Nantucket ZBA File No. 36-21 —Appeal Application of Catherine S. Ward
DATE: November 18, 2021
I. Introduction
Peter and Linda Grape(the"Owners") own the single-family home located at 9 West
Dover Street,Nantucket,Massachusetts (the "Property")which is the subject of this appeal.
They purchased the Property March 2017. The Property is located in the ROH district, and
consists of the main house (containing four bedrooms), and a detached one-car garage (including
garage area,with bedroom and bathroom behind it,and living area on the floor above). The
Property was built in 2008, and the Owners have been informed and believe that prior to their
purchase, it was available to rent as a so-called short-term rental ("STR"). Since acquiring the
Property the Owners have from time-to-time rented the main house. No large events or functions
have been held at their Property.
The Owners' Property shares a boundary line at the rear of their Property with property
owned by Catherine S. Ward(located at 4a Silver Street),who is the Applicant in this Appeal.
Over the years,Ms. Ward has made assorted complaints to the Owners about the use of their
Property. See Affidavit of Linda Oliver Grape. These have included noise complaints and a
recent complaint about a bamboo plant from the Owners Property encroaching onto Ms. Ward's
property. Id. The Owners have promptly responded to and addressed the issues raised by Ms.
Ward. In an attempt to be,a good neighbor Mrs. Grape has provided Ms.Ward with her cell
1
phone number, in case of problems or issues,but Ms. Ward has never called Mrs. Grape directly.
Id. Ms. Ward's noise complaints have included: the sound of a toddler in the morning, a dog
barking during the daytime,the closing of barbecue lids,a beeping smoke detector, and the
sound of adults dining outside at around 8:00 PM in the evening in October 2020. Id. Notably,
under the Nantucket Noise Bylaw,there are certain noises that are wholly exempt from noise-
level regulations. See Chapter 101-2(G). Among the specific exemptions are"Noises of safety
signals,warning devices and emergency pressure-relief valves"and the"unamplified human •
voice." Id. at(G)(1)and(5). As for the outdoor dining incident,Ms. Ward responded by twice
shining a bright floodlight into the faces of the adults dining outside. See Affidavit,¶ 12.
II. Procedural History
In June 2021,the local political-action group ACK•NOW brought a citizen's article
before the Nantucket Town Meeting. The proposed new Bylaw was aimed specifically at
limiting and regulating STRs on Nantucket. The proposal was overwhelmingly defeated,by a
margin of 2 to 1.
On September 17, 2021,Ms.Ward, of 4a Silver Street,Nantucket,filed a request for
zoning enforcement with the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of Nantucket. Notably,
Ms.Ward is a board member of ACK•NOW. She requested enforcement of the zoning Bylaw
that prohibits commercial uses in a residential district. She claimed that the Property has been
used as a so-called Short-Term Rental("STR") and thus is a prohibited"commercial"use in the
residential zone where the Property is located.
On September 24, 2021,the Building Commissioner for Nantucket,Paul Murphy, issued
a letter to Ms. Ward, denying the request for zoning enforcement, stating that"the use of the
2
property for short term rentals does not violate the Town's Zoning Bylaw." The letter advised
Ms.Ward of her right to appeal to the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA").
On Monday, October 25,2021,the ZBA received Ms. Ward's Application, appealing the
Building Commissioner's denial of her request for zoning enforcement to the.ZBA. The filing
fee for this appeal was paid by ACK•NOW. In her appeal,Ms. Ward highlights the recent
Supreme Judicial Court case, Styller v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynnfield,487 Mass. 588
(2021).
This ZBA appeal is scheduled for public hearing on Monday,November 22,2021,which
hearing begins at 12:00 P.M.,via Zoom.
The Property Owners hereby oppose the appeal submitted by Ms.Ward to the ZBA. The
ZBA should affirm the Building Commissioner's decision and deny this appeal because there is
no violation of the Nantucket zoning Bylaws in these circumstances, as the Building
Commissioner correctly determined.
III. Argument
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing an appeal from the denial of a request for zoning enforcement,the ZBA
"may ... make orders or decisions,reverse or affirm in whole or in part, or modify any order or
decision,and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken
and may issue or direct issuance of a permit." Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 40A, § 14. For this ZBA,
the"concurring vote of four members of[the board] shall be necessary to reverse any order or
decision of any administrative official under this chapter." Mass. Gen.Laws ch.40A, § 15; see
also Nantucket Bylaws, § 139-31 (E)(3). "The Board of Appeals shall cause to be made a
detailed report of its proceedings,indicating the vote of each member upon each question, or if
3
absent or failing to vote,indicating such fact, and setting forth clearly the reason for its decision
and its official actions." Bylaws, § 139-31 (E)(4).
B. The Property does not violate the Nantucket Bylaws
The Owners submit that the current use of their house at 9 West Dover Street qualifies as
a valid and genuine"private residential use." If so,this"private residential use"means that the
use does not come within the definition of"commercial"use in the Bylaws,as Ms.Ward
contends, and there is therefore no violation of the Bylaws. Bylaws, § 139-2 (Definitions and
word usage).
The pertinent analysis here is the Nantucket Use Chart(Bylaws, Chapter 139-7A)in
conjunction with the relevant Definitions. The Owners' Property is located in the ROH
Residential District. As noted on the Chart,the only"Business Commercial"uses that are
allowed are for"Personal Services,""Funeral home," or"Rooming, lodging,or guest house,"but
these all require a Special Permit issued by the ZBA.
4
The term"commercial"is defined as"As in a trade, occupation; or business, including a
transient residential facility, but excluding governmental,religious or private residential uses."
(Emphasis added.)
"Transient residential facilities"are defined as: "Hotels;rooming, lodging or guest
houses; and time-sharing or time-interval-ownership dwelling unit(s). In the ROH District only,
rooming, lodging, and guest houses may be allowed by special permit for lots located entirely
within a quarter-mile radius of the CDT District."
"Lodging,rooming or guest house"is defined as: "A building or buildings on a lot
containing rental sleeping units without respective kitchens, and not having a commercial
4
kitchen,primarily the temporary abode of persons who have a permanent residence elsewhere."
(Emphasis added.)
Working through these various terms reveals the following. The main house of the
Owners' Property is not a"lodging,rooming or guest house"because it has a kitchen. Their
main house is obviously not a"hotel"or a"time-sharing or time-interval-ownership"unit—thus
it cannot qualify as a"transient residential facility," one of the specific uses prohibited by the
definition of"commercial."
Instead,the use of the Owners' Property here comes under the explicit exclusion in the
definition of"commercial." That is,it is indeed a"private residential use"because anyone who
stays at the house lives there as a resident would,using the house for sleeping, cooking and
eating meals, and other normal day-to-day"residential" living activities. In short,the house is
used as a single-family house=and only as a single-family house—regardless of who stays
there or for how long.
The Grapes use the Property as a second,vacation home,which they travel to regularly
from their primary home in Wellesley. Their adult daughter and adult son(and his family) also
visit and stay at the Property. At times,the main house on the Property is rented to others.
There are also times when the main house is rented but the Grapes reside in the separate garage
cottage(and are thus literally on-site, at their Property at the same time it is being used by others
as an STR). And there are significant amounts of time where the property is completely vacant.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that these exact uses of a private residential property are very
common and have a long, established history on Nantucket.
In her appeal, Ward relies on the recent SJC case, Styller v.Zoning.Board of Appeals of
Lynnfield,merely citing two sentences out of context,without any actual discussion of the
5
details in that case. Her reliance,however, is misplaced. That case(and the applicable
Lynnfield Bylaws) are clearly distinguishable, and thus not binding on the Nantucket ZBA(and
its interpretation of the Nantucket Bylaws).
First,the house in that case had been rented for a broad range of purposes,both
residential and commercial, including family reunions, a college reunion,a corporate board
meeting,business retreats and photo shoots. 487 Mass. at 590. In contract,the Grapes' Property
has been and is only used in a purely residential way,whether by themselves,their family and
friends, or paying short-term renters. Their property is not used to host large events.
Second,the Styller case arose out of very unusual circumstances. In May 2016,the
house was rented for a college reunion event,with a group of six people expected as overnight
guests. 487 Mass. at 591,n.7. However, over 100 people ended up coming to the property,and
one individual was shot and killed. Id. These events prompted the Lynnfield Building Inspector
to get involved, and it was the Building Inspector who initiated the zoning enforcement
proceeding. In this case, of course, it is one allegedly aggrieved neighbor who is seeking zoning
enforcement.
Third, are the actual Bylaws in Lynnfield. Key words in section 4.1 include."principal"
use, "additional"use, and"accessory"use of property in single-residence districts. Id. at 589.
As for"additional"uses,these included use as a"tourist home,boarding or lodging home," and
such uses required prior approval by the ZBA. Id.
The Nantucket Bylaws differ in several crucial ways. Certain words involved in the
Styller case are not used or specifically defined in the Nantucket Bylaws, including"additional
use" and"tourist home." As noted,the relevant Nantucket Bylaws include the definition of
"commercial" and"transient residential facility,"which control the outcome of this appeal. The
6
SJC does discuss"transient uses" of property in Styller,but the term"transient residential
facility" is a specifically defined term in the Nantucket Bylaws. As for the word"commercial,"
it appears only once in the Styller case, in a footnote. Id. at 597 n.16. And the reference actually
supports the Owners' argument here. The SJC noted, in reference to"accessory uses"(which the
owner was not actually relying on),that use of the property as an STR would likely not qualify
as an"accessory use"under the Lynnfield Bylaw. The SJC concluded the footnote by stating:
"the plaintiff's rental of the property for event use (rather than for residential purposes)
effectively converted the principal use of the premises during the rental period to one not
permitted, i.e., a commercial use, as prohibited by [Lynnfield Bylaw] section 5(4)." Id.
(emphasis added). This clearly suggests that the rental of property for residential purposes does
not constitute"commercial"use—which is consistent with the Nantucket Bylaw definition of
"commercial"and its explicit exemption for"private residential uses."
In interpreting and applying the then-existing Lynnfield Bylaws,the Building Inspector
ordered the property owner to cease and desist offering his property for rent, concluding that the
use of the property as an STR constituted use as a"hotel"(which was a prohibited"additional
use" in a.single-residence district), or constituted use as a"lodging or rooming house"(which
was prohibited without the required prior authorization). Id. at 591. The events also prompted
the Town to quickly amend sections of the Bylaw,which specifically prohibited STRs in
Lynnfield. Id. at 590,n.5. Those October 2016 amendments, however,were not at issue in the
case. Id.
The property owner challenged the Building Inspector's cease and desist order, arguing
that use of the property as an STR did not constitute use as a"hotel"or as a"lodging or
rooming"house. Id. at 591. The Lynnfield ZBA upheld the enforcement decision(prohibiting
7
rentals of 30 days or less in a single-residence district),but the ZBA did not address whether the
use of the property qualified as a"hotel"or"lodging or rooming house." Id.
The property owner pursued his case on appeal in the Land Court. The Land Court judge
concluded that the use of the property as an STR was an"additional use"as either a"tourist
home"or.a"lodging house." Because the property owner did not have the ZBA's prior
authorization for such use,he had violated the Bylaws (as they existed prior to their being.
amended in October 2016), and so the judge affirmed the ZBA's decision. Id. at 591-592. The
property owner appealed again, and the Supreme Judicial exercised its discretion and took the
case directly.
Before the SJC,the property owner argued that the use of his property as an STR was not
an"additional use"but was an allowed"principal use"of his house. He emphasized that the
Bylaws did not prohibit homes in single-residence districts from being rented. The Town
countered that the Bylaw did not expressly allow STRs in a single-residence district and under
section 4 of the Bylaws"no land,building, structure or part thereof shall be used for.any purpose
or in any manner other than for one or more of the uses spec f cally permitted." 487 Mass. at
597 (emphasis added).
In reviewing a challenge to a ZBA's decision,the applicable board's interpretation of its.
own bylaws is given deference by the courts. Id.at 597, 599-600. The SJC agreed with the
Land Court judge in that the property owner did not have the required permit for"additional use"
of his property as a tourist home or lodging house. Id. at 598. The SJC disagreed,however,with
the Land Court judge,concluding that the use of the property as an STR meant it could not
qualify as a"lodging house." Id. The SJC also disagreed with the conclusion that the STR use
was use as a"tourist home." Id. Instead,the SJC focused on whether the use of the property as
8 . . :
an STR was a permitted"principal use"of the property under the Lynnfield Bylaws. Id. at 597,
599. The SJC's conclusion was that"because the plaintiff's use of his property for short-term
rentals was not specifically permitted under the bylaw,we conclude that it was not.a specifically
permitted principal use." Id. at 597. Thus,the ZBA's interpretation of the Lynnfield Bylaw was
reasonable, and its decision was affirmed. Id. at 600-601.
The Lynnfield Bylaws are clearly distinct from the Nantucket Bylaws.. It follows that
the result in the.Styller case does not dictate the outcome in this Nantcket case, as the SJC
explicitly acknowledged at the end of the case: "We hasten to add,however,that a different
result may obtain in other circumstances,depending upon,for example,the specifics of the
zoning bylaw of the city or town, including what types of additional uses are permitted(if any),
as well as what is considered a customary accessory use in a particular community." Id. at 601
n.19 (emphasis added).1
As for the custom and history of the particular community of the island of Nantucket, it is
worth noting the ZBA's Decision in a prior appeal involving STRs. In that appeal,No. 02-21,
the ZBA concluded that"Nantucket has been and continues to be a popular destination for
vacations. Rentals of private properties contribute to the health of the local economy in a myriad
of ways." ZBA Decision(re:'14 New Mill Street, dated Feb. 11,2021),¶ 17. In addition,the
ubiquity of STRs on Nantucket is demonstrated by the fact that the Town does regulate certain
The situation with 9 West Dover Street is also distinguishable from the other cases cited by Ms.Ward.
The Lytle v. Swiec Land Court case involved a two-family dwelling and the owner argued that the use of
one unit was an allowable"accessory use"of the property. Here,the Owners are not relying on or
claiming an"accessory use,"as it is the main house that they rent out. Moreover,this particular single-
family home does not host typical,commercial-oriented uses,such as weddings,parties,functions,
conferences, or business meetings. That was the issue in the Stevens v.Zoning Board of Appeals of
Bourne case cited by Ms.Ward,where the property was being rented out as a wedding venue for up to
100 guests.
9
residential uses via the limitation on the number of events a property owner can have involving
tents. See Definitions, 139-2.2 Finally, a study of the economic impact of STRs on the economy
of Nantucket, completed by the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
found, among other things,that: short-term rentals account for 9 out of 10 lodging rooms on
Nantucket and that without.STRs, lodging establishments would not be able to support in-season
visitation. Nantucket STR'Analysis (dated May 13,2021).
The Owners submit that—where there is no specific Nantucket Bylaw addressing STRs,
let alone prohibiting them,where they only rent their Property for residential use(and not for
events), and considering the custom and history of STRs on Nantucket—the Nantucket ZBA
should affirm the Building Commissioner's decision.
C. Standing
Turning to the issue of standing,the Owners submit that the ZBA should indeed grapple
with this crucial legal element. The law of the Commonwealth is clear: to be able to appeal to
the ZBA a party must be"aggrieved." See Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 40A, § 8. In this context,the
term"aggrieved"is a term of art with a specific legal meaning. It does not mean being unhappy
about,or disapproving of, a decision related to zoning or land use. To qualify as actually
"aggrieved"for legal purposes,the abutter needs to be able to establish how their personal legal
interest or rights will be specifically harmed; speculation is not enough.
Thus,being"aggrieved"is a jurisdictional requirement to be able to maintain a § 8
appeal. "Aggrieved person status is no less a jurisdictional condition to maintaining an appeal to
2 Defmition for"Tent"includes that"Tents shall not be erected for periods exceeding 30 days per
calendar year;however,tents which in the aggregate exceed 150 square feet shall not be erected for more
than three events per year or periods exceeding nine days per year,whichever is less,on properties where
the principal use is residential unless a special permit from the Board of Appeals has been issued based on
a determination that the use is ancillary to the residential use of the property and not a commercial use."
10.
a board of appeal under G.L. c.40A, § 8,than it is to maintaining judicial review under § 17."
. Chongris v.Board of Appeals of Andover, 17 Mass.App. Ct. 999, 1000 (1984); see also 81
Spooner Road,LLC v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline,461 Mass. 692, 700 n.12 (2012)
(citing Chongris). When a party has no right to file an appeal,the ZBA has no authority to hear
it. Chongris, 17 Mass.App. Ct. at 1000.
While an abutter or an abutter within 300 feet of the property at issue is a so-called"party
in interest"and thus has a presumption of being"aggrieved,"that presumption can be rebutted.
See 81 Spooner Road,LLC,461 Mass. at 700-701;Mass. Gen.Laws ch.40A,,§ 11. If rebutted,
the presumption recedes and the issue of standing(i.e.,being aggrieved) is determined on all'of
the evidence,with the abutter having to prove his standing"by putting forth credible evidence to
substantiate the allegations." 81 Spooner Road,LLC,461 Mass. at 701.
A party may rebut the presumption either"by providing affirmative evidence that a basis
for aggrievement is not well founded—or by demonstrating, in the negative,that the [abutters]
lack any factual foundation for asserting a claim of aggrievement." Del Torchio v.Movali,2009
WL 391623 *10 (Mass.Land Ct. 2009). That is, if the allegations of harm are shown to be
"unfounded or de minimis",the abutter's presumption will have been successfully challenged.
81 Spooner Road,LLC, 461 Mass. 702, citing Kenner v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham,
459 Mass. 115, 119-120 (2011) ("Aggrievement requires a showing of more than minimal or
slightly appreciable harm."). As for showing the absence of factual support, evidence
demonstrating such lack of factual support for claims of aggrievement"has equal force."
Standerwick v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 36 (2006).
And if successfully rebutted,the law is clear that the party claiming to be a `person
aggrieved' "must be able to demonstrate,not merely speculate,that there has been some.
11
infringement of his legal rights"and the"claimed injury or loss must be personal to the party,not
merely reflective of the concerns of the community." Dennenv v.Zoning Board of Appeals of
Seekonk, 59 Mass.App. Ct. 208,211 (2003). The abutter is required to "establish—by direct
facts and not by speculative personal opinion—that his injury is special and different from the
concerns of the rest of the community." Standerwick,447 Mass. at 33. The required evidence
needs to be sufficient,both quantitatively and qualitatively. See Butler v. City of Waltham, 63
Mass.App. Ct. 435, 441 (2005). "Quantitatively,the evidence must provide specific factual
support for each of the claims of particularized injury the [abutter] has made. Id. "Qualitatively,
the evidence must be of a type on which a reasonable person could rely to conclude that the
claimed injury likely will flow from the [enforcement officer's] action. Conjecture,personal
opinion,and hypothesis are therefore insufficient." Id.
Ward has not made any specific allegations of harm that she has suffered as a result of
the use of the Property at 9 West Dover Street. There is merely a vague reference to"increased
noise and light" on page one of her appeal.
The Owners submit that this wholly unsupported claim of harm is clearly insufficient to
meet the standard needed to have standing to maintain an appeal. There is no indication
whatsoever of any documented or formal complaints made by anyone concerning their Property.
No affidavits have been submitted. No photographs (of"increased light")or recordings (of
"increased ... noise")have been provided. No measurements have been included. As noted,
certain noises are completely exempt from the Nantucket noise regulations,including the
"unamplified human voice." Nor is there any mention of any expert evidence.or testimony that
might be available. Thus,this is not a case of'weak evidence' of harm--there is zero evidence
of harm, and has crossed over into the realm of the frivolous.
12
The glaring lack of any specific claim of harm suffered by Ward is completely
understandable, and is due to the actual use of the Property at issue here. That is,there is no
harm alleged because no harm exists—because the Property is indeed being use as a private
residence and solely as a private residence, and not to host large events or functions. Cf. Styller,
487 Mass. at 597 n.16. Where there is,for all intents and purposes,normal"private residential
use"of the Property,it follows that there is no cognizable harm to any abutters or neighbors in
this residential district.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion,the Building Commissioner's denial of Ward's request for zoning
enforcement was correct and should be affirmed by the ZBA. This appeal should therefore be
denied.
Respectfully submitted,
PETER and LINDA GRAPE,
By their attorneys,
/s/Robert E. McLaughlin, Sr.
Robert E.McLaughlin, Sr. (BBO#337480)
John G.Hofmann(BBO#653989)
Gilman,McLaughlin&Hanrahan,LLP
101 Merrimac Street,P.O.Box 9601
Boston,MA 02114
(617)227-9999
remsr@gilmac.com
jhofmann@gilmac.com
Dated: November 18,2021
13
CATHERINE S.WARD
4A SILVER STREET
NANTUCKET,MA.02554
508-228-5391
October 24, 2021
Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
37 Washington St.
Nantucket, MA 02554
Re: Appeal of Building Commissioner's Zoning Enforcement Decision of September 24",
2021 at 9 West Dover Street
Dear Chair McCarthy and Members of the Board,
Attached, you will find the following application components:
1. Complete application page
2. Appeal letter
3. Exhibit A:Rental Listings for 9 West Dover
4. Addendum A: Cease and Desist Letter Dated 9/24/2021
5. Addendum B: Commissioner's Denial Letter
6. Locus Plan from Nantucket Tax Assessor's Map Book
7. Abutters List
Tha I you, 0
\‘i L-b )tL
Cathy Ward
Ar'' Yliiti; ,;' , •,,,t,...,
„.
„A._. - +'L , ' '., v'..,i i. C,. ( i.-.7, --, •r 1
`‘..,. Oct 26_ /gib
MI , ,, 821 . • 15 1
."::FI 1,11, ,- 7---PH 1; 20 !I
..,
--'-uvi.ovo'n-
kt 2-S.
TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZOat
liEcz
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
APPLICATION
File No. 3G-21
Fee::$480.00
Owner's name(s):Peter A Grape&Linda Oliver Grape
mailing addreas: 61 Lowell Road,'Wel.lesley,"MA.02461
Phone'Number: :E-Mail:
Applicant's names : Cathy Ward
Mailing Address: 4A Silver Street,Nantucket;MA 02654
=228-5391
'Phone Number: 508 E-Mail:
Locus Address: 9 West Dover.Street Assessor's Map/Parcel: 5§4.1/189
I Land Court Plan/Pla.n Book&Page/Plan File No.: Book 1581 Page 238
Deed'Reference/Certificate of Title:14°0 Zoning District ROH
Uses on Lot-Commercial:None Yes (describe)
:Residential:Number of dwellings •2 Duplex Apartments
•
Date of Structure(s):.all pre-date 7/72 or 2003
Building Permit Ntunberk n/a
Previous oriing Board Application Numbers: nia
2 Fairgrounds Road Nantunket Kassachusefts 025:54
508 325-7587 telephone 508-228-7:298 facsimile
State below or attach a separate addendum of specific special permits or variance relief applying for:
, I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the
best of my knowledge,under the pains and penalties of perjury.
SIGNATURE: Owner*
SIGNATURE:Nd NIL.. Applicant/Attorney/Agent*
*If an Agent is representing the Owner or the Applicant,please provide a signed proof of agency.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Application received on:_/_/_By: Complete: Need Copies:
Filed with Town Clerk:JJ_Planning Board:_/_/_Building Dept.:J_/_By:_
Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:J_/_By:_Waiver requested:
Granted:__/_/_Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_/_/_Mailed:_/_/_
I&M /._/_M /_/_Hearing(s)held on:_/_/_Opened on:_/_/_
Continued to: /_/_Withdrawn:_/,_/_Decision Due
Made:_/_/_Filed w/Town Clerk:_/_/_Mailed:_/_/_
2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554
508 325-7587 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile
To: Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Catherine Ward
Re: Reasons for Enforcement at 9 Dover Street
Date: October 24, 2021
I write to appeal the Building Commissioner's September 24th, 2021 decision pursuant to Zoning
Code Section 139-31-A-(1) and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Sections 8 and 15.
The Commissioner refused to find that use of the property at 9 West Dover Street("Property")
for short-term rentals ("STR") violates Nantucket's Zoning Bylaws. That finding is inconsistent
with the Town's Zoning Bylaws ("Bylaw") as it is a commercial use in a residential district.
BACKGROUND
The Property is a 4-bedroom, 3-bath single-family home located in the downtown Historic
District of Nantucket. The Property is located in the ROH District, which permits only residential
uses except,in very limited circumstances (that do not apply here).
Linda Oliver and Peter Grape,the Property's owners,purchased it in 2017. They advertise the
Property,which is available year round for weekly rates,with Sotheby's International Realty and
Lee Real Estate. Exhibit A.Prices range from $285 per night during the winter months to$1100
per night during peak weeks in the summer and fall. Exhibit B.
I,along with my neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the property, have been significantly
disrupted because of the commercial use of the Property as a STR. We have experienced
increased noise and light from the Property, which we can describe further during the ZBA's
hearing.
As demonstrated by our experience with customers at 9 West Dover,the property's use as an
STR is antithetical to the surrounding residential uses within the ROH District. The property's
owners are operating a business at the property for commercial purposes in violation of the
Zoning Bylaw. The Board should therefore order the owners to cease and desist all such uses at
the Property.
On September 17,202a, pursuant to G.L. 40A, §7 and Town Zoning Bylaw § 139-25, I filed a
request with Nantucket's Building Commissioner requesting that he issue a cease and desist
order to Linda Oliver Grape and Peter Grape for using the Property as an STR in a residential
district. Addendum A.The Commissioner denied my request on September 24th,2021, refusing
to find that the use of the Property as an STR violates the Town Zoning Bylaw. Addendum B.I
do not believe that his decision is supported by either the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw or recent,
binding Massachusetts case law. I ask that this Board overturn his decision.
Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
October 24, 2021
Page2
LEGAL REASONS
My neighbors are running a business at 9 Dover Street —plain and simple. Given the fact that it
is available for rent every week of the year,the Property exists almost exclusively to serve
commercial business purposes. The Property's owners are conducting numerous arms-length
transactions for faced rates over brief periods of time with unrelated third parties. It is done for
the purpose of making money.
My understanding is that,under the Bylaw, this is a"commercial" use. The Bylaw defines
"commercial" as"a trade, occupation, or business, including transient residential facility, but
excluding governmental, religious or private residential uses."Bylaw §139-2. On Nantucket, no
commercial uses are allowed in the"Town Residential" districts (R-1, SR-1, ROH,SOH,R-5,R-
5L, R-10, R-20 and R 40) or in the Country Residential districts (V-R,LUG-1; LUG-2, LUG-3
and MMD),with very limited exceptions. •
Massachusetts courts have recently held that these type of commercial enterprises that charge
weekly rental rates via contractual agreements are indeed commercial in nature and have no
place in residential districts. In its recently finding in Styller v. Zoning Bd.of Appeals of
Lynnfield,487 Mass. 588, 600 (2021), the state's highest court found that"a short-term rental
use of a one family home is inconsistent with the zoning purpose of the single-family residence
zoning district in which it is situated,i.e.,to preserve the residential character of the
neighborhood." Id. (emphasis added). This is because"where short term rentals are at issue,
there is an absence of stability and permanence of the individuals residing in those districts, and
the goal [of a residential district] is necessarily subverted." Styller v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of
Lynnfield;487 Mass. 588, 600 (2021). See also Stevens v.Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Bourne,97
Mass.App. Ct.713 (2020) (finding an STR property that was solely rented pursuant to rental
contracts with unrelated third parties was a commercial use prohibited in a residential district);
Lytle v. Swiec,2017 WL 2257702,(Mass.Land Ct. May 23, 2017) (holding a homeowner's use
of one unit in his two-dwelling single-family home for weekly summer rentals was a commercial
use prohibited in a residential district).
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
At this point, in a decision which I understand to be binding on all lower courts and those
enforcing zoning bylaws, the state's highest court has issued'a clear decision that short-term
rentals are antithetical to traditional residential uses in residential zoning districts. Nantucket
cannot play by its own rules. It must enforce its zoning bylaw —that prohibits commercial uses in
residential districts —the same as all other communities in accordance with Styller:
Further, allowing the Commissioner's Decision to stand risks exacerbating a near-impossible
situation for Nantucket's already over-priced and under-supplied year-round housing stock. If it
refuses to define the Property as a"commercial use",this Board would be giving buyers,
including investment companies, the green light to continue buying up single family homes in
residential districts and turning them into high-turnover rental properties. This would further blur
Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
October 24, 2021
Page 3
the lines of commercial versus residential, and come at a high cost to actual residents of
Nantucket's many residential neighborhoods.
_.rkki ttt- A
. .
Log
Maury .
I Sotheby's Home Sales - Rentals - Research Nantucket, Blog ,About- Webcam .Contac
People, INTERNATIONALHEALTY
..
' .
9 West Dover Street, Nantucket MA 6-:11(,ty 1 i).-quiv. i Av.ili.oility I IvIdi) I livIiiiiv I Q
..,..?.....,lc 4. ....',.1a7.7...-•;;;;; • ,,.,.r.,, ,41,:•0_ ';',. ,,,,s -.. O.,
, ir...,.. . ' • • •.%:;,4,;:_ii,c-4,,,,,, ..-r" , •
:4. ,:5"S!,7,1- t,c.,-;.:' 7'-)/2 ".7 - 14' - 1-• ' '
N-• 4. . -.= .4c,.e.-". - giO .
•"" .4' ___....er--''''r-' . - e"- ...1;. ,..-, 1-' -
- ' • .-',,-;-.......,, t,
. ..,,, r---. --..,...-* ' - ' -' . Mir f4_,•11- 'A-...0- - .
-v.-
- ., ...,.. ' ,• - :' '.• -.• •-:.•"4*,-* ; 'f'•.-t--------. . ' '• r ,r
' ,•-"t"? i..- *-‘-' - ' ; - ; '-f-re. 74 •4,‘, • -3-F:i:„. ..'",. '''• . ' - .. ..,_
--'`-' - •'-''-- .-'''•'-':Le"' ','•-•'4!-',,-",;•,••:',--,...r.. . , "„ -7i - .. ,_,,
,,.--: ..t.,1%.:,.-. ,. :; '-- 4..^ -;.z,""„. :--,=:•-- -',. -..-t'.!,-a,•,:,::,,..,.,;;:_-, •-z...''`".-c.., ..,- -',.. .... .•- ,
'-••- Z.,• ''-' .1.-- -1-,K,----. '''irk ,-.-.-r—.. ------------ -''. ..,-.... ._, „„.-rs,-:r.,__,
-... ',.k.,„ '- .`,.- :-.' ,-,*.".E• •,`'...' :7.;L-----'--- -,._'-'--='-;-,.---' --. ----77:-.--- --: *-,.. ., , 4
::-...- . ... _• -,.....3,.... _ , .. - _..--,-_._._------...,-,,.....--- ._., T.,,,,
• - - ..- ' , ,...!, -._ _—: - --:'5,„,' -: ', --15;,.., --_. . ,4-.;,;:,:-:"'
...---c
— .7... iv. ,fil •
i ---._
Irt
7 .- . . ,,, I, , I ....,..._110ma. ay i•,rq,,_ I*cow,
• ...la, .„-Cto , ' ova. ... ' '.1. ..,Y r..,4
2: :. . ' r 14 yr r"?' • -f %-"''t '-'*.nt. . .... . !..r. ... -sr.-.A.;:,:, *
.• .0 /0 P ' ''4S4.7;N. — -•••• ' -
..- ,
r - ...1/4 ...r: , . -Le,. c _ •,.., so;-:,,
Y .1 • _-
. • ' .
. .
RENTAL
1 . ,
:4. 3 - 8 'TOWN
emeooms BATHROOMS SLEEPS 'AREA
. • . , . ..
Beautifully maintained in home with central air-conditioning,updated kitchen and baths and beautiful patio.First floor Covered porch,Open plan
living,dining and kitchen area-with beautiful pine floors:Kitchen has cherry cupboards and largelslend:.Full bath and two.bedrocims;one with twin beds
and another with a queen.Second floor Spacious master bedroom with queen bed with private bath.Guest bedroom with queen bed with private bath.
. .
Baserrient,Full finished basement with 1V/family room,ancrlaundty.Cozy patio surrounded by gardens off of the Owners sometimes occupy the
carrlege'house.duringter.ianys,r,esidenq: . .
,
. .
Property Id 49505 WC Cerit01
1
1 Bedroom 1:, Queen Bedroom 2: 2Twins
'F BedrooM3i Queen 'Bedroom 4: Queen
1 . ,
i • •
•
Baths wiShowerat Tub;
. 1 Bois wi ShowerOnlyt: 2
[ .
/
•
1 •
•
6 .
,
, .
I
1
r
. .
1
rl
t i ,
. .
7
Detailed Amenities r
V Alarm .V DVD Player
V Alarm Cocks V Fireplace
V BBQ/Outdoor Grill(Gas) V Iron ;,
V Beach.Umbrella V Iron Board II
V Blender V Microwave
.Cable • V Outdoor Shower 1
V Coffee Maker V Patio i
V Cooler V Toaster
V Deck Furniture V•Toaster,Oven
V Dishwasher V Washer
V Dryer
V Beach Towels ,
V Beach Chairs
V Internet
V BBQ/Outdoor Grill..(Gas)
0
May 2022 0
Availability "Weekly''Rates
so Mo 'N We Th Fr, Se. Week Rate
1 2 3 4 6 6 7 ,April,90,2022 to May,7,2022 $2600
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 May,7,2022 to May,14,2022 - '$3000
16 16 17 18 V i I .. May,14,2022 to May,21,2022 $3000
-- . -`,r--_7_ _:i it — —� — —
r TT
, �-c- I� .-- ') r --' z-" ),, _-L I May,21,2022 to May,29,2022 $3000
I I 1 7,0 31 1 2 ' 4 May,28,2022 to June,4,2022 $4000
.
June 2022
Avallabllity Weekly Rates
so Mo "lu We. Th Fr Sa Week Rate
31 1 2 3 4 May,28,2022 to June,4,2022 $4000
6 6 7 8 9 10 11 June,4,2022 to June,11,2022 $4000.
12 13 14 16 16 17 18 June,11,2022 to June,18,2022 $5000.
19 20. 21 22 23 24 26
June,18,2022 to Juno,25,2022 $5360
26 27 28 29 30 1 - June,25,2022 to July,2,2022 $7500'
-
6 July 2022 a
.
Availability" Weekly Rates
.
i
Su Mo 11t We Th Fr La Week Rate
; 2u :27 2k 20 :30 1 2 June;29;2022 to'July,2r 2022 $7500 • i r
k i I
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 July,2,2022 to July,9,2022 $7600
10 11, 12 13 14 15 1r, July,9,2022 to July,16;2022 $7500 ,�
" Juiy,-18,2022 to July,23,2022 $8000
i 1: t ; i Juty;•23,,2022 to July,30,2022 $8000
_ •_ Juiy,30,2022 to August,8,2022 $8000
August 2022 ;•
Availability Weekly Rates'
.Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Se Week Rate
I 1 , 'i July,30,:2022 toAugust,8,2022 $8000
--------------
f ' I i August,8,2022 to August,13,2022 Vy $8000 .
i I r '; ,, i, ' " I' ' 1 'August,13,2022 to August,20,2022 $0000 -
' 4 I -` 3 1 i `i , 'August,20,2022 to August,27,2022 $7500
i r r, •: i' .1 _; - August,27;2022.to September,3,2022 $7500
. CI September 2022El
j Availability Weekly Rates
Su Mo iu We, Th Fr se Week Rate
F' August,27,2022 to September,3,2022 - $7500
4 5 '8' 7 '8 9 10
September,9,2022 to;September,i0,2022 $6000
11 12 13 14 16 '16 17 ;September,10,2022 to September,17,2022, $5p00
18 •19 20 21 22. 23 '24 September,17,2022 to September,24,2022 _ $4260;
25 26 27 2829 30. x
September;24,2022 to October,1,2022 $4250,
.
,
October 2022
Availability Weekly'Rates
{ Su Mo •Tit .We Th Fr 'Se Week • •Rate
25 vy; 7 .2g 2e� '0 1 September,24,2022 to October,1',2022 $4250
2 3 4 9 6 7 8 October,1,2022 to October;8,2022 . $4260•
9 10' 11 12 13 .14 15 October,8,2022 to October,15,2022 -$4250
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 •October,15,2022 to'October,22;;an $1260 '
23' 24 25 :26 27 28 29 October,22,2022 to October,29,2022 '$4250 •
30: .31 7. .y '3 5 October,29,2022 to November;5,2022 $4260,
1
i
November 2022 - 1.
.Availability Weekly'',Ratej
Su • Ma .1u. We Th Fr Se- Week - (Rate
.
:,0 31 1 2• 3 4. 6• 'October,29,2022.toNoveniber,5,2022 $4260"
•6 7 8' 9 10 11: 12 Nove'mber;5;2022 tO.Novemb8F,12,'2022 $4260.
13 14 15 16 •17 .18 19 November,12,2022 to"Wevember,19;2022 • •$4250
20 21, 22 23 24 25 26: November,19,2022:to.November,28,'2022' _ $4260
27 28 29. 30 1 2 9 November,26,202216 December,3,:2022 :$4250.
December 2022
Availability Weekly;Rates'
Su Mo 'N We 1i' Fr Se Week. Rate.
2i 28. 29 30. 1 2 ' ' November,26,2022't0'December,3 2022 $4260 •1
4 5 6 7 8 9' '10 December,3,20,22ao December,10,Pg. $4260
11 12 13' 14 15 . 16 17 December,10,2022 to December,"17�2022 $4260
18 19 20- 211 22 • 23. '24 December,17;2022 to December,24,2022 $4250 1
25 26 2P 23. 31�: "s1 •December,24,2022,to December,31„2022 $4260
° � L •
.spar •
.. d -
•
,-;'::Aiiiift. Ar---•'-'-- .• •",•••• r'' • ' •,-.---- - ,_-,;;;;•,,n.. -,,.,• ._''.:'''„'. ' - •''-:. --; .. .','''''..l'----1-1'...' ',
ate''[ __ f . ( ,.'..,..-.r- `4'..(-..
r. °„ -7afi 1 1
' t , P f
jj11+,• 1� fcisl,
.1.,r ,t- . ,-, ...‘ ',-- ..„...,,,i.....4: ' ,
.. ;�e tea "V... ,a=": . . ..w+eq°°µ, .,. ry
•
•
'"�v :. qq - I "��
s - , , , iW'4" ,
tams ,. ~�'�'"�`
s
,, r , _ , '� l I,
iii-.
" } . ns �� �+r I x
� .- pT _ :1 _ I _ f .p p 4,1� q ,�
ii
S.
.'-'''''::41''.
ff
s'
I .§ :r 1 r
: ..• 'iit ' . ' l'''' " -''' 'IMMUM• ."""''".
. ,r 0.} t1 l p Syr..
C ' I 1 w • r .1
.:L
t -
1 1 ,, i , .,,:. ___.„.7.,, ...____. _,_ ,:.,,,,,,,:.,,::::,,,.,,, ..,_.,1
.— ,
�� J {rr j aj{'1� , I
i
I. .4 �
I. ,`f
•
iiiiiill
•
aii -4It
r - t � 4 1 -t ar qi' v G
<i ,, F"i j�, 4 1 ..Y7 , {+. 1 d '.( a Lh7i *' 1-- 1 .
•
"
l^,aA I • •
J'
•
1 ? , '
L'L—Ct•
•
igiki
�� spa r---,-- 1 C `t
. 111 ,E
•
-t,tiit'(i' ' 1.-','-l• -,,-,..0-_,-_,---A :.,_,-;;-.:-._.--1,_:_ti . i, .t._ ._.-,i
- • - • • ''',;•,..t,.-4,1.'•-..... ' q11['ili \*----)
tti
•
.
.
.
Catherine S.Ward
4a Silver Street
Nantucket,Ma.02554
508-228-5391
September 17,2021
Marcus Silverstein,Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Nantucket
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket,MA 02554
Mr. Silverstein,I am writing to you as a resident of 4A Silver Street,Nantucket,residential, single family area in
town. I am now surrounded in this area by short term rentals,on my street,around the corner,on the street
behind me,Dover Street. We are not the neighborhood we used to be due to short term rentals. I am
requesting zoning enforcement for the neighboring property located at 9 Dover Street,owned by Dr. and Mrs.
Grape. Based on publicly available information(attached hereto)and personal experience as its neighbor,the
property is being used primarily as a short-term rental. The noise makes me dread the coming of summer and I
can't enjoy being outside due to all the noise that is generated by the renters. The owners are not sympathetic to
the noise and have let me know that they can make noise until 10 PM! The lights are left on all night and are
probably more than 40 watts. Why should I have to close my windows and doors while they enjoy being outside
on the brick patio enjoying partying?
Nine Dover Street's use as a short-term rental is a commercial use and,thus, is prohibited in the ROH, SOH
District in which it is located.The ROH, SOH District only permits residential uses,although it does allow
rooming lodging and guesthouses,but only if the owner has obtained a Special Permit for the property for use as
a"Transient Residential Facility"as defined in the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw.I believe that there are at least three
houses on Dover that are short term rentals,three on Silver Street,one on corner of Pine and Silver and then one
on Eagle Lane next to it! It is my understanding that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that use of a
single family home in a residential area is considered unlawful. It appears that this house and others mentioned
are being used as a hotel of sorts.
I am requesting that the Town,acting through your office,issue a cease and desist of that use for the property on
Dover Street(rental schedule attached).
Please respond,as to next steps. If needed, I would be happy to provide more information(at least to the extent it
is publicly available)and how it qualifies as a commercial.use. I can be reached at the phone and email listed
above. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. .
Cathy Ward _ .
. .: . .
. . ,
. ,
. ,
r.."5371 b."..6:.;:.d-ni.-;;;;;;.:99-utlre!!,-IC7 111 9 Wel ftwot Plek.Nantliet X C+ ^-7---
... . . . ,
<- • 0 0 .41 htlps:011wi:therinutypeOpte.t0M/1...5,1pc kelqoltaPurepr.li/49S5S•q,v. Oil ila,,:!..o.c.A nan11.1(lot 1405 O.
= .
)West Dover Street, Nantucket MA , ,..-, „, ,, ..!....„1.1 .,, ,„i,i ....1..
. , T. . • . .
—.., .
July 2021 0 ,
. .
Availability Weekly Rates
Su Rio Tr We• 111 Fr 'So Moak Rota .
.4.
11
,Juno.26,2021 lo July,3.2021 . . . 66700
,July,I 2028 lo July.10.2021 56900
.. 1
-July,10.202i 16July.17.2021 .66900 ,
._ ..__..,...___..,r.....„--_---...-,:--.-.-_,...'.._-_,-.-7 .,-.77_.,;-'".-,.• ...,.. . . . . .. .. '
• - ' I., ...-:. -:1_..:'. '1 - . If. ---- '',.- --'.", :' • .July,17,2021 to July.24;2021 56900
- —
r_i_ ....J.1-_:a-2--IL.:-.:J '7'1F.---, IL,-., . ', :.. ......,..!..4_,p?,toJuly.31,2021_ . , _ .56900_._
Auturd.-,0.1 '1
. i
,Mallability Weekty,Rates
ii
.13u Mo 'RI W. Tii. Fr -So ,Wook Rom
--:r---7—::;F-77.--:;:,--.7,:--i—T,.:Ti :: +'----:.:----, ;uuly,31.2020t0Aupu-ot,7.2021 ssioo III
1E', F.-, 11 ,.:711-77-1F,71 .Audinit.74021 la Itliiuit:14.2021 56900 I .
0 '1 li,',1 a :.: ' " ' 'll ' (.1?.. a Hirf P..rtl.,:ow; P lab re .
. .
L .
' . .
FEI_13.,9..."diriiveutmet.n.wpickt x IN.QVAA ornyr swat Namatkr,,x 11171..- . , ^, . . . " r .' ' . -. . a xi
_0 12 8'Rllasiiv.1hOolotuypoOple.corrifii,,olat ke Cicniabirrfapt.,4110$0i.9.v.v51-claw r stre.e.n3,0110.0 fd' t'a
. _ . . . . -
)West Dover Street, Nantucket MA ,.,+1,•, + ,.+- _,JLLi,, 1:„1, h.q..,
- — - ,
•Juiv172o2.1 tk!taly,24,2021 . . MOO f 17---'11:,--' ln,"' JE ,:-IL,.:a._ir.,-, 1 : :, July.24,2021 to July,31,2021 550.00
Autiu c.1 20;1
- . . . -
:Mailability Weekly Rates-
.au 'Mo (U. .wo Th Fr So Waok Rota I rl
July,31,2021 1oAuoiiit,7.2021 _‘ ___ ..__ _ 66000
in_71L) li ' ir --. 1-0 ID:-.1 .rioluai,7,2021to&Rum.14,2021. _ 56900 .
- - _ ..•_ _ .
17;71=E1.77:7-111.7-7.-3.17:71-7-:..). 'Smoot 14,2021 to Augsst.21.2021 66900 ,
'
.777- f ---7C ,.. t."-- , .-;
'Auaust.21.2021 io Auguai:28.2021 669130
, •,' ,, ,' SI '•,:.4 ' Ailaust,28,2021 tO Soptainbar,4,2021,. _ 66000 ' 1
, .. .. . .
- 4 .
Scpligntier 202 I
. .
• ,Avallabllity Weekly Rates.
III
;Le 'Mo .iti: .vv• 711 Fr So AmiOli' . Row
,-- • • I I . . . . ...
.t, ..- 0 a EVF Pally,.1.i,3,w
. .
t .
{
...� - ....._-.-....,.. t:nv,,Nu,W,1N• '1' .;-.�.... s..«a_.» ,., .._�.,.... .6. r..X,�� f
•
F •
C .A. a hupr6Mww.them✓turypeaple.com/nam•„kei,nuatJpropr:iyJ•:450i&,•.as!ilti*.Kr s,icct.,,No I.d -( {5 ❑
9 West Dover Street,Nantucket MA ,1 ;,t e, ' 114 a r
•' . Auguste 28,2021 to September,4,2021 S8000
.
SrplUlll �•r2021
Availability 'Weekly Rates
Bu 14o Tu Wo Th Fr Ss Week
!• { 'August.20,2021 to Soptemher.4,2021 58000
3 it
tt x ',. � � '_a 4; 90pnmbo44,2021 to Bopbmho411;2021. 54200 91 '
13 14 1S `tf {' i•E So toinb.r,11;202S4to Saptimbir;10,2021 •83050
y^eii 21' 22 23 _I Sepnmlisr,10,2021 to 0o90.mbar,25,2021 53050 �!
.w.�. -28 20 30 September:25.2021 to Octobsr,-2.2021 53350
Teday
Map1111
a• Satellit
4' 0 2 j w 3 rir.rIr rar11V0.mtny r zy r I
ij
1
rd
,fl
11
•
•
1
Accta.eifrtotwt,,,.
ris\\ Planning and Land Use Services
iO4 :„: __,_ 4,,,,
c. d:v.s.\A • . . . . . . . . •
Building u Historic District Commission'Planning Board'Zoning Board of Appeals
-I.pel,441 . BUILDING DIVISION
•
September 24; 2021
CatheripeS. Ward
. ,4A SilverStreet
Nantucket, MA,02554
Reference: Request for Zoning Enforcement at 9 West Dover Street
Dear Ms. Ward,
I am in receipt of your zoning enforcement request dated September 18, 2021,
with regard to the property located at 9 West Dover Street, Nantucket(the
"Property"). I respectfully declineto pursue zoning enforcement at this time
because,:in,my opinion, the use of the property for short term rentals does not
violate the Town's Zoning Bylaw.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you may appeal to the Nantucket
Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to G.L. c. 40A Sections 8 and 15.
`Ve -truly yours,.
,cad.
Paui Murphy6
• BuiidingtornmiSsiorler
'Town ofNantucket.
Cc Andrew Vorce, Director of Planning
• Leslie Sne11,-Deputy Director of Planning
Certified Mail #7019 2970 0001 3017 0902
Telephone 508-325-7587•2 Fairgrounds Road• Nantucket,MA 02554 .508-228-7298 facsimile
1
, , a
'Town,and County of Nantucket,MA October 25,2021
A
9 W Dover'Street; Assessor Map
' , jO `55 113\ : 4 ` ° 't ,5541 91'; ,r `� p 132 i175
5iA�Y 3�3 .f `k�`�> `' S•;41 33°' ,
A ..' 1.1'1.' °'Ck"r ,, aI aP,' (y1 �a+• .,= „:„;s. .Po° ,,,,,,A,,,,,,,,,,,..„ A 60 i
� a
r 554 1+30 4 R z,• w: :.'
644 2 i• . G..44'1 '� 55.4.1.128 °` ".t4 \ w` �eAp
1 - z 1,'1'29 55. ;, 55.: • is §
io
1 a
G4E 5 4 r16 �- q f p 55 .; •8 O
'� ,; •y' i� %' b.' `jstl' ��R _ r;'„'' .•:� -c�: J':a a{ atap ' e t
4 :d ,.....�5 4 166 t Ilk.
n S,- ` q• ter1 a 14 t • ,�„�'''� •t ,,a 4 j�, i.s.' ° ,9°a, i '., f J ". . VA,. d
.•• •" 5'4, 185 �° ' s z`) � 4 7�' 5.4.1165 0 1�3R' �\ 7 ��
e �4 �", tilt
1'1653 • �° s
°,,, ' 4. �, 55:4t" 37
p
i •'' yR0. • a • �,,,,,-~t5'41 \ 'i r"' 1 "55 441 170 �t
`, 55 .1.18�,�ti s •' A �tyP a 354�89.„1
a � ° r wr +.:, 5 1' to
ti , + t g i t 55M41 89,.2 r L-
•55,4.1'187 '>y •td 5544 554 38 H �
8r � .� g 5
\ •
\'•° ,. "� 55:4.1188'. . a°�55,,4:1 191 1r I
t
55
ti'•SS 4 l 7 {+ z,.r ,. 10 817R;2 *��`.x55 17at% j 1 "� 4�1
•
S i� `:. o t i �� 04�5'C
5 4 1173 .�• ,.
r t . 1 �55 +119 i i�r' 3 . j
a 10A, i
13 . - _ 5 i nit 55 4 121, 4.1 1 ,,` „., ,
v ° iy tt t r'D ! °it5e t }9Q+t
• CRY,_ 5 194 till
+ n , .4Da : , `,�. 55 4,1142.�' y;r
9.1 1'43
�, st r d6 S }
( ,. a xkz_" . d t . 1y y
\ q , t 5. 55 4 1 176 . r '1r„,... , t+, A 5 ,1 144 ty .755 4 �� j
11179 - ,a-° a� , a ,f° k. s
+ •;: �c�t + �a r 'i5' 4`l 145 • 1 t 6
• • •`a: 5• 4 '. �R 1} s f .a't 5�5.t �246�1, �t . \ .0
a �t �`s 4 1''147I ab \ �.-' 55 4 7 343.1 , I
5541175 ; -
t a ak� a ^.w. i't ,r 1A °5 y e; d. ✓' '\ 55.4114=!'1, 5 ,
l 4iii
i - a°,t-'4 Fir r -;, ' •. . a 9 3 '- 18A .1 87,43425578905995 ft „+ a
.property Information
Print map scale is approximate:
PropertyID 55.4.1189Critic•allayoutormeasurement
Location 9,WDOVERST !YVa
_[ • - !
Owner GRAPE PETERA&LO MAOLIVER �t�a activities should'not be done using, i
this resource. I
MAP-FOR REFERENCE ONLY I
NOT'A LEGAL DOCUMENT ,
•
Town and County of Nantucket,MA makes no claims and no . . .
warrantles;expressed or Implied;concerning the validity or"
• accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map.
, Geometry;updated 07/29/2021 1
Data updated Jan.2021
1
i
•
{
i
• I
•
j
i
•
li
1
1
Town of Nantucket
Zoning Board of Appeals.
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF:
PROPERTY OWNER Peter A Grape&Linda Oliver
MAILING ADDRESS 61 Lowell Road,Wellesley,MA.02481
PROPERTY LOCATION 9 W Dover Street
ASSESSOR MAP/PARCEL 01581 /0238
SUBMITTED BY Cathy Ward
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
I certify that the foregoing is a list of all persons who are owners of abutting
property, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way;
and abutters of the abutters and all other land owners within 300 feet of the.
property line of owner's property,as they appear on the most recent applicable tax
list(M.G.L.c.40A, Section 11 and Zoning Code Chapter 40A,Section 139-29B
(2). Digitally signed by Rob Ranney
DN:cn=Rob Ranney,o=Town of
Nantucket,ou=Assessor's Office,
email=rranney@nantucket-ma.gov,c=US
10-21-2021 Date:2021.10.21 14:56:48-04'00'
DATE ASSESSOR'S.OFFICE
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
MCCAULEY RITA A&KATHLEEN N BOGAN LAWRENCE SR&PAULINE A WILLAUER WHITING R JR TR
ATTYMASS 2003 REV TRUST TRST 1955 COMPASS COVE DR
12 VILLA AVE PO BOX 2173 VERO BEACH, FL 32963
EVERETT,MA 02149 NANTUCKET,MA 02584
KELLEY JAMES R&JANE C TR JONES MIRIAM H LIFE ESTATE AMICK ROBERT A TRUSTEE
57 FAIR STREET NOM TRUST C/O JONES MIRIAM HASKELL SAFE HARBOR TRUST
PO BOX 995 58 FAIR STREET 22 WALKER TERRACE
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 NANTUCKET,MA 02554 ATLANTA,GA 30309
DELUCA DAVID A&MAUREEN D LYNCH MICHAEL MACLEOD JUDITH TRST
948 SUMMER STREET PO BOX 2543 612 WARWICK RD
MARSHFIELD,MA 02050 NANTUCKET,MA 02584 KENILWORTH,IL 60043
WOOD DONALD T WIGHT EDWARD I JR&HOLLY NEAS 79 ORANGE LLC
315 E 68TH ST 804 KATESFORD RD 50 CLIFF ROAD
NEW YORK, NY 10065 COCKEYSVILLE,MD 21030 NANTUCKET, MA 02554
79R ORANGE STREET LLC SNYDER PATRICIA A GOWEN MELANIE L
50 CLIFF RD 2160 REEDS RUN ROAD 5 BOYERS ALLEY WY
NANTUCKET, MA 02554 NEW PHILADELPHIA,OH 44663 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
GORY PAMELA B TROXELL ROBERT E&CAROL R J TRST FEUERBACH FLORENCE C
6 ROUND HILL RD 406 ALTAMONT STREET 59 GLENN RD
NEWTOWN, PA 18940 CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22902 LARCHMONT,NY 10538
KORNGOLD JACOB H TRST ETAL ACK PROPERTIES&DEVELOPMENT INC KINNEY DAVID M&VIRGINIA R TRST
JH&DA KORNGOLD REVOCABLE TRUST 436 CONESTOGA RD 3 1/2 SILVER ST
3100 NORTH OCEAN BLVD#601 WAYNE, PA 19087 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 33308.
FALCONER CAMERON M&TRACY S TRS 60 FAIR STREET NOM TRUST LEE JUDITH F
FALCONER FAMILY REV INTER VIVOS C/O KATHERINE KRILL 69 ORANGE ST
TRUST 59 ROGERS RD NANTUCKET,MA 02554
2116 BAKER ST STAMFORD,CT 06902
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94115
BAUER RICHARD H TRUSTEE BAUER RICHARD H&MARY JANE FITZGERALD JAMES A&JANE M
76 BALMVILLE ROAD 76 BALMVILLE ROAD 9716 CARRIAGE RD
NEWBURGH, NY 12550 NEWBURG,NY 12550 KENSINGTON,MD 20895
CASSANO MATTHEW P&JOSLYN WONG BERNICE C&LAIRD JAMES H BACK EAST LLC
5521 NORTHEAST 33RD AVE 111 HEMLOCK HILL RD C/O ALLISON SIMEONE
FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 33308 NEW CANAAN,CT 06840 24 TALCOTT PINES RD
PLYMOUTH, MA 02360
•
OSTRANDER HARRY M TRUSTEE FRAUNFELDER JOHN&SARAH LAYMAN MELLISA
244 FISHER AVE C/O FRAUNFELDER SARAH 188 COMMONWEALTH AVE UNIT 16
BROOKLINE,MA 02445 9 YORK ST • BOSTON,MA 02116
NANTUCKET,MA 02554
10 YORK STREET LLC BRADLEY JAMES BRADLEY JAMES
29 NORTH LIBERTY ST 175 EAST 2ND ST APT 5A 175 EAST 2ND ST APT 5A
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 NEW YORK, NY 10009 NEW YORK, NY 10009
SHERMAN LORI& SHERMAN LORI&FOLGER GORDON M MEA LLC
FOLGER GORDON M 18 YORK ST 20 YORK ST
18 YORK ST NANTUCKET,MA 02554 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
NANTUCKET,MA 02554
ROSENTHAL JOHN JUSTIN&WHITNEY DAVIS HUGH 0 FORD KELLY A
3128 P STREET NW 15 VALLEY ROAD 2515 MAIN ST
WASHINGTON,DC 20007 WESTPORT,CT 06880 LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648
HABEL JAMES&MICHELLE 28 YORK ACK LLC FLERWIIN LLC
1600 MARLAY DR PO BOX 2234 1332.RIDGE ROAD
LOS ANGELES,CA 90069 NANTUCKET,MA 02584 SYOSSETT, NY 11791
•
CAUCHON MARK P CORSAIR INVESTMENTS LLC ROSSKAM DAVID D
322 PEDRO STREET 547 PRIMROSE WAY 4206 37TH ST NW
VENICE, FL 34285 LOUISVILLE,KY 40206 WASHINGTON, DC 20008
HOURIHAN LOUISE E TR& SHEEHAN WILLIAM J&ANN L PHILBRICK MELISSA D&NATHANIEL D
• HOURIHAN WILLIAM P JR TR 6 SILVER ST 4 SILVER ST
PO BOX 602 NANTUCKET,MA 02554 NANTUCKET, MA 02554
NANTUCKET,MA 02554
WARD CATHERINE S TRST MAUTNER ALEXANDER J&LYNNETTE H ACK 71 ORANGE STREET LLC
CSW TRUST 2014 2 SILVER ST C/O HAEBLER CAPITAL
4A SILVER ST NANTUCKET,MA 02554 8 SOUND SHORE DR
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 GREENWICH, CT 06830
BENDER STEPHEN L&LYNN ANNE A BENYUS MIRIAM BRITT SPRINGER MICHAEL R&LILLY DEBORAH
73 ORANGE ST 706 BEDFORD ST A ETAL
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 STAMFORD,CT 06901 37 STONEGATE
FARMINGTON,CT 06035
3R WEST DOVER LLC BROWN RICHARD A&SACHIYO Y MCCALLISTER TODD&BARBARA
3600 RIDGEWOOD LN 13229 GRIFFIN RUN 2156 COFFEE POT BLVD NE
ROANOKE,VA 24014 CARMEL, IN 46033 ST PETERSBURG, FL 33704
LEWIS GILLIAN F&TIMOTHY J BRINKERHOFF BETTE J RIVES BARBARA MAPLES
POBOX8 P0 BOX 3246 19YORKST
• NANTUCKET,MA 02554 WESTPORT,MA 02790 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
GLIDDEN RICHARD J TRST MUSEUM OF AFRO AMERICAN HISTORY CARVALHO INVESTMENTS ASSC LP
C/O JEN BURRITT 14 BEACON STREET 105 ELDER AVE
844 LONGMEADOW STREET BOSTON,MA 02114 RIVERSIDE, RI 02915-3754
LONGMEADOW, MA 01106
ADRIANO JEAN M TOSCA DRIVE LLC BLOOMBERG MICHAEL G TR
14 SILVER ST PO BOX 521 MATLIN TRUST
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 STOUGHTON,MA 02072 PO BOX 186
STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262
ELLIS SARAH C TR DOBER RICHARD P TR HENDERSON BARBARA JO
SILVER STREET NOM TRUST ANGELS ROOST NOMINEE TRUST 53 FISHER PLACE
BOX 368 82 OXFORD RD RED BANK,NJ 07701
SIASCONSET,MA 02564 NEWTON,MA 02459
NANTUCKET TOWN OF GRAPE PETER A&LINDA OLIVER HANDY SUSAN E ETAL TRS
16 BROAD ST 61 LOWELL ROAD PO BOX 1048
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 WELLESLEY,MA 02481 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
IRELAND LORENE SCHNEIDER PEGGY PETREL HOLDINGS LLC
13 OLD SOUTH WHARF 10A W DOVER ST 10 A WEST DOVER STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554 NANTUCKET,MA 02554 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
BOURNE WHITFIELD C SILVA KEVIN M&ELIZABETH JORDAN S MILLER CHANDRA
12 W DOVER ST 5 IRVINE RD BOX 233
NANTUCKET,MA 02554 OLD GREENWICH,CT 06870 NANTUCKET,MA 02554
MARKS SCOTT M&ANTHONY
POBOX853
NANTUCKET,MA 02554
Letters
Hello,
I am a year-round resident of the ROH and I am concerned about the number of properties being used
as short term rentals in a residential district.
Absentee landlords negatively affect the peaceful enjoyment and quality of life of this community.
I have many wonderful neighbors that are both year-round and seasonal who respect each other and
the Island and that are negatively affected by these commercial entities.
Please help those of us that live here to protect our property values and our quiet enjoyment of our
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Sarah Ellis
7 Silver Street
Nantucket
From: Denise Korngold<dakteach@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 4, 20219:28 AM
To: Nickesha Sheriff<nsheriff@nantucket-ma.eov>
Subject:9 West Dover
To whom it may concern,
I am a property owner at 61 Fair Street,in the historic part of Nantucket.As you are well aware, homes
in this part of town are thickly settled...meaning we hear and experience everything around us.
For the most part, neighbors are respectful of the peaceful nature of the neighborhood. However,with
more and more short term rental situations,the lack of appreciation and respect for the area has
eroded. Late night outside gatherings and daily disruptions have made life less than appealing.These
renters are here for their own enjoyment,never needing to even acknowledge their neighbors.They are
here and gone with-not one concern over impact.
Granted,there might be exceptions to this lack of respect, but more and more it has been to the
detriment of why these people even come to the island. If we are promoting Nantucket as a party
playground,then I guess my family will have to learn to live with it or leave.
I respectfully request that 9 Dover's denial be rescinded. Please help us to maintain the quality of life
that brought us to island ownership in the first place.
Respectfully,
Denise Korngold
WILLIAM 3. SHEEHAN,
225 Commonwealth Ave Apt 3
Boston MA 02116
November 6, 2021
BY EMAIL TO: nsheriff@nantucket-ma.gov
Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
37 Washington St
Nantucket MA 02554
Re: Appeal of Building Commissioner's Zoning Enforcement Decision of September
24, 2021 at 9 West Dover Street
Dear Chair McCarthy and Members of the Board,
I am a seasonal resident and owner of residential property at 6 Silver Street that
abuts the property at 9 West Dover Street. I am writing in support of Cathy Ward's
appeal of the Building Commissioner's zoning enforcement decision of September
24, 2021, at 9 West Dover Street.
I confirm that the noise from the daytime and late-night activities of the transient
occupants at 9 West Dover Street together with the use of bright outside lighting
causes a significant disturbance to me and my family. I surmise that other abutters
are similarly affected. From time to time, we all may experience a disturbance from
a neighbor. What sets this situation apart is that the occupants of 9 West. Dover
Street are not"neighbors" in the normal sense, they are transient renters. While a
neighbor may have one party over the course of the summer, the occupants of 9
West Dover Street are short term renters and accordingly occupancy frequently
changes. With each change comes a fresh set of disturbances by people eager to
celebrate. 9 West Dover Street is unique in our residential neighborhood in creating
this type of disturbance.
The property at 9 West Dover Street is unique because it is not a residence. It is a
business site offering short term rentals to transients. As more fully expressed in
Cathy Ward's October 24, 2021 letter to the Board, Nantucket's Zoning Bylaw
prohibits commercial business, such as a short term rental business, in a residential
neighborhood.
I believe that a commercial business in a residential neighborhood diminishes the
value of residences in the neighborhood because potential purchasers value the
noncommercial attributes of residential neighborhoods. Permitting a commercial
business of short-term rentals in our neighborhood could well cause the diminution
of value of any property abutting 9 West Dover Street. That should not be
permitted.
I urge the board to find that the use of the property. at 9 West Dover Street violates
the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw.
Sincerely,
W' ' J. Sheehavv
William 3. Sheehan
11/13/21,10:33 AM 20211113_095251.jpg
Melissa and Nathaniel Philbrick ,
• 4 Silver Street
Nantucket,MA 02554
Ra November 13,.2021
' Re:ZBA Case 36-21,9 West Dover Street
Dear Zoning Board Members,
We have lived at 4 Silver Street for more than 35 years and we echo what Cathy Ward has said in her
^f-
letter to the Zoning Enforcement Officer: we are now surrounded by short term rentals and it has ,
drastically eroded the residential'.character of this neighborhood.It is clear to us that the commercial
use of the surrounding properties,including 9 West Dover,as mini-hotels goes against the residential ,
_ nature of the neighborhood.
Yes,seasonal rentals may be part of Nantucket and help fuel the economy.In fact,we rented our
cottage for a month last spring to a young family recommended to us through a local broker.They
- shared our yard and our driveway and we were present to be sure that there were°no issues.Our
children and grandchildren used the cottage the other times•that it was occupied.However,the advent
of contactiess entry by tenants who are here just for weekend and book via online platforms has led to
_.
the proliferation of short term rental operations like the one behind us on West Dover. We understand,
-, that the brokers justify the prices that these properties command on resale based on the rental stream
r that constant short term rentals can produce,but over the past several years the,rental market has ,
escaped the due diligence and accountability that used to exist when local brokers were actively.
involved.
We who have lived in Town for decades by choice understand that noise from neighboring properties is
, . a part of the lifestyle.However,there is a profound difference in the character of the noise-both '
intensity and type-.that comes from most Short Term Rental tenants.In wedding'season it starts on
Thursday night as the exterior speakers come on and'arriving guests are welcomed enthusiastically
accompanied by the audible popping of champagne corks,and then by Friday the party is in full swing. `
Next Thursday it is the same story but with different guests-just as loud and just as disrespectful of the_
adjacent properties.By summer it doesn't matter what day of the week it is.
Ultimately amendments are needed to the Zoning Bylaw to address and control this problem.What is -
- . also clear is that the state's highest court has now recognized:that these uses detract from the very
characteristics that residential zoning districts were created to protect.Please declare that the use of
-- this property as a business for short term rentals is a commercial not a residential use,and therefore•
h'
- ,prohibited.Let us go back to.Town Meeting to carve out what exceptions would;,be appropriate.This
el.' Board needs to establish the premise for that discussion-that short term rentals are for-profit
commercial uses-and then perhaps they can again be the exception and not the rule in a residential
zone.
Si cerely, ,.
Melissa Philbrick Nathaniel Philbrick
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ogbl#inbox?compose=jrjtXRFnCpRjcwHFjprJSsQcWKxxgpvNmpVtZpgcQhPgTsDDwRrWhgFwDMhVRWgzkjJjcFDz... 1/1
' r
To:Zoning Board of Appeals
From:Marianne Kelley
Re: Catherine Ward's Request Concerning 9.West Dover Street
Date:November 15,,2021
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals:
I am writing in support of Catherine Ward's request before the ZBA.
We support Ms.Ward's appeal and urge that the Building Commissioner recognize that use of the 9 West
Dover Street property is commercial in nature and therefore contrary to the intent of the zoning code for the
Residential Historic District.
We are year-round residents on Orange Street just two short blocks from Dover and we wish to sustain the
quality of life for the residents of this neighborhood and also for the protection of the Historic District itself.
The neighborhood has changed in the last few years. Given this appeal,I want to bring up other developments
that has transpired in our district.There have been several car and bike accidents injuring people and
destroying property this summer,a car stolen with a hide speed police chase,lack of parking;with additional
noise from short term rental visitors in the neighborhood;9 West Dover Street is an example.Houses in this
area share very tight property lines within the historic district so noise travels easily.
There are not only potential noise issues with short-term rentals,but also parking issues..
Our home is unique,it was the old town garage;if you remember and we do not have parking.We came
across several houses that.use Orange Street as extended parking even though they have their own driveways.
Most of these opportunists chose to park on Orange Street for convenience as their driveways were tight or
had reached capacity. Residents with driveways on Dover,Weymouth,Mulberry,Flora and Orange Street
continuously use Orange Street as their driveways.We have experienced several nights without room to park
on Orange Street or any nearby street.When our search proved futile,we resorted to the town lot,only to
find a ticket the next.day.We have a town permit for our car,yet we received a ticket.Meanwhile,cars parked
on Orange Street stayed there for days and weeks without a ticket.I worry more short term rentals,like 9
West Dover will invite more cars and make parking even more difficult.
I would ask the ZBA to address a few issues:
1. Recognize that short-term rentals are commercial in nature and do not belong'in the historic
neighborhood.What would happen to the neighborhood if several houses in this area followed suit in
being short-term rentals?Wouldn't that seem more like a hotel neighborhood?How many houses does it
take for it to"seem"commercial?
2. Review the shortage of parking and allowances for vehicles on island.Review the parking permits allowed
on Orange Street. '
3. Give consideration to the year-round residents who have to find parking to come home at night and get
to work the next day. Implore residents/visitors to use their driveways. '
4. Could there be an allowance for us to park in the Washington Street or Silver Street lot overnight if
parking is unavailable?Could the DPW designate a parking spot in front of our residence?
5. House rentals without the homeowner present could open up.potential noise problems with little
' supervision'or care to the behavior affecting our quiet neighborhood.
Please recognize the commercial aspect of short-term rentals and it's impact on the community
I respectfully request that you recognize that the current use of 9 West Dover is commercial in nature and is
not appropriate in the Residential Historic District.
Sincerely yours,
Marianne Kelley
67 Orange Street
Nantucket,MA 02554
-
;_ it
7\i d C - t-1 :
r al
& f t‘i g . P" t .
I
_.z. g e9. t . A
% Lk AZ ' -= --. r. t- L t 1 a
I i
o
-
2 Z
( \i_
cb •i t,, — 0-7.
A
i
•
�. 1
•
To: Zoning Board of Appeals .,
From: Judith Lee
Re: Catherine Ward's Request Concerning 9 West Dover Street
Date: November 7, 2021
I am writing in support of Catherine Ward's request before the ZBA.
Ms. Ward is appealing the Building Commissioner's refusal to find that
the use of the 9 West. Dover Street property is commercial in nature
and therefore contrary to the intent of the zoning code for the
Residential.Historic District.
My husband and I have been year-round residents of 69 Orange Street
for.24 years.As such I would like to share with you the nature of this
neighborhood and express a strong desire that it be maintained, not
only in protection of the quality df life for its residents but also for the
protection of the Historic District itself, one of Nantucket's most
distinguishing characteristics.
The residents of Orange Street, year-round and seasonal, comprise a
neighborhood that goes out of its way to know each other (block
parties, birthday parties, sharing of responsibilities, etc.) We have a
history of accommodating each other's families, friends and owner-
managed rentals. Our lives are conducted close to each other's houses,
within feet of lot lines. (Indeed, one of my lot lines IS a neighbor's
house.) Points of friction are few and usually resolved amicably; respect
and co-operation are in everyone's best interest.
In recent years, the neighborhood fabric has frayed a bit, and the
example of 9 West Dover Street is clear case in point..The noise and
commotion coming from this dwelling is apparent and disturbing even
from my location a long block away. I also sympathize with the light
pollution experienced by neighbors. One wonders if the owners of the
property in question are familiar with the "Dark Skies Initiative" which
requests that outside lighting'b'e capped and downward facing.
I would ask the ZBA to address a few issues:
1. Is it sensible that this property NOT be considered commercial? I
draw your attention tothecontinuous weekly rental program
advertised on-line, May to December, included in the filing
package.
2. Could the Historic District maintain its character if all residents
used their`properties with the intensity with which this one is
being used? In addition tb quality of life, how would safety and
infrastructure fare?
3. Would Nantucket itself maintain its attractiveness if this behavior
were permitted in one of its most attractive touristic locations?
I respectfully request that you recognize that the current use of 9 West
Dover is commercial in nature and is not appropriate in the Residential
Historic District.
Sincerely yours, . . r 1
Judith Lee