The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About068-04 TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37 WASHINGTON STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSEITS 02554 Date: am 4 7,2ct!J5' TO: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: APPLICATION NO.: 00f?~o'f OWNER/APPLICANT: 1+f)c1Y"e(~) 6. (otve..// Qn::f) ,c:;AerY'" V. LOwell Enclosed is the Decision of the Board of Appeals which has this day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk. This Decision provides a CLARIFICATION (not a Modification), an EXTENSION, or authorizes a TEMPORARY PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-Law ~139-26H, with NO twenty (20) day appeal period required. ~~}i~~n cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Department I -.J , -~._.~ :'~l ,''' CotM ~ ~ ~~~~ TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Assessors Map 41 Parcel 401.1 R-2 8R New Lane Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4 Deed Ref 541/12 At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, held at 1:00 P.M., Friday, October 15,2004, in the Conference Room, Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of ANDREW G. LOWELL AND SHERRI V. LOWELL, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, PO Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584, Board of Appeals File No. 068-04, the Board made the following Decision: 1. Applicants are APPEALING a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated July 28, 2004, under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, in which the Applicants were cited for using the property as an employer dormitory without a special permit and commercial use ofthe Locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. Applicants state that the commercial use of the property is validly grandfathered as having existed continuously from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Zoning By-law to the present without a three year interruption and that the dwelling was not used by more than five employees and thus could not be considered an employer dormitory. Applicants are asking that the Zoning Board of Appeals overturn the decision of the ZEO. In the alternative, Applicants are seeking reliefby SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A( 4), for the aheration of the pre-existing nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage, warehousing and workshop uses, as they currently exist. The Premises is located at 8R NEW LANE, Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 401.1, Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4. The property is zoned Residential-2. 2. The Decision is based upon the Application and the materials submitted with it and the testimony and evidence presented at the Hearing. The Planning Board made no recommendation, as the matter did not present any planning concerns. There was one letter dated October 12,2004, on file in opposition from Robert Braunohler, an abutter at 12 Meadow Lane, that stated that his family's "quality oflife [was] adversely affected to a serious degree". He expressed concerns about noise, visual blight and traffic. Counsel was present at the public hearing to represent him. Separate counsel represented another abutter in opposition, Morgan Morton of 6A New Lane, who was also present at the public hearing. Two affidavits were submitted from two other abutters in opposition and they were present at the public hearing. and represented by separate counsel from the Braunohlers. The affidavits from Linda Crowley and Artell Crowley, of 6 New Lane and 6R New Lane, respectively, stated that the property was vacant until the house was built READE. GULLICKSEN, HANLEY & GIFFORD, LLP SIX YOUNG'S WAY N~CKET,~SSACFnJSETTS 02554 ARlHUR I. READE, JR., P.C. KENNETII A. GULLICKSEN MARIANNE HANLEY WHITNEY A. GIFFORD (508) 228-3128 FAX: (508) 228-5630 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 2669 NANTUCKET, MASS. 02584 December 20, 2004 BY HAND DELIVERY Catherine Flanagan Stover, Town Clerk Town of Nantucket Town and County Building Federal and Broad Streets Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Re: Board of Appeals File No. 068-04 Andrew G. Lowell and Sherri V. Lowell, App~cants Dear Catherine: '.' \:::J (.:1 Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,~ection 17, notice is hereby given that I have filed a Complaint in the Land Court to appeal from the action of the Board of Appeals in denying relief, on behalf of the applicant in this matter. As required by the statute, a copy of the Complaint is delivered to you herewith. This action is now pending in the Land Court in Docket No. 304640. Kindly time and date stamp the enclosed copy of this letter upon its face in order to signify your receipt hereof. Thank you. /. U<- rthur I. Reade, Jr. air@readelaw.com AIR/irv COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Nantucket, ss. ANDREW G. LOWELL and SHERRI V. LOWELL, ) v. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) } NANCY J. SEVRENS, EDWARD S. TOOLE, DALE W. WAINE, EDWARD C. MURPHY and EDWARD J. SANFORD, as they are members of the NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, and MARCUS SILVERSTEIN, as he is the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of Nantucket, Defendants. Parties Land Court Civil Action Miscellaneous No. 3()C{ ~l{ tJ COMPLAINT 1. The plaintiffs, Andrew G. Lowell and Sherri V. Lowell, are individuals residing at 221 South Whitefield Road, Whitefield, New Hampshire. 2. The defendants, Nancy J. Sevrens, Edward S. toole, Dale W. Waine, Edward c. Murphy and Edward J. Sanford, are all of the members and alternate members of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals (the ~Board of Appeals") who participated in the proceedings which are the subject of this action, and reside at the following addresses, all situated in Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts: 1 Nancy J. Sevrens 22 Vesper Lane Edward S. Toole 28 Burnell street, Siasconset Dale W. Waine 11 Bishops Rise Edward C. Murphy 3 Spring Street Edward J. Sanford 3 Mill Street 3. The defendant, Marcus Silverstein, is the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of Nantucket (the ~Zoning Officer"), and has his principal place of business at 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, in the County of Nantucket. Facts 4. The plaintiffs are the owners of the land and buildings si tuated at and known as 8R New Lane, Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts, approximately shown upon Nantucket Assessor's Map 41 as Parcel 401.1, by virtue of deed recorded with the Nantucket Registry of Deeds in Book 541, Page 12 (the "Locus") . .5. By a writing dated July 28, 2004, the Zoning Officer notified the plaintiffs that the Locus was in violation of the Nantucket Zoning By-law, in that it was being used for commercial storage and warehousing, not constituting a permitted use in the Residential-2 zoning district in which it is situated, and also was being used as an employer dormitory without a Special Permit. The Zoning Officer ordered the plaintiffs to cease and desist from all commercial uses upon the Locus, and to apply for a 2 Special Permit for the employer dormitory use. A copy of this writing is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. The Locus was purchased by Andrew E. Lowell, the father of the plaintiff, Andrew G. Lowell, in 1963, prior to the adoption of the Nantucket Zoning By-law in 1972. Andrew E. Lowell was a carpenter and builder, and immediately commenced the use of the Locus, which was then vacant land, for commercial purposes in connection with his business, including the outdoor storage of building materials and supplies. 7. The structure upon the Locus was constructed between 1978 and 1980 by Andrew E. Lowell, pursuant to building permit No. 959-78, validly issued by the Building Inspector of the Town of Nantucket on October 30, 1978, the application for which stated that the building would be used as a single-family dwelling and for the business of ~craft, cabinetry furn. repair etc screen storm window repair in cellar". A Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Building Inspector on January 22, 1980. 8. The Locus has, at all times between 1978 and the present, been situated in a Residential-2 zoning district. 9. Upon completion of the structure upon the Locus in 1980, Andrew E. Lowell commenced to reside therein, and to use the garage and the basement as a workshop and storage area for his carpentry and building businesses. Andrew E. Lowell retired 3 in 1997, and since then the building has been rented to businesses engaged in the building trades, for similar purposes. 10. The dwelling upon the Locus contains five bedrooms, and has been rented to the business tenants for housing of up to five employees, one in each bedroom. 11. Under the Nantucket Zoning By-law, an ~employer dormi tory" is defined as a dwelling in which sleeping accommodations for more than five persons are provided by employers, with occupancy limited solely to their employees. 12. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the orders contained in the July 28, 2004, writing issued by the Zoning Officer, duly filed an appeal therefrom to the Board of Appeals with the Nantucket Town Clerk on August 27, 2004, pursuant to M.G.L., c. 40A, ~~ 8 and 15. 13. The Board of Appeals conducted a hearing upon the plaintiffs' appeal on October 15, 2004, and voted to deny the appeal. 14. The Board of Appeals filed its decision denying the plaintiffs' appeal with the Town Clerk on December 1, 2004. A certified copy of that decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B. (The decision incorrectly states that the public hearing was held on June 11, 2004; in fact, as stated above, the hearing was held on October 15, 2004.) 4 15. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Appeals, and bring this action to appeal therefrom, pursuant to M.G.L., c. 40A, ~ 17. 16. The decision of the Board of Appeals exceeded its authority, in that: (a) The commercial use of the Locus for commercial storage, and other commercial activities, constitutes a pre-existing nonconforming use, protected under M.G.L., c. 40A, ~ 6. (b) The commercial uses upon the Locus have existed for more than six years pursuant to the provisions of an original building permit issued by the duly-authorized Building tnspector of the Town of Nantucket, and the Zoning Officer accordingly had no power to attempt to enforce any provision of the Nantucket Zoning By-law against these uses. (c) The residential uses upon the Locus do not consti tute an "employer dormitory" wi thin the meaning of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment, as follows: (a) Determining that the decision exceeded the authority of the Board of Appeals. (b) Annulling the decision of the Board of Appeals. 5 (c) Entering its Order, directing the Zoning Officer to annul the orders contained in the writing dated July 28, 2004, as set forth in Exhibit A. (d) Determining that the use of the Locus for commercial storage is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and that the conduct of this use within the structure upon the Locus is protected against enforcement by M.G.L., c. 40A, ~ 7. ( e) Awarding the plaintiffs their costs, including attorneys' fees. (f) For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ANDREW G. LOWELL SHERRI V. LOWELL BY~~attorney, ~ t~~L BBO# 413420 Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP 6 Young's Way Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584 Tel. (508) 228-3128 Fax (508)228-5630 air@readelaw.com Dated: December 17, 2004 6 ex. 1-1 /81 r II- - ,,,"III"l BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT. ~" TOWN BUILDING ANNEX PY~f~ 37 WASHINGTON STREET ~ ~1} NANTU~:~::::::::~ 02554 ~(\ ~. ~f ~"o~ _... ~~, Tele Fax 508-228-7249 '1"11 100RAT,,9~\\'\~ 111"11'""'" July 28, 2004 Andrew and Sherri Lowell. 4 NewLn. Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lowell: This office has received a complaint pertaining to your property at 8R New Ln. (Map# 41, Parcel# 401.1); The complaibtconcerns improper commercial use ofa property located in a commercial zone; A review of the property showed evidence of use onhe structure as an employee dormitory for a company known as "Design Systems," and for commercial storage and warehousing for both "Design Systems" and the company known as "The Copper Man." ~e property at 8R New Ln. is located within the Residential.,.2 (R-2) zoning district, Pet ~139-6A of the Zoning Code, noland may be used in any manner except those uses expressly allowed in the district in which such land is located; Within the R-2 district, Employer Dormitories are allowed uses only.by exception, and require the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a. special permit. No special permit is on file for this use. Commercial storage and warehousing is not an allowed use in the R-2 district. You are hereby found in violation offi139-6andfi139-7D of the Zoning Code. You are ordered to immediately CEASE AND DESISTall commercial U$e of your property. You are also given 30 daystorde for ZBA special permit relief for the Employer Dormitory use. Failure to comply with this order may result in rmes of $100.00 per violatio~, as allowed in fi139.,.25C(1) of the Zoning Code. Each day the violations continue constitutes a separate offense. . ,. arcu s ein Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Nantucket cc: On file If)'ou./u'e..aggrieved It)'tIais Jl9Uce.you.JWlY~ . Notice oU.ppeal dtaDmgIng.the d~ of tIais, oftke 1rltIdn thirty (30) days oCtile recdpt oCthls letter. .' €.'f./J i~ I r'l5 . . TOWN OF NANTUCKET .BOARD OF APPEALS d .r.:>- :::t~j r~r~ NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS ~g~'5S4 ~ ..... . . I .; i ~ ...; Date: . J).e <!-em~f(';'I' , 2bb4' n 0i N To: Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the Decision of .the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Application No.: QCo?~O~ Owner/Appl.icant: . ~n dlrecD .g~rr( 'V.. LoWf1) . ) .(f:- . LOw ~II ,; 01.)& ~' , :~ Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this day been filed in the office 6f'the Nantucket Town Clerk. An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursu~nt to Section l7 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws. : Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the. complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY (20) days. ~o~>< ~ 'I\J ()I'I ~y ..:7. . V f"(2() S) Cha j..rman cc: Town Clerk P:!.anning Board Buildi~ Commissioner PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING' TO NANTUCKET ZONING BY-LAW U139-301 (SPECIAL PERMITS); ~139-32I (VARIANCES) . ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Assessors Map 41 Parcel 401.1 R-2 8R New Lane Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4 Deed Ref 541/12 At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, held at 1:00 P.M., Friday, June 11, 2004, in the Conference Room, Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of ANDREW G. LOWELL AND SHERR! V. LOWELL, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, PO Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584, Board of Appeals File No. 068-04, the Board made the follo.wing Decision: 1. Applicants are APPEALING a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated July 28,2004, under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, in which the Applicants were cited for using the property as an emplo.yer dormitory without a special permit and commercial use of the Locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. Applicants state that the commercial use of the property is validly grandfathered as having existed continuo.usly from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Zoning By-law to the present without a three year interruption and that the dwelling was not used by more than five employees and thus could not be considered an employer dormitory. Applicants are asking that the Zoning Board of Appeals overturn the decision of the ZEO. In the alternative, Applicants are seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), for the alteration of the pre-existing nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage, warehousing and workshop uses, as they currently exist. The Premises is located at 8R NEW LANE, Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 401.1, Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4. The property is zoned Residential-2. 2. The Decision is based upon the Application and the materials submitted with it and the testimony and evidence presented at the Hearing. The Planning Board made no recommendation, as the matter did not present any planning concerns. There was one letter dated October 12, 2004, on file in opposition fro.m Ro.bert Braunohler, an abutter at 12 Meadow Lane, that stated that his family's "quality of life [was] adversely affected to. a serious degree". He expressed concerns about noise, visual blight and traffic. Counsel was present at the public hearing to represent him. Separate counsel represented another abutter in opposition, Morgan Morton of 6A New Lane, who was also present at the public hearing. Two affidavits were submitted from two other abutters in opposition and they were present at the public hearing. and represented by separate counsel from the Braunohlers. The affidavits from Linda Crowley and Artell Crowley, of 6 New Lane and 6R New Lane, respectively, stated that the property was vacant until the house was built in 1978 and there had been no commercial activity of the nature that was alleged to be currently taking place on the Locus. The Crowleys stated that there had been no impact on the neighborhood until the property had been rented to the current tenant in the spring of2003. They noticed increased traffic, noise and commercial activity since that time. They also questioned then number of people living in the structure and alleged that the single- family dwelling was being used as a dormitory with more than five unrelated people living there. The aforementioned abutters questioned the Applicants' claim that the uses were grandfathered from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. Several pictures were submitted into the record showing the property at various times of the day, and also showed several commercial vehicles parked on the site. Counsel for Morton submitted additional photos purported to show several different individuals on the site around 7:00 AM. Abutters alleged that either the owner or the leaseholder, Design Systems, was subleasing space to O'Banion, Donnelly Electric and the Copper Man for commercial purposes. Morton's attorney also submitted the tax assessor's card indicating that the property was being assessed as residential and not commercial. Morgan Morton expressed concern at the public hearing about the increased noise early in the morning and the excessive number of trips by the trucks associated with the residents in the house during the day up and down what she characterized as a quiet narrow lane. All those expressing opposition agreed that there seemed to be insufficient evidence to support a claim of grandfathering forthe commercial uses. Applicants submitted into the record four letters from other abutters in favor of the Applicants' appeal and supporting the claim that commercial activity, specifically the storing of building materials and equipment, had taken place prior to 1972 and continued to date. Abutters Sam Swayze ITI, of 9 Meadow Lane, Jeffrey Marks, of 4 Meadow Lane, direct abutters to the south Loren Brock and Gavin Jones, of 17 Madaket Road, and direct abutters to the north Wanda Hilts and Elaine Mooney of 10 Meadow Lane, also stated that the current activities did not pose a detriment to the neighborhood or cause disruption Also submitted by Applicants were three affidavits, one from the Applicant Andrew Lowell dated October 14,2004, two from former employees of the Mr. Lowell's father, Gardner MacDonald, dated October 8, 2004 and Bruce Watts dated October 12, 2004. Mr. Lowell's stated that his father had owned the property since 1962 and that the previous owner had stored buses and taxis on the site that were used in conjunction with a taxi service. He stated that his father had recently died and could not verify the information making it difficult for him to elaborate and refute the claims stated above. He claimed that his father used the property "to store materials for his home building business and for the shop connected with the business". The Applicant added that in 1978 his father applied for a building permit to construct a dwelling on the property. "The application expressly stated that the structure would also be used for business purposes, including crafts, cabinetry, furniture repair and screen and storm window repair, among other things". A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the structure on January 2, 1980. The only change to the storage of goods and materials was that rather than storing materials outside, as had been the practice when the Locus was a vacant lot, the material moved inside the garage. The Applicant also attested to the fact that since 1997 the property had been rented for commercial storage and as the house had five bedrooms, for housing for not more than five individuals. Mr. MacDonald's affidavit stated that he had worked for the late Mr. Lowell from the early 1960's to the 1970's from a shop located on the Locus and all construction work, which included framing, cabinet making and painting, was done on the premises. Mr. Watts stated that he had worked for the late Mr. Lowell for about five years beginning in 1962. He supported the claim that the vacant lot had been used for the storing of materials for the business. He added that Mr. Lowell had allowed other small businesses in the neighborhood to use the property from time to time. A letter from Richard Ray, the Director ofthe Nantucket Health Department, dated August 13, 2004 was submitted that attested to the fact that the property had in part been used as a "shucking facility" for scallops from 1982 - 1997, with records missing for a period pre-dating that time and that this use had been duly inspected and permitted by his office. 3. Included in the file was the letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer ("ZEO"), Marcus Silverstein, dated July 28,2004 that cited the Applicants for being in violation of Nantucket Zoning By-law Sections 139-6 (General district regulations; interpretation) and 139-7D (Other uses allowed only by exception - employer dormitory). The ZEO ordered that the commercial use of the property immediately "cease and desist". The ZEO stated in said letter that his office had received a complaint about "improper commercial use. .." of the Locus. He had reviewed the property and stated that the property "showed use of the structure as an employee dormitory for a company known as 'Design Systems"'. The letter also stated that the property was being used for "commercial storage and warehousing" for two separate entities in the two-bay garage portion of the single-family dwelling. He stated that no Zoning Board of Appeals approval had been issued for the dormitory use, but relief was available by grant of a special permit but use for storage and warehousing was expressly not allowed in the Residential-2 zoning district within which the Locus was situated. The ZEO was present at the meeting and submitted a detailed account ofhis office's position on the matter at said public hearing. The written document stated that in his opinion the uses that were referenced in the building permit and validated by the then Building Inspector in 1978 should be considered as ''home occupation" uses and not a protected commercial use, which is different in nature than uses typically associated with home occupations. The uses had ahered to the point where they could no longer be considered home occupations and had slipped past the threshold into full commercial use. Storage and warehousing of construction materials and equipment would, in his opinion, be considered commercial use of the structure and not considered a "normal evolution" of a home occupation use, prohibited in the Residential-2 zoning district. The ZEO also stated that he had observed the alleged occupants of the property from a position on the way proximate the Locus on one day, July 28,2004 from about 6:18 AM to 7:51 AM, and stated that "seven individuals were witnessed emerging from the house at 8R New Ln." In addition the ZEO added "To any reasonable observer at the time, the seven individuals were residing on the premises." The ZEO concluded that the Applicants needed a special permit for the dormitory use and for the Board to uphold his decision to issue the cease and desist order dated July 28, 2004 for the commercial storage and warehousing on the property. 4. Applicant, personally and through counse~ stated that he was appealing from the ZEO's interpretation of Zoning By-law Sections 139-6 and 139-7D( 4) that were included in an enforcement letter dated July 28, 2004. The Locus had been owned by the Applicant's family since a time prior to the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket Zoning By- law, and Applicant stated that the vacant lot was already in commercial use for exterior storage at that time, and had continued to the present without a three year period of inactivity, which would make the use a validly grandfathered use and not a customary home occupation. Applicant argued that the 1978 issuance ofBuildihg Permit No. 959- 78, stating that the structure would be used for business purposes as stated above in Andrew Lowell's affidavit, and subsequent issuance of Certificate of Occupancy No. 959-80, protected the use of the structure for business purposes against enforcement under M.G.L., C. 40A, Section 7, regardless of whether the decision of the Building Inspector at that time in issuing the permit was correct. Applicants further state that there had been other tenants of the structure that had operated carpenters' shops and the neighbors had made no comment. Lowell stated that there seemed to be a substantial difference of opinion between abutters in the same area, with some stating that they had never had a problem with the uses on the property and those that claimed otherwise. Lowell stated that his family lived at 4 New Lane in the summer months and he was down often during the rest ofthe year and had never noticed anything like what the opposition was claiming happened on the property. A representative from Design Systems, the tenant, was present and stated that only five people lived on the property. He regularly went to the airport to pick up additional workers early each morning and it was not possible for the ZEO sitting in a car in the road to tell who lived there and who did not, particularly after the start of their workday in the early morning, to make the determination that it was a employer dormitory. Not all of the employees in the house belong to Design Systems, as a few worked for Donnelly Electric. They all brought their trucks home with them and parked in the driveway. He also stated that nothing is stored outside and he kept all parts in the garage. He denied the claim by the abutters in opposition that they had a lot of parties at the house. Both the Design Systems representative and Lowell stated that there was no commercial use going on there, other than the grandfathered use of the garage for storage and warehousing. Applicant represented that his late futher, Andrew E. Lowell, had retired in 1997 and turned the management of the property over to him and since that time the structure on the Locus had been leased to people in the building trades, continuing the storage and warehousing of materials in the garage as opposed to outside where it had traditionally been done prior to the construction of the house in 1978. The current tenant utilized portions of the structure for storage and workshop, and there were five individuals currently living in the five-bedroom house and no more. Applicant argued that the use of the five-bedroom house for five individuals did not constitute an employer dormitory. The definition of "employer dormitory" contained in Zoning By-law Section 139-2 is "a dwelling...in which sleeping accommodations for more than five persons are provided by one or more employers... " This was the language most recently adopted under Article 38 ofthe 2001 Annual Town Meeting, regardless of the fact that the current Zoning By-law as printed incorrectly stated that a donnitory consisted of "five or more". The language is incorrect. Applicant argues that since no more than five people are living in the structure on a regular basis the use did not constitute an employer dormitory. Applicant stated that the present commercial uses upon the Locus were similar to those that are protected under M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 7 and that they pre-existed the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket Zoning By-law and never constituted use as a customary home occupation but were commercial in nature, and to the extent that they differ from the protected uses, they constitute normal evolution of the business use and would then be able to be modified or altered by a grant of special permit relief under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A, which allowed alteration or expansion ofa pre-existing nonconforming structure or use. Applicant argued that there was no commercial activity on the prop~rty but the garage was being used to store materials and supplies for the businesses that were operating off-site. Applicants asked that the Board of Appeals to overturn the interpretation of the ZEO that the use of the structure did not constitute an employer dormitory and uphold the appeal arguing that there had been no conclusive evidence presented by the opposition as to the dorm use or the lack of grandfathered status. The Applicants also asked the Board to overturn the interpretation of the ZEO that the current commercial use of the property for storage and warehousing was not a protected validly grandfathered use and thus an enforceable zoning violation. In the ahernative, should the Board uphold the ZEO, Applicants were then seeking reliefby special permit for the alteration of the pre-existing and protected nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage and workshop uses as now used. 5 Board members expressed concern about the ability to adequately ascertain whether there were more than five persons living in the house without doing a "bed check at night", especially as there seemed to be disagreement about this between the Applicants and a few of the neighbors. Members also expressed concern that the uses seemed to have increased over time without proper permits and the use was no longer primarily as a single-family dwelling but as a commercial property. The Board was concerned about negative impact from increased noise, traffic and disturbance to the neighborhood from activities on the site. 6. Based upon the foregoing presentation, the Board of Appeals finds that there are insufficient grounds to overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer's ruling that the uses were not grandfathered and that the property was being used as a employer dormitory. A super majority of the members also find that as there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of grandfathering protection for the current uses on the property for commercial storage and warehousing, and as a result special permit relief is not available to validate the current commercial uses. 7. Accordingly, upon a motion duly made and seconded to grant the appeal and overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139- 31 there were no votes in favor and five votes opposed; thus the ZEO decision is upheld; and upon a motion duly made and seconded to grant the requested relief by Special Permit under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A( 4), there was one vote in favor (Dale Waine) and four votes in opposition (Sevrens, Toole, Sanford and Murphy). Therefore, relief is hereby DENIED. (068-04) Dated: ~mber 1 , 2004 N.~L~~ \ ~~..~ Edward Murphy ATTEST: A TRUE COPY ~ NANTUCKET TOWN CLERK (.~qf- Edward Sanford TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS d :~ c~ NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 ~~-8 I --" . Date: J)~ ~eCf"Yl&~f J -0 , 2004 <~'i I'>.,) To: Parties in Interest and Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following: Appl ica tion No.: QCo?.--oi ). Owner/Applicant: . ;4-ndlrecD .G-. LOw~1J "a.n&~ S~rr( V. LoWf11 . .. Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town Clerk. An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursu~nt to Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws. Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by filing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY (20) days. ~CR~ \ ~t0l 'I\J()nfJi ,;;;t.lav-rtl()Sj Chairman cc: Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissloner PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING'TO NANTUCKET ZONING BY-LAW ~139-30I (SPECIAL PERMITS); fi139-32I (VARIANCES) ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Assessors Map 41 Parcel 401.1 R-2 8R New Lane Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4 Deed Ref 541/12 At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals, held at 1:00 P.M., Friday, June 11,2004, in the Conference Room, Town Annex Building, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of ANDREW G. LOWELL AND SHERRI V. LOWELL, c/o Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP, PO Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584, Board of Appeals File No. 068-04, the Board made the following Decision: 1. Applicants are APPEALING a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated July 28,2004, under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, in which the Applicants were cited for using the property as an employer dormitory without a special permit and commercial use of the Locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. Applicants state that the commercial use of the property is validly grandfathered as having existed continuously from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Zoning By-law to the present without a three year interruption and that the dwelling was not used by more than five employees and thus could not be considered an employer dormitory. Applicants are asking that the Zoning Board of Appeals overturn the decision of the ZEO. In the alternative, Applicants are seeking reliefby SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), for the alteration ofthe pre-existing nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage, warehousing and workshop uses, as they currently exist. The Premises is located at 8R NEW LANE, Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 401.1, Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4. The property is zoned Residential-2. 2. The Decision is based upon the Application and the materials submitted with it and the testimony and evidence presented at the Hearing. The Planning Board made no recommendation, as the matter did not present any planning concerns. There was one letter dated October 12, 2004, on file in opposition from Robert Braunohler, an abutter at 12 Meadow Lane, that stated that his family's "quality oflife [was] adversely affected to a serious degree". He expressed concerns about noise, visual blight and traffic. Counsel was present at the public hearing to represent him. Separate counsel represented another abutter in opposition, Morgan Morton of6A New Lane, who was also present at the public hearing. Two affidavits were submitted from two other abutters in opposition and they were present at the public hearing. and represented by separate counsel from the BraunoWers. The affidavits from Linda Crowley and Artell Crowley, of 6 New Lane and 6R New Lane, respectively, stated that the property was vacant until the house was built in 1978 and there had been no commercial activity of the nature that was alleged to be currently taking place on the Locus. The Crowleys stated that there had been no impact on the neighborhood until the property had been rented to the current tenant in the spring of2003. They noticed increased traffic, noise and commercial activity since that time. They also questioned then number of people living in the structure and alleged that the single- family dwelling was being used as a dormitory with more than five unrelated people living there. The aforementioned abutters questioned the Applicants' claim that the uses were grandfathered from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. Several pictures were submitted into the record showing the property at various times of the day, and also showed several commercial vehicles parked on the site. Counsel for Morton submitted additional photos purported to show several different individuals on the site around 7:00 AM. Abutters alleged that either the owner or the leaseholder, Design Systems, was subleasing space to O'Banion, Donnelly Electric and the Copper Man for commercial purposes. Morton's attorney also submitted the tax assessor's card indicating that the property was being assessed as residential and not commercial. Morgan Morton expressed concern at the public hearing about the increased noise early in the morning and the excessive number of trips by the trucks associated with the residents in the house during the day up and down what she characterized as a quiet narrow lane. All those expressing opposition agreed that there seemed to be insufficient evidence to support a claim of grandfathering for the commercial uses. Applicants submitted into the record four letters from other abutters in favor of the Applicants' appeal and supporting the claim that commercial activity, specifically the storing of building materials and equipment, had taken place prior to 1972 and continued to date. Abutters Sam Swayze III, of9 Meadow Lane, Jeffrey Marks, of 4 Meadow Lane, direct abutters to the south Loren Brock and Gavin Jones, of 17 Madaket Road, and direct abutters to the north Wanda Hilts and Elaine Mooney of 10 Meadow Lane, also stated that the current activities did not pose a detriment to the neighborhood or cause disruption. Also submitted by Applicants were three affidavits, one from the Applicant Andrew Lowell dated October 14,2004, two from former employees of the Mr. Lowell's father, Gardner MacDonald, dated October 8, 2004 and Bruce Watts dated October 12, 2004. Mr. Lowell's stated that his father had owned the property since 1962 and that the previous owner had stored buses and taxis on the site that were used in conjunction with a taxi service. He stated that his father had recently died and could not verify the information making it difficult for him to elaborate and refute the claims stated above. He claimed that his father used the property "to store materials for his home building business and for the shop connected with the business". The Applicant added that in 1978 his father applied for a building permit to construct a dwelling on the property. "The application expressly stated that the structure would also be used for business purposes, including crafts, cabinetry, furniture repair and screen and storm window repair, among other things". A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the structure on January 2, 1980. The only change to the storage of goods and materials was that rather than storing materials outside, as had been the practice when the Locus was a vacant lot, the material moved inside the garage. The Applicant also attested to the fact that since 1997 the property had been rented for commercial storage and as the house had five bedrooms, for housing for not more than five individuals. Mr. MacDonald's affidavit stated that he had worked for the late Mr. Lowell from the early 1960's to the 1970's from a shop located on the Locus and all construction work, which included framing, cabinet making and painting, was done on the premises. Mr. Watts stated that he had worked for the late Mr. Lowell for about five years beginning in 1962. He supported the claim that the vacant lot had been used for the storing of materials for the business. He added that Mr. Lowell had allowed other small businesses in the neighborhood to use the property from time to time. A letter from Richard Ray, the Director of the Nantucket Health Department, dated August 13, 2004 was submitted that attested to the fact that the property had in part been used as a "shucking facility" for scallops from 1982 - 1997, with records missing for a period pre-dating that time and that this use had been duly inspected and permitted by his office. 3. Included in the file was the letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer ("ZEO"), Marcus Silverstein, dated July 28,2004 that cited the Applicants for being in violation of Nantucket Zoning By-law Sections 139-6 (General district regulations; interpretation) and 139-7D (Other uses allowed only by exception - employer dormitory). The ZEO ordered that the commercial use of the property immediately "cease and desist". The ZEO stated in said letter that his office had received a complaint about "improper commercial use..." of the Locus. He had reviewed the property and stated that the property "showed use of the structure as an employee dormitory for a company known as 'Design Systems"'. The letter also stated that the property was being used for "commercial storage and warehousing" for two separate entities in the two-bay garage portion of the single-family dwelling. He stated that no Zoning Board of Appeals approval had been issued for the dormitory use, but relief was available by grant of a special permit but use for storage and warehousing was expressly not allowed in the Residential-2 zoning district within which the Locus was situated. The ZEO was present at the meeting and submitted a detailed account of his office's position on the matter at said public hearing. The written document stated that in his opinion the uses that were referenced in the building permit and validated by the then Building Inspector in 1978 should be considered as "home occupation" uses and not a protected commercial use, which is different in nature than uses typically associated with home occupations. The uses had altered to the point where they could no longer be considered home occupations and had slipped past the threshold into full commercial use. Storage and warehousing of construction materials and equipment would, in his opinion, be considered commercial use ofthe structure and not considered a "normal evolution" of a home occupation use, prohibited in the Residential-2 zoning district. The ZEO also stated that he had observed the alleged occupants of the property from a position on the way proximate the Locus on one day, July 28,2004 from about 6:18 AM to 7:51 AM, and stated that "seven individuals were witnessed emerging from the house at 8R New Ln." In addition the ZEO added "To any reasonable observer at the time, the seven individuals were residing on the premises." The ZEO concluded that the Applicants needed a special permit for the dormitory use and for the Board to uphold his decision to issue the cease and desist order dated July 28,2004 for the commercial storage and warehousing on the property. 4. Applicant, personally and through counsel, stated that he was appealing from the ZEO's interpretation of Zoning By-law Sections 139-6 and 139-7D( 4) that were included in an enforcement letter dated July 28, 2004. The Locus had been owned by the Applicant's family since a time prior to the 1972 adoption ofthe Nantucket Zoning By- law, and Applicant stated that the vacant lot was already in commercial use for exterior storage at that time, and had continued to the present without a three year period of inactivity, which would make the use a validly grandfathered use and not a customary home occupation. Applicant argued that the 1978 issuance of Building Permit No. 959- 78, stating that the structure would be used for business purposes as stated above in Andrew Lowell's affidavit, and subsequent issuance of Certificate of Occupancy No. 959-80, protected the use of the structure for business purposes against enforcement under M.G.L., C. 40A, Section 7, regardless of whether the decision of the Building Inspector at that time in issuing the permit was correct. Applicants further state that there had been other tenants ofthe structure that had operated carpenters' shops and the neighbors had made no comment. Lowell stated that there seemed to be a substantial difference of opinion between abutters in the same area, with some stating that they had never had a problem with the uses on the property and those that claimed otherwise. Lowell stated that his family lived at 4 New Lane in the summer months and he was down often during the rest of the year and had never noticed anything like what the opposition was claiming happened on the property. A representative from Design Systems, the tenant, was present and stated that only five people lived on the property. He regularly went to the airport to pick up additional workers early each morning and it was not possible for the ZEO sitting in a car in the road to tell who lived there and who did not, particularly after the start of their workday in the early morning, to make the determination that it was a employer dormitory. Not all of the employees in the house belong to Design Systems, as a few worked for Donnelly Electric. They all brought their trucks home with them and parked in the driveway. He also stated that nothing is stored outside and he kept all parts in the garage. He denied the claim by the abutters in opposition that they had a lot of parties at the house. Both the Design Systems representative and Lowell stated that there was no commercial use going on there, other than the grandfathered use of the garage for storage and warehousing. Applicant represented that his late father, Andrew E. Lowell, had retired in 1997 and turned the management of the property over to him and since that time the structure on the Locus had been leased to people in the building trades, continuing the storage and warehousing of materials in the garage as opposed to outside where it had traditionally been done prior to the construction of the house in 1978. The current tenant utilized portions of the structure for storage and workshop, and there were five individuals currently living in the five-bedroom house and no more. Applicant argued that the use of the five-bedroom house for five individuals did not constitute an employer dormitory. The definition of "employer dormitory" contained in Zoning By-law Section 139-2 is "a dwelling. . . in which sleeping accommodations for more than five persons are provided by one or more employers..." This was the language most recently adopted under Article 38 of the 2001 Annual Town Meeting, regardless of the fact that the current Zoning By-law as printed incorrectly stated that a dormitory consisted of "five or more". The language is incorrect. Applicant argues that since no more than five people are living in the structure on a regular basis the use did not constitute an employer dormitory. Applicant stated that the present commercial uses upon the Locus were similar to those that are protected under M.G.L., c. 40A, Section 7 and that they pre-existed the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket Zoning By-law and never constituted use as a customary home occupation but were commercial in nature, and to the extent that they differ from the protected uses, they constitute normal evolution of the business use and would then be able to be modified or altered by a grant of special permit relief under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A, which allowed alteration or expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming structure or use. Applicant argued that there was no commercial activity on the prop~rty but the garage was being used to store materials and supplies for the businesses that were operating off-site. Applicants asked that the Board of Appeals to overturn the interpretation of the ZEO that the use of the structure did not constitute an employer dormitory and uphold the appeal arguing that there had been no conclusive evidence presented by the opposition as to the dorm use or the lack of grandfathered status. The Applicants also asked the Board to overturn the interpretation of the ZEO that the current commercial use of the property for storage and warehousing was not a protected validly grandfathered use and thus an enforceable zoning violation. In the alternative, should the Board uphold the ZEO, Applicants were then seeking relief by special permit for the alteration of the pre-existing and protected nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage and workshop uses as now used. 5 Board members expressed concern about the ability to adequately ascertain whether there were more than five persons living in the house without doing a "bed check at night", especially as there seemed to be disagreement about this between the Applicants and a few of the neighbors. Members also expressed concern that the uses seemed to have increased over time without proper permits and the use was no longer primarily as a single-family dwelling but as a commercial property. The Board was concerned about negative impact from increased noise, traffic and disturbance to the neighborhood from activities on the site. 6. Based upon the foregoing presentation, the Board of Appeals finds that there are insufficient grounds to overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer's ruling that the uses were not grandfathered and that the property was being used as a employer dormitory. A super majority of the members also fmd that as there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of grandfathering protection for the current uses on the property for commercial storage and warehousing, and as a result special permit relief is not available to validate the current commercial uses. 7. Accordingly, upon a motion duly made and seconded to grant the appeal and overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139- 31 there were no votes in favor and five votes opposed; thus the ZEO decision is upheld; and upon a motion duly made and seconded to grant the requested relief by Special Permit under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), there was one vote in favor (Dale Waine) and four votes in opposition (Sevrens, Toole, Sanford and Murphy). Therefore, relief is hereby DENIED. (068-04) Dated: fu..ember 1 , 2004 N~J~~ \ S:~}tV~ Edward Murphy 2-G-qf- Edward Sanford ARTHUR I. READE, JR., P.C. KENNETH A. GULLICKSEN MARIANNE HANLEY WlUTNEY A. GIFFORD READE, GULLICKSEN, HANLEY & GIFFORD, LLP SIX YOUNG'S WAY NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 508-228-3128 FAX: 508-228-5630 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 2669 NANTUCKET,MASS.02584 August31,2004 BY HAND Office of the Town Clerk Town of Nantucket 16 Broad Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Re: Andrew G. Lowell & Sherri V. Lowell 8 R New Lane Dear Catherine: Enclosed please find a copy of the abutter's list and labels on the above mention matter to be added to the Zoning Board of Appeals packet of documents delivered to you last week. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, d .j.:>. ., / :,' 'l {J. Lei" . Topham Sec ry to Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP (",-,", -:= C:::: Gi W - -0 [,J (Ji V1 Ilmt Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew G. Lowell 4 New Lane Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Ms. Linda Williams Zoning Board of Appeals Town Building Annex Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Mr. Marcus Silverstein Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Nantucket 37 Washington Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 F:\WpL\Lowell\Andrew\8R New Lane\townclerk2.doc 119' /00 Town of Nantucket ZONING BOARD OF AP}lEALS RECEIVED BOARD OF ASSESSORS AUG 2 3 2004 rOVVN OF NANTUCKET, MA LrSTOF PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THE MAnER OF THE PETITION Or . . 4n.J~ ~<v(l PROPERTY 0 ViNER......... _..... ....., .................... .........,..,...,..,..,." .... MAILING A.OURESS......,.. c.4.... .~~.....,......,.,.,...,.,.......,' PROPER TV LdCATrON.......,...'it .f!".... New.. ..~......,.,....., L.J I - J.{O J, I A.SSESSORS MAPIPARCEL......... ......... ..,'".................,.... ",",.... 'fli,c( APPUCANT.,~.....Ci:r'~4u.~"tg~ """ ~ I) SEE A 11' ACHED PAGES I ceni fy ullllhe for.goin, is . I~l of p.",,". wh. ... OWners ohbuaing propeny, Own.,., or . ''''d di.." Iy opposh. on any public Or PnVOle "..... or ....y. Illd 'bunen 0 r 'he .bullers "'d .11 0' her land ""'no" "'ithi n 300 fe" or Ihe propeny line .r ....n.'.. prop,">,. .11 .. th.y 'Pp'" .n Ih~ !'hOSt rc:ccnt applicllble ta;1l list (M.O.t. e, 40A, S~(jon I J Zoning Code Chapler J 39. ' Sccrion 139.290 (2) 7"';o,,Q!,qo.y- DATE . ~tf!A ASSESSOR'S OFFICE TOwn OfNanclJcKet lD .. .. .. 0 CD .. .... .. 0 CD M 0 ... ... ... ItI .. .. .. 0. .. .. rt U'l lI'J It) lD 0 an N ItI CD 0 \0 ... ItI an an .. U") \0 It) It) \n an Q, oananlt10I.Dlt10\nCD....O'lt1l11l11anO'U")lI1anrt\nan .... ONNNMf'oN"'N\D"NCDNNNf'-NNNNNN tQ NOOOMNOOOOo.MOOOOOOOOrtOO rl " '" ~ a. Ita .. .., N .. .. 0 .., .., N .. ... .... .. 1I1 .., .., .. M .. N M It) an rf It) It) .... 1I1 an 100 U'l an 0. It) ... an an CD ('II III .... o an an 0 an 1ft .. an an .. an II) f'o III .. U') an an an \n 0 o N NON N \D rot N .... N N \0 N It) N ('of N rt N 0 \D 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i g ~ i ~ i i i i i ~ i ~ i i i i i g a= ~ 8 ~ w ~ ~ = ~ ~ .. I :;: .. = = o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi I i I I I ~ I I I I ~ ~ i I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I ; I I I I I I-I I I I I I I ; ~ I I '" . . . .:J ~ " ~ .~ .. .~ ~ .. = .. (!) ~~ UJ H ~ ..:IE-! UJt! ~u r.1P E-!E-! ~~ ~ ! a g .. 1 ~ ..I : ~ t ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~ a ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ft ~ ~ '" .. ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ a . ::!i~~~B~~~~8~~g:g~;:~I~~:I=~~:8i;;~:~~ i~g:= !i!~ J :il~~~i~l;g!:a~a~i~~~~~~~~~;~a:ii~~~ii;lai!l; ~ ~ N .. 2 ~ =: ~ 2 .. ~ ::: : ~ ::: .., ~ 2 .. 2 2 ~ 2 2 2 ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ::: ~ ~ an = '" 2 ~ .. ::: I.D := 2 ~ .. ~ w .. ~ .. i ~ 3 ~ H ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ c a U a a = i u = 0 .. :il j ~ I o 0 o .... .... u u u .. ~ .. ; ~ 5 u w .. a o .... u .c U!! ~ .. ~ u .. ".. l:l 1<" a r ~ g ~ >: ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ = :.~ ~ ~ : a ~ .. ~ ~ i H ~: ; i ~ tl a ~ .. =" ~ ~ ~ tl ~'a ~ ~ B ~ i. g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~.. 0 a ~ ~ .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: :: ~ ..~ : ~ :: s : ~ ~: .. ~ ;; ~ ~ .... ~ ~ M ~ S ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ HZ. N ~ M Z 0 N ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~::o I : ~ .. co.. ~ ~ ~ a ~ ::0 : ~ ~ c I e ~ ~" . ~ = ~ ~ .. I a;!! I:! j!! I! i i! i!h! i~!; iii ii, j I ii i! i h,! ~i i i l · u ~ c .. 50.. ~ = 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~ a 0 = i ~ ~ 0 ~ :il j ~ I ~ u.. ~ 0 ~ ; .. : s ~ ~ a L ~ = ~ = 5 c i ~ 0 = .. U "H Ole: MaH i ~~.. ~ ~ I =.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ::0 ~ I I I ; i" = · C:=!:O:5!!j !: ..:il!l!...... .. . 0....:3 H::!"t!..U~ u~o ! ~&sgeg~usa~~g~::o.. ..~~!= ~5~E!B6!i!~~S~a ~!ila a ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ?i 3 .. .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ g g g g g.. · ~ ~ ~ ~ ?i ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ · ; ~ 8 g ~ g g ~ ~ ~ 1 !!~~~!II~!!:~!:~~~~!i~~!~i!!!!!!ii~~i;al~a~i~ &: ............ 0. ,... ,... an '0 ... .... \D ... .... .... N (It \D .. CD rt M rt .... .... CD \D .... .... .... rt rt .... U') ,... ~ .... ::: ... 0. ~ :: ~ ~ = ~ .. .~ a :> .. .. .. .. '" PI ... III '" PI '" PI ~ 0 N M . ~ U') ~ . an ,... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .... I.D ~ ~ ,... CD 0. 0 rt .... N M .. It) '0 \D ~ ... an \D ,... CD N ~ 0. 0 .0 ~ 0 rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ g; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::::::::::~:::: ~ ~ ~ ;J! .... .... '" rl o .. .. '" 0. ~ ::;;:;::::: ~ :: := ~ :;: :: :;: ~ :;; :;: :;: :;: :: ~ ~ := :;: :: :: :;: :: :: :;: :: :;: :: :: :: :;: :: :;: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: o o N .... o '" .... '" Ronald 1. & Maria S. Lefrancois c/o Ronald 1. & Maria S. Lefrancois 4336 Verp1ank PI, NW Washington, DC 20016 Robert H. Geddes PO Box 107 Nantucket, MA 02554 Barbara Vigneau 15 Meadow Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Elisabeth B. & Allen S. Morton 11 00 Sacramento Street AP San Francisco, C 94108 Daniel F. & Constance Driscoll 15 Madaket Road Nantucket, MA 02554 Kimberly A. Frazier, Trustee PO Box 156 Mendham, NJ 07945 Beverly A. Hilts, Trustee PO Box 876 Nantucket, MA 02554 Paul A. & Shelia K. Gargano PO Box 444 W. Hyannisport, MA 02672-0444 Wand Hilts & Elaine Mooney eta1 PO Box 876 Nantucket, MA 02554 Barbara Vigneau 15 Meadow Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Justin Quinn 2 Greg1en Avenue, PMB 11 Nantucket, MA 02554 Richard L. & Joanne E. Cummings 718 NE 11 Ave Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Linda L. Crowley & Bonita Jones PO Box 96 Cumberland Ct., ME 04021 Peggy A. Cariseo, Trustee 548 Sable Oak Lane Indian River, FL 32963 Warren W. Hill 4 South Mill Street Nantucket, MA 02554 Barbara H. Gray 4 Mayhew Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Joyce Chapman c/o Patrick Daniel Conway etal 209 McCormack Read Slingerlands, NY 12159 Meg S. & Timothy H. Callahan, Trs. 2423 Egandale Road Highland Park, IL 60035 Twelve Meadow Lane LLC 8000 Parkside Lane, NW Washington, DC 20012 Fredric M. & Lynn R. Kudish 363 S Meriden Rd Cheshire, CT 06410 Andrew & Sherri Lowell 4 New Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Thomas G. & Susan J. Young 1510 Carr Street Raleigh, NC 27608 Donna Brennan-Brown 21 Berkeley Road Westport, CT 06880 Susan F. Johnson, Trustee 175 Highland Terrace Princeton, NJ 08540 Kathleen S. Tipper 21 Madaket Road Nantucket, MA 02554 Carol Bunevich & John C. Merson PO Box 445 Siasconset, MA 02564 William M. & Lucille F. Pew PO Box 975 Nantucket, MA 02554 Richard G. & Phyllis B. Caton c/o Richard G. & Phyllis B. Caton 149 Main Street Nantucket, MA 02554 Michael K. Holdgate PO Box 869 Nantucket, MA 02554 John C. Merson & Carol Bunevich 10 Mayhew Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Claire E. OKeefe et al 5 Meadow Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Peter J. & Princess A. Devlin 146 Canterbury Drive Lunenburg, MA 01462 Katherine M. Lynch PO Box 1141 Nantucket, MA 02554 Severino J. & Marion T. Rotondo 35 Meadow Lane Harwinton, CT 06791 Richard Grundler i.113 Dorset Street Charlotte, VT 05445 Artell Crowley, IV & Alice B. Crowley 6 New Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Loren E. Brock PO Box 2297 Nantucket, MA 02584 Charles L. & Sandra L. Vincent 406 Neck Road Lancaster, MA 01523 Samuel W. Swayze, III Trustee Teddysc Realty Trust PO Box 412 Nantucket, MA 02554 Jeffrey F. Marks, etux 4 Meadow Lane Nantucket, MA 02554 Hillary C. Anapol 19 Madaket Road Nantucket, MA 02554 Robert H. & Vivian C. Braunohler 8000 Parkside Lane, NW Washington, DC 20012 TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 PHONE 508-228-7215 FAX 508-228-7205 NOTICE A Public Hearing of the NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS will be held at 1:00 P.M., FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2004, IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, TOWN ANNEX BUILDING, 37 Washington Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of the following: ANDREW G. LOWELL AND SHERRI V. LOWELL BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 068-04 Applicants are APPEALING a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated July 28, 2004, under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, in which the Applicants were cited for using the property as an employer dormitory without a special permit and commercial use of the Locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. Applicants state that the commercial use of the property is validly grandfathered as having existed continuously from a time prior to the 1972 enactment of the Zoning By-law to the present without a three year interruption and that the dwelling was not used by more than five employees and thus could not be considered an employer dormitory. Applicants are asking that the Zoning Board of Appeals to overturn the decision of the ZEO. In the alternative, Applicants are seeking relief by SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-33A(4), for the alteration ofthe pre-existing nonconforming uses upon the Locus for commercial storage, warehousing and workshop uses, as they currently exist. The Premises is located at 8R NEW LANE, Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 401.1, Plan Book 20, Page 76, Lot 4. The property is zoned Residential-2. ~\Ml~Q UIr I JVV;---- Nancy 1. Sevr.. hairman - THIS NOTICE IS A V AILABLE IN LARGE PRINT OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF CASE NO.~04 FEE: $300.00 Owner's name(s): Mailing address: Applicant's name(s): Mailing address: Locus address: Andrew G. Lowell and Sherri V. Lowell c/o Reade. Gullicksen. Hanlev & Gifford. LLP Same 6 Y oun2's Way. Post Office Box 2669. Nantucket. Massachusetts 02584 8R New Lane Assessor's Map/Parcel: 41-401-1 Land Court Plan/Plan Book & Page/Plan File No.: Date lot acquired: 5/1/97 Deed Ref./Cert. of Title: 20-76 541-12 Lot No.: 4 Zoning District: R-2 Uses on Lot - Commercial: None_ Yes (describe) Indoor stora2e and workshop Residential: Number of dwellings~ Duplex_ Apartments_Rental Rooms Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72? or 1978-1980 CofO(s)? Yes Building Permit Nos: 959-78 Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: State below or on a separate addendum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Ap~l), Se!;fipn of the Zoning By-law, and supporting details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any ~isting nonconfo.;lWties: c::::J -, CJ ---i I ...... See attached addendum. U Lv . . f"'_ " , 'V o I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the p' and penalties 0 perjury. SIGNATURE: Applicant Attorney/Agent x (If not owner or 0 ner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring this ma er before the Board) ->II FOR ZB OF CE USE Ap~'I":i"t? ~ei)f~~':i.svZ-A ~By: Complete: ies?: BCiJ2J. 41 File~~frrcl~~~biPlanningBOa I mg ___ Fee deposited with Town Treasurer: (OLQ!1By: aiver requested?:_Granted:_I_I_ Hearing notice posted with Town ClerkJO 'Ltt:4 Mailed:-i)1tJ<{ I&M:LJSJ 0L & /017 IQ,t Hearing(s) held on:_/_I_ Opened on:~_I_ Continued to:_I_I_ Withdrawn?:-"-"_ DECISION DUE BY: 1 1 Made: 1 1 Filed w/Town Clerk: 1 / Mailed: / 1 --- --- ---- --- DECISION APPEALED?: 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03 ADDENDUM TO APPEAL AND APPLICATION OF ANDREW G. LOWELL ET AL This appeal and application is filed in response to the issuance of a letter by the Zoning Enforcement Officer (the "ZEO") dated July 28, 2004, purporting to find that the locus is being used in violation of provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By- law (the "By-law"). Specifically, the ZEO cited as violations (a) the use of the building upon the locus as an employer dormitory without a special permit and (b) commercial use of the locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. The locus has been owned by the Lowell family since a time prior to the 1972 adoption of the By-law, and was already in commercial use for exterior storage at that time. In 1978, Andrew E. Lowell was issued a building permit (959-78) for the construction of a dwelling, and the building permit application expressly stated that the structure would also be used for business purposes, including crafts, cabinetry, furniture repair, screen and storm window repair, etc. The certificate of occupancy for this structure was issued on January 2, 1980. Accordingly, under M.G.L., c. 40A, ~7, the use of the structure for business purposes is protected against enforcement, regardless of whether the decision of the Building Inspector in issuing the permit was correct. Andrew E. Lowell retired in 1997, and since that time the structure upon the locus has been leased. The present tenant utilizes portions of the structure for storage and workshop, and houses five employees, one in each of the five bedrooms contained in the structure. The use of the structure for housing five employees does not constitute an employer dormitory. The definition of "employer dormitory" contained in By-law ~139-2 is "a dwelling ... in which sleeping accommodations for more than five persons are provided by one or more employers " This was the language most recently adopted under Article 38 of the 2001 Annual Town Meeting. (Although the present publication of the By-law as issued by the Town Clerk reads "five or more persons" rather than "more than five persons", we have researched the materials kept by the Town Moderator, and the published By-law is in error.) Since only five employees are housed, the use does not constitute an employer dormitory. The present commercial uses upon the locus are similar to those which are protected under M. G. L., c. 4 OA, ~ 7, and those which pre-exist the adoption of the By-lawi to the extent they differ from the protected uses, they constitute normal evolution of the business uses. Accordingly, the owners request action from the Board as follows: 1 . Employer Dormi tory. ~139-31 from the action of present use of the locus for an employer dormitory. The owners appeal under By-law the ZEO in determining that the housing five employees constitutes 2. Commercial Uses. (a) The owners appeal under By-law ~139-31 from the action of the ZEO in determining that the present commercial uses upon the locus for "storage and warehousing" constitute an enforceable zoning violation. (b) In the alternative, the owners request a Special Permit under By-law ~139-33.A(4), for the alteration of the pre- existing and protected nonconforming uses upon the locus for commercial storage and workshop uses as now used. F,\WpL\Lowell\Andrew\8R New Lane\ZBA APP.doc """"""t. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT. ~\\~~"TUC~~/" ~~~ ~)'~ ~~ ...."; ~~ , -?p~ ;Qi \CII: =t-l;-- iCII:: ; . .\-~ - :~ ~ ~~.. '\..;: ~"".$ ~ ("~ -..=- ~$ ~ ()^~... ... ,,' ""/~,oORATf.9~\\'\' 11"11"1"'" TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 37 WASHINGTON STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 508-228-7222 Tele Fax 508-228-7249 July 28, 2004 Andrew and Sherri Lowell 4 New Ln. Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lowell: This office has received a complaint pertaining to your property at 8R New Ln. (Map# 41, Parcel# 401.1). The complaint concerns improper commercial use ofa property located in a commercial zone. A review of the property showed evidence of use of ~he structure as an employee dormitory for a company known as "Design Systems," and for commercial storage and warehousing for both "Design Systems" and the company known as "The Copper Man." The property at 8R New Ln. is located within the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district Pet ~139-6A of the Zoning Code, no.land may be used in any manner except those uses expressly allowed in the district in which such land is located. Within the R-2 district, Employer Dormitories are allowed uses only by exception, and require the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a special permit. No special permit is on file for this use. Commercial storage and warehousing is not an allowed use in the R-2 district. You are bereby found in violation of ~139-6and ~139-7D oftbe Zoning Code. You are ordered to immediately CEASE AND DESIST all commercial use of your property. You are also given 30 days tome for ZBA special permit relief for the Employer Dormitory use. Failure to comply with this order may result in fines of $100.00 per violation, as allowed in 6139-25C(1) of the Zoning Code. Each day the violations continue constitutes a separate offense. , arcu s ein Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Nantucket cc: On file Ifyouare.aggrieved by this noUce. youmay file a Notice of Appeal clJalIenging the declslen ..rthis office within thb'ty (30) days or the receipt of this Jettet'. .:.. -' ~ I- Z IaJ :E I- a: CI A. IaJ C I- '" LI.I ~E-_H=-= . 'g u o =>> ~ I- ut ~ Z cc Z LI. Q z~ :.:Z =- I-C .... - == .. m a :c ... 3 ~ z o ~ o u ~ ~ \ ~ ! l' III~ . ...CD. e CC :E -. - ... :III: c.:I :::a .... =-= CC =-= ... o =-= 51: o .... ~ "i ~ - . o Z >- g c CII a. ::I g g Q .... o CD .... CII g .- .... .- .... .. CD U I- o 00 I m LO m o Z ~ "tl CD 11 o .... r-. cu. 't-. . .f.J' c' CLI: "'0. VI' CLI' CLI' $.. : IX: ::So .f.J . u. ::so $..: .f.J . V). CD ft' :S CLI: .... c. l! ca. .... ....J. ~ ~: 9 ~: 1:: If-' 8 If-: lQ 0: ..... ..c:: E-l o ~IIIZ I- ....:c- Z tl- _Oen O "".CJ - auZZ ; :C~Q i 1; ~~~ l en I- .. en : ~-- ~ l ...c;~o ~~'~en "tl ~ o J.. 0. 0. cl CD :S o .... >. 3 ~ .... lQ ~ lQ lQ a J.. ~ o o N: I: 't-. CD l:l o N .... CD CD J.. .... tI.l "tl ~ lQ lQ ... lQ cl ~ '. cO "'" I' O'! LO,; 0\. o Z .... a J.. CD p.. bO s:l ... "tl :a ~ .g ;a ~ J.. ~ lQ ~ CD a CD .... cl .... lQ "tl CD .... ..... .s w "tl "tl s:l cl s:l ell .... 0. .... o .... :::. CLI: $... "'0. .... c' ~ c(: =' .: ~ $... ell :E:: z cO ..... (l) .-i .; ~ . s..: 11 5 <V >' ~ J.. o >. go o o o o .... r-. r-' CLI' :::: o. ....J. CD lQ o ~ 0. :f ~ .... .... ~ CD ..c:: .... J.. ~ 'C3 CD J.. CD ..c:: .... o .... "tl ~ lQ lQ .... 1:: cl 0. J.. o :f :a :a ..0 J.. o lQ CD lQ a CD J.. 0. "tl ..... cl lQ CD lQ :::s lQ .... CD J.. ~ CD J.. CD ..c:: .... CD ~ o 9 .... J.. CD o lQ ... ..c:: E-l I 1&1 ~ .... .... ~ ~ 1&1 l- II. ~ ~~ 70 C!) j -J LU :3: q >- -J ...... ~ u. . I.J.J c3 2i I'--<' VI 0' LUZ 1-0 I-en -~ ~LU ~~ LUen A.~ ~~ ~~ ~II. en lU A .... o s:l ~ o - E-lV: ~ 1 ~ o N II .... .... o lQ l:l o .... lQ .~ o J.. 0. CD ..c:: .... .... .... cl ..c:: ~ ~ CD o l:l ~ J.. o o o cl s:l .... "tl s:l cl o .... ~ <Il ..... ..0 :::s lQ Ill: o ... u W A- ut Z o z Q ...a :5 I:Q . J.. . 0 :~ :8. . lQ .,s :bIl . s:l ::g - ~--a- :~ ,J 1 0: 00. 0)- r-: ~ ~ ., I~ ~.~ u o .... o IU ... ~ u u:: i= ~ w U . ... N' N: >) $... ItS. ::so c' ItS: '":). -d <Il ~ ~ 409 1.2 A IJ.J ~~L o O.t ~il 7 _ u .~ S'I QIh9a ~~ < l''197 - r ~ IF; ....1 _..J r".:,; :::-;,0 CA',; ::\ ~C;~ I.,.,.:. ' ~".!3,.~,;7;"7G~;,<' '" ~... .- 1- 1?*-~*7 ~o' ;~' " -'n .1'''''''',0 ;"... .;,'1/11 A 41 {J I '.,J - t-j-.;ft ~C" s'T' ~~:7 56 h -', . 'Vl~. --...... .. .~.:.jlt7;r4 " '" I.<k.l ~',.~., " _",..... """':1'" ;k>' "I t1i~, . -W~, ~ " ' ~ ,1, . '~~, J . oI.~r 5HEET I;.;DF.X 99 I --I Ir~ ' ,t~,~ n~, ~i!+ i ,-.'. ~+ :4-., r-':;"'{ I ~:.L t ;!:j~ I ,1/iJU,,.i4, " I hot.in'. 'Q....~-:i..o....< 1.....,.\\.. ,'" '1 . ~~,.~;,:f..:r:~.. :. ': i I 4t- ; , - " I ~HE~~:' i rr- .I , .~_:~ .~ .. i ":2 J .. ..,'. 419'/00 Town of Nantucket ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED BOARD OF ASSESSORS AUG 2 3 2004 rOVVN OF NANTUCKET, MA LrST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST TN THE MAnER OF THE PETrrION OF . . 4n.J~ ~<v(1 PRO P ER TY 0 WON E R... .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . , ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . , .. . . . , . , , .. .. MAILiNG AOliRESS......,.. c:4....~~..,....."..........,.,...".... PROPER TV LdCATlON...........~ .e".... New...~........,...... A,SS ES so R S NtA PIP A R CEL. .. ...... :'i!. .~.. " ~p I. :J. '.. . . ......, .. ". . "Ii..' A APPLICANT..,. ~ 0/.. r:ii~4ru..fm. ,t. 'i~.r..':?'I' .. ,J SEE A1TACHED PAGES I e.nift ,hll 'h. foregoiog is o Ii" ofp....o., who arc own." Ofabutting p"'p.ny. O....rs of. land dire" Iy opPo,;<o 00 any pu ~Ii. Or PrivOl. II..., or "'Y; Olld .bu..... of the .bullen ..d .11 Other land l>~ne" "'Ithin J 00 fee, of th. P"'Petty Ii.. of ownor', P"'Petty, .11 .. 'hoy .Pp.... On the l'l10S1 r~cent applicllble ta;ll lisl (M.G.L. c, 40A, S~(ion 1) Zoning Code Chapler J 39. ' Section 139.29D (2) 7:.., ..1C; tXpo. r- DATE . ~d?A .'.SSESSOR'S OFFICE TOwn ofNancuckel \0 'liP ... .., 0 CD .., ... .., 0 CD M 0 .., .., .., &t1 .., .. ... 0. .., .. rot '" an an \D 0 '" t\I LI) II) 0 \D .., LI) LI) an .. LI) \D an U'I '" U1 ~g~~~~~~~~:~~:~~~~~~~~~~ H NOOOC'1NOOOO~MOOOOOOOO"'OO " '" .. no an ... .. N ... .., 0 .. .., t\I .., .. ... ... '" .. .. ... M .. N M It) aft rot LI) '" ... It) an \D an an Ol an .. &t1 an C>> N &t1 " o '" W) 0 It) W) .. It) U1 .. ." II) r- an .. LI) ." ." an U'I 0 o N NON N \D t\I N ... N N \D N r.n N (Of (Of r4 N 0 \D 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N t g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g = ~ 0 ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i s s s : ! ! Is d a BB h ! I s is s lis B Iii ! s s I s Bi s P ! i ! i i 5 i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ; = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ i i ~ a B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i '" . . . j t> a .~ ... .~ ~ ... = ... (!J ~~ {/) H ' HE-f {/)t! PlU r:ilO E-fE-f ~~ ~ !~ ~ l:l .. ! ~ ..! lq ti ~3i! ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ !3 3~ ~e3 :i!03;~~~:'l ~ ~t a 3~3:'l~",..:'l3: ~..~~a ::Z:3:;~~ill'" :l :l:1ij!ilij:::.~:e~;!!:!!:~,,:e~:.;. a~~ill ~3ij~ !il:! : :1~i:~ii;lg!~~I~i~~i~ii~;~i~ii:~i!!iii;;~i!l: j ~ '" .. 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 .. ::: ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ::: 2 .. 2 2 ~ 2 2 2 ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .. 2 ::: .. ~ '" ~ 2 ~ .. ~ ~ .. JIl ~ ~ .. .. .. " ~ ~ .. .. ~ '" u i .. i u o .... u u ~ .. a .. ., ~ ~ I ~ i ! ~ :! o o .... u u .. ~ .. ~ ~ u :il ~ 5 o .... u ~ .. ~ ~ l:l u a a ~ .. .. u ~ m ~ >" ~ .. s ~ ~ '" .. :.~ ~ ~ : a ~ .JIl ~ ~ ~ ~ i a ~ ~ a a I i ~ ta= ~ ~ ~ I ~'a ~ ~ ~ a ~ i- ~ ! ~ ., ~ .. ~ g ~ J : ~ ~ .. : ~ g g e ~ = I" '" ~ ~ ~ a ~ : ~.. .... ~. ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ I :c . M H X M > ~ ~ ~ .. I: .."" ~ ~ .. ~ ~"..: ~ ....::" :1 ~ u....:. a ~ ~ a ... ~ ~ ; J =511:il~l;iii~~g~~!j~!!~;~~i~ili~lli5~~g~iii: · 8 ~ " .. 0" I" s ~ ~ i ~ ~ a ~ = I a ~ 10 ~ ~ i .. ~ iO .. " .. " .. ~ ~ ~ g .. : s .. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~,,~!:;2;:j o~~u ..... >~ ;s~ 3~~:." ~o~.......!i!~e;g~~ ~ ~ ~&s~~~~B~ iaS~~~~~~~uEE aB~E~~iis~i~~iGB~j~~~ a ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 :'l :'l :'l :'l :'l :'l :'l :'l :'l ~ :'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . :'l ill :'l :'l :'l :'l ill ill ill ill ill ill = ill ill ill = ~ ill ij :'l ~ ~ ~ ill ~ 1 ~ ~ ; ; ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ; ; ; i i i i ~ i i i i i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ : ~ ~ ::: 0. r- ~ "l '0 ., ~ ~ ~ "" ~ ::= ~ \D .. C>> = PI := ~ ~ CD '" ~ ~ := ~ ~ ~ if) ,... ~ ~ ~ ... 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ .. il p ... ... .. '" PI ...... "'PI "'PI ... : ~~::~::::~~~:~gs:::~::g~sa~~~~~~:~===:~:~.~~ga ~ H NNC"INNNNt\lNNNNNN",(f')C'1(f')C'1C'1t'1C'1....................................,,"lll)lI)an\DtD rl rl o ... III M rl '" '" ;; ~ ~ ;: :;: ;: :;: ~ ~ ~ ;; ; :; :;; :;; :;: ~ :;; :;: :;: :;: :;; :; :;; :;: :;: :;; :;: :;: :: ::: :: ::: ::: :: ::: :;: :: :: :: :;: ~ ::: ::: ::: ::: o o '" .... o M .... '" ARTHUR I. READE, JR., P.C. KENNETH A. GULLICKSEN MARIANNE HANLEY WHITNEY A. GIFFORD READE, GULLICKSEN, HANLEY & GIFFORD, LLP SIX YOUNG'S WAY NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 508-228-3128 FAX: 508-228-5630 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 2669 NANTUCKET,MASS.02584 August27,2004 BY HAND Office of the Town Clerk Town of Nantucket 16 Broad Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Re: Andrew G. Lowell & Sherri V. Lowell 8 R New Lane Dear Catherine: Enclosed please find an Application for Relief and related documents as being filed with the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals today. We are still waiting for the abutter's list from the Assessor's office. Therefore, a copy of the abutter's list and labels will be delivered to you at a later date. In the meantime, please date stamp the extra set of documents enclosed and return to our office. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincer~IY, ~d~~;?:~ Ii';' Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP <, '... Ilmt Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. Andrew G. Lowell 4 New Lane Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Ms. Linda Williams Zoning Board of Appeals Town Building Annex Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 d ~::::- :1) :==- c= CIJ N -oJ -;J ,''-J Mr. Marcus Silverstein Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Nantucket 37 Washington Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 F:\WpL\Lowell\Andrew\8R New Lane\townclerk.doc w NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 FEE: $300.00 CASE NO. -04 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF Owner's name(s): Mailing address: Applicant's name(s): Mailing address: Locus address: Andrew G. Lowell and Sherri V. Lowell c/o Reade. Gullicksen. Hanlev & Gifford. LLP Same 6 Youne's Way. Post Office Box 2669. Nantucket. Massachusetts 02584 8R New Lane Assessor's Map/Parcel: 41-401-1 Land Court Plan/Plan Book & Page/Plan File No.: Date lot acquired: 5/1/97 Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 20-76 541-12 Lot No.: 4 Zoning District: R-2 Uses on Lot - Commercial: None_ Yes (describe) Indoor storaee and workshop Residential: Number of dwellings --L Duplex _ Apartments_Rental Rooms Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72? or 1978-1980 CofO(s)? Yes Building Permit Nos: 959-78 Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: State below or on a separate addendum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Appeal), Section of the Zoning By-law, and supporting details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any existing nonconformities: See attached addendum. I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the p' and penalties 0 perjury. SIGNATURE: Applicant Attorney/Agent x (If not owner or 0 ner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring this matter before the Board) FOR ZBA OFFICE USE Application received on:~_I_ By: Complete: Need copies?: Filed with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Planning Board:_I_I_ Building Dept.:_/~_ By: Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:~_I_ By: Waiver requested?:_Granted:_/~_ Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_/~_ Mailed:_I_I_ I&M:_I_I_ & _1_1_ Hearing(s) held on:_/~_ Opened on:~_I_ Continued to:_I_I_ Withdrawn?:~~_ DECISION DUE BY: 1 1 Made: 1 1 Filed w/Town Clerk: 1 1 Mailed: 1 1 DECISION APPEALED?: 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03 ADDENDUM TO APPEAL AND APPLICATION OF ANDREW G. LOWELL ET AL This appeal and application is filed in response to the issuance of a letter by the Zoning Enforcement Officer (the "ZED") dated July 28, 2004, purporting to find that the locus is being used in violation of provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By- law (the "By-law"). Specifically, the ZED cited as violations (a) the use of the building upon the locus as an employer dormitory without a special permit and (b) commercial use of the locus for commercial storage and warehousing in a residential district. The locus has been owned by the Lowell family since a time prior to the 1972 adoption of the By-law, and was already in commercial use for exterior storage at that time. In 1978, Andrew E. Lowell was issued a building permit (959-78) for the construction of a dwelling, and the building permit application expressly stated that the structure would a~so be used for business purposes, including crafts, cabinetry, furniture repair, screen and storm window repair, etc. The certificate of occupancy for this structure was issued on January 2, 1980. Accordingly, under M.G.L., c. 40A, ~7, the use of the structure for business purposes is protected against enforcement, regardless of whether the decision of the Building Inspector in issuing the permit was correct. Andrew E. Lowell retired in 1997, and since that time the structure upon the locus has been leased. The present tenant utilizes portions of the structure for storage and workshop, and houses five employees, one in each of the five bedrooms contained in the structure. The use of the structure for housing five employees does not constitute an employer dormitory. The definition of "employer dormitory" contained in By-law ~139-2 is "a dwelling '" in which sleeping accommodations for more than five persons are provided by one or more employers " This was the language most recently adopted under Article 38 of the 2001 Annual Town Meeting. (Although the present publication of the By-law as issued by the Town Clerk reads "five or more persons" rather than "more than five persons", we have researched the materials kept by the Town Moderator, and the published By-law is in error.) Since only five employees are housed, the use does not constitute an employer dormitory. The present commercial uses upon the locus are similar to those which are protected under M. G. L., c. 4 OA, ~ 7, and those which pre-exist the adoption of the By-law i to the extent they differ from the protected uses, they constitute normal evolution of the business uses. Accordingly, the owners request action from the Board as follows: 1 . Employer Dormi tory. ~139-31 from the action of present use of the locus for an employer dormitory. The owners appeal under By-law the ZEO in determining that the housing five employees constitutes 2. Commercial Uses. (a) The owners appeal under By-law ~139-31 from the action of the ZEO in determining that the present commercial uses upon the locus for "storage and warehousing" constitute an enforceable zoning violation. (b) In the alternative, the owners request a Special Permit under By-law ~139-33.A(4), for the alteration of the pre- existing and protected nonconforming uses upon the locus for commercial storage and workshop uses as now used. F,\WpL\Lowell\Andrew\8R New Lane\ZBA APP.doc """"""l BillLDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT. ~'\\~~MTUC';~', ~~~ )>~ ~..... .. ~ ~~ -s.~ ~~;' \~~ = ....~-. ;CIl:: ;. -~ -~ :-. ~ --' ~ ~.- ~~.. ~- '{\.....$ ~ (\~ -..=>-' co ~ ~ VA~... Ii: ,"i '/"jPORA1l \) ~\\~ ""11"11"'" TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 37 WASHINGTON STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Telephone 508-228-7222 Tele Fax 508-228-7249 July 28, 2004 Andrew and Sherri Lowell 4 New Ln. Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lowell: This office has received a complaint pertaining to your property at 8R New Ln. (Map# 41, Parcel# 401.1). The complaiil.tconcerns improper commercial use of a property located in a commercial zone. A review of the property showed evidence of use ofthe structure as an employee dormitory for a company known as "Design Systems," and for commercial storage and warehousing for both 44Design Systems" and the company known as "The Copper Man." The property at 8R New Ln. is located within the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district Pet ~139-6A of the Zoning Code, no land may be used in any manner except those uses expressly allowed in the district in which such land is located. Within the R-2 district, Employer Dormitories are allowed.uses only by exception, and require the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a special permit. No special permit is on file for this use. Commercial storage and warehousing is not an allowed use in the R-2 district. You are hereby found in violation of~139-6 and~139-7D of the Zoning Code. You are ordered to immediately CEASE AND DESIST all commercial use of your property. You are also given 30 days tome for ZlJA special permit relief for the Employer Dormitory use. Failure to comply with this order may result in fines of $100.00 per violation, as allowed in ~139-25C(1) of the Zoning Code. Each day the violations continue constitutes a separate offense. , arcu stein Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Nantucket cc: On file Ifyou.are.aggrieved by this notice. YOUJIlllY file a Notice of .Appeal maDenging thedeclsien bfthis office within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this letter. I- Z 11.I =s l- II: CI A. 11.I CI .... ut ..... -a--~. ~ u o =- ~ .... ~ z cc Z LI. Q zc:2 == Z. Q- ....CI ...I - ::1 m I) :z:: to- ~ ~ z o ~ u \\1 ~~ ~ I od "i ~ - l' --+.:: ~ . CD CD CC :E ilia - ... =-= u :::a ... :2 CC :2 .... D :2 :I D ... . a Z >- u c .. a. ::I u U C -- o CD .... .. u .- -- .- .... .. CD U I- o <X) I en LO en ~ ~ 'tl II) ~ o o ..... . r-. IU. 'r-. . ....,. c' Q): "0. (I)' Q). Q). s..: 0::: ::so ....,. o. ::so s..: ....,. tn. II) "" ~ Q): ~ c. ..c: IU. .... -I. to II) 5 t CD o to ;a 8 o ..!.,LUZ I- ....:c- Z ::I-en o ..c(Q~ - ...,zz ; :c..c(E ~ 1: ~~~ A. 1 en I- ~ 1 ~~o ~ ~ . IU en 'tl ~ o '" 2: <\I II) ..c: .... o .... >. ..... :3 ~ .... to -8 to to a '" ~ o o N: . ,. 'r-. II) s:: o N :::: Q). z. Cf-' \1-: o. .... II) CD '" ..., lI.l 'tl CD ::l to to ... to <\I ~ co: ,.... ,. 01 LO; 0'\. o Z ::: a '" II) p.. ~ ... 'tl :s ~ ..c: o ;a ~ '" oS to t= CD a II) .... tIS .... to 'tl II) ..... ... <\I ..., II) 'tl 'tl s:: tIS s:: <II ..... 0. .... o ..... r-. r-' Q)' 3: o. -I. 3. Q): s... "0. ~ c. ~ ct:: :s .: t= s... tIS :E:: z cO "- en P"I ~ ,.., . s..: ~ 6 <J) ::>I C1. Z '" o >. go o o o o .... o .... 'tl ~ to to ... to ... II) to o ~ 0. bG s:: ... ~ ..... ..... oS II) ~ '" oS .... o CD '" II) ..c: .... .... '" <\I 0. '" o ~ :a :s .t:l '" o to II) to a II) '" 0. 'tl .... <II (Q II) to ::l II) '" oS II) '" II) ..c: .... CD ~ o 5 t II) o to ... ..c: 8 I LU ~ .... .... ..c( ~ LU l- II. ..c( >-tI:! ....0 '7. .. c.!J j -' l.J.j :3: C:). >- -J ...... ~ u.. w cl 2; - VI QI LUZ 1-0 I-en -..c( ~LU ~~ LUen A...c( ~~ ~..c( ~II. en ......" .... o s:: ~ ..: r1 fY o N II) ..c: .... .... o to s:: o ... to .;: o '" 0. J! .... ..... ..... <\I ..c: ::: ~ II) o s:: ~ '" 8 o <II d ... 'tl s:: <\I o .... t3 CD :g (Q ~ o t- o W A- Il) ~ o z Q ::! ~ IIQ . '" . 0 "t3 . II) :0. . to .OS :bG . s:: .:a ...... ~---~ . ::l :,:Q ,) J 0: 00. m- r-: ~ ~ ., I~ z~ ~.~ u o II. o W t- oe:( u ii: t: IlII: W U . ... N' N: >; s... ItS. ::so c' ra: 'J. 'tl CD ~ Q 409 1.2 A -.J '.\.. ,j . ~r .-'-~~ ~~~'~...;.;. , :'f~ ~~ lL',.~; ."'.", "" ~9aJ ls>;~ I.:>~l",: J I h;~ .:~" r::-~ 31.!3? ,~-:;iT:"'T;;,., .. f'A~l3h~3"l~~ilrrbi,. '1-~~': r "7156]' , ;;',' ~'-;1,.~~::-:~.' '~'.:7 ':-;;';:'-~- .~, , ' ,,'~' ';"'1 ' . . ,I irT' 'l'~ , 1'1 J I I .~ 1\ I \-...,..,....,. , r-::-~! - ~,~ 4--", ~..'::.{ I ~:.~__ i'l;'~;~ I ,1~Jllq tI; ',' ..ti~. !~.::j'ir.il"'.!\: . .~~'.~~?'~~":r-~~' .,,- '.: ., I 41- ~ L_...~...~.. "HE!! '~~~. i r'~ SHF.ET I;;DEX 99 1 B f":OEl ~...~,,~~.t~ Pct~~~~'.~..;.'.} 7!f I ';::'" . ei( ..!"I....T. :.,.,' . Co) \ r~ ~ _.n' ~~~;ff:' '.:j :'. 1:7 '\ , ~~..:"- - 8 E;: a '" ... !-' !-'. a f ~ o · ~ CL...s ~ i W i ~ ~ { ~ I ~ i' h i' ~ ~ ~ II g 3.c: 8. f. ~ R' li'_ ~ ~ ~ i ~ :5.. 1:5_ g '. .. '.'Oi ;'~"'IIi"'a I · · ~ " i i I: I: [I' i ~ t ! q . ;: ~ . 1.1 ' II i a Ii 2 g-a g,8.8.;9:!l~li!l. &. i i.. f · l' ~ ~ .. ... I f I l i i " f ' I i l ~ i j ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ It... , l ' ~ ...... , i r :r ~ a '; ~ i ~ · i ! f ~ i 0 ;: I! , ! i ~ f ! ~1 i" Ii · i;,., \J. t ~ ~ .; ~ ~~ '''! ~~!.If ~ [ i [ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ i \\ :\i: i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ b ~ 11 a - .,.. 11.. \j:x." ': ~ i_: : )--,:. : : :L?b...1l 10 ~ ' I ; ~ ~- >< " ... }>: . ~, ~'. ,_ ;::-llll' ! ! ! "';>< '" '" ~ \ '~~ t ~ i ~ "~" ~~;,. i a ~ ~ ~' . t'. . ' . !~ .~H L!.. bt,. r ~ ~!' . r q ~ . ':: :.:.~.:.':"i :?J ~ j t ~ ~ ~ j~ \ ~ \ j ~ ; ~ I ~ ! " ,...;"" "~ ' , I · i.;..., "1. , '!'- I . t ~ m : .g. .g> f i i i ~ ~~~~ ~ : a f e J :~;. ~J ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ " l. l. · .I. ,; " ",;. · ~ ,. ~ ~ , '" '" J . r if ~ if ~ ~ g 8 8 8: ~ . ." . .~ 3 :<;.. ....1... 8 : . ~ ~ .. n fl fl fl : . ~ jCfj \ \;~. i !", ! ~d ~. 'l . 3. !l !l !l .. ~ i : ~ . :iV . ..:.. ".""'~'. \ If : : !i !i !i ~ :; . : . :c ~.: ::. ~ ~ ~.~. ::~l ~. ~. :.'~. ~:., i-i . :\. . : . : : : . : i & :... . "II \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : \ ~ :- [\ ;: ~ i: : : : : : : :t-...: : ~ Ii ~:. : -:\:'.: :,:.... ~ ~ : 1'": :: :~ ~ : [ L ~ ;"Ii' j~ j ~ ~ j j if f 1 .......... ro... '\\" . : \ '''' . ~~. :.c':. '" Ii' ..... ' .; ~. ~ I' : : "" : '" ~ ~..,' : . : :.'1 . : 0 Ii..:,: Er ;..:,:: g. :,: : : '. ~ : : -: ~:~: : ~ :: :~:V): Ii" ~ .~-: Il ~: ..... F I ~.:. f :: :. ':. '..:: ',:. ',:. :: g : :: ,:.:. ~ g, ~':~f ~ :.,,: ~... ! . ~ g lI" ~:' i. <. i ~ . e ~. .~ ... \, f , , . , , , , ~ i ,', j . ~ ; t ;"! ' ; .i .~ .. · " .... r f ! ~!. :.:.:. l ~;'l\ I ~\ ! ",-t . s " · ~. !;"'.!, ~ .. p · · ~ ~ ! ! t ! ~1 [i ~: \: :::: : ~ : : C'l ..; z trl ~ ~ : ~ :~: ~ : : ~ lIIl i- i ~: i f \: \. j: \:~: : ~ : : l: ~ a i : : : : :~ : : ~: t-\ ~ 1\.1 t\: ., . . ~ a ~ ~ ~ ;9 ~ ..' ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ i ~.. ~.. ! d n n i · !\j P I ~ V,~H ~. N Ii .... - ~!.. '" ;;, '" .~ .~ ..~:. ~ .rG ~ ...... ~ I ~. :L. K 1- . 5 . .g> .g> .g> '" ~ 1 :.:.....:: a C'l :W 41 :-.1 i ~. :.~: :' r II 40.; . ; II: II:. ~: II ~::. .::: :':. :~: :~: ~ ~ :11" . :.....r. I D .t\d:_:-""'l'----!...[ ;\04 ~ . . \ ~ · ~~' lEt: ! I h ~j ~r~ ~~j <~~j l L \~~m ::,ji'" · · · ~~ ~~. k Ii ,,~ :;5 : ': ~~ h f\ ;(.:! i: ~ ~. . :" ; ! . . I ;\;)! ~ . ,~ l ...".., '" '" ...40,... '<:l. .'(,. ",." I. 'tr ~ "'!:O ~ l : '-: : ',: . l =a.. ~: ~ : : I ~ ~ :' .. ;.. ~-2 N ).. ~ :.~ t .. '" l ~ ,,: ,. , ~,-(. !'-(;! ! . '" "" . . .".;:l\1 ;\os "'. , 1 ~ ~ t ~!~,! L,,! !,,;' \' , ~ ~ t<-! l.,...""N '! \~'! j..! '" l ' · · , :,,"'l' ~" , . .\ "';,..! 'N~!"'" !! \I:!!O';!~ r; :b.; .g : :"'"-: <L: : :: 2.....~: :(' '\ f' ;;:;': :: :\ :IE: '-'- _; ::1\. " ... -'I.. .... ". . 0 ~. . .,/. ",,-.. . .... :1'. "n. EO!; ''\' ' , ,,' . , " ., ~, ... .". " "r' ',,'. "". r' !r- ; '.;-. !>:;! , ;' ";r' 1 .. :. :. ;; ;;j., ;," "--I . . e .:~ . \: : :. ~ : '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:t :: . ',~ \ l \ j j ~ ~ ~ ~ . . i.. '2: o - :I n a :I ... a .. a - .. -c ~ ~~ ~ : , :"'-.) ~ . -. .. ::r .. ::r _ . .. .. n= a n a S- a .. a :I :I I · Do . . ow -. :fog a - ... .. .. Sa . - - I: -= . Do n ::r a I: .. - - . - .... ..- - .. - .. . .. - - c: - - Do - :I .. n a ... - ~ I ..t o ....-- o ~ ~ '0' ~ t ;.. E '0' ~~;lf ~ ~o.!1o.g ;, r 04.;:'" ::& e, J -. ;: 8' I 11.1 E g I W if ro' S i if .. 'v\i s' it ~ (; e.; ~ ~. 6- r .f~"Hj i t f 1 "I .... " . a I.. .. .. : ~ . ~ ~tJ ~ .h :' " :' Iii f! ~~r ii :; It :: f i ~: is' ~. ,'l fj'~;! ~~~ti ~1~1 ~/~ : : r~ I /".;-~.-' :: if ~ 11 III J I ;;I .g- O' H !1 i " ~ 1 ~ .. ft I ~ !- 51 ~ .. 3 1 i B.. a: 0. D 1. !: tt. I g .!l, : :i. t:: if eo a. , ~ i ....f g Sl. ~ go if ff i tl ~ B '" ~ C) III S ~ ~ ~ e, l e: E R 1 ~ Il. fro f .!l, ~ If!::;:t~~ IfI"R ~~1l1 "li1~". f~a "~R" Q. H lit .I::f I: .... ~"g! ~~D 5~a 4"~ &'8:~ g;.ff as.<.[ Slit~ :J ~ S. ~ _. .!! ~'Jr 811 :.~ JUl" " :z: g- g ~" '!!l" If g gg. if .g"~ q Co Q. ~~" Il- l R e: 1 E a R .. &' s" a g i e: .. .. if .. ~ g ~ ~ f f .. R &' a ~ .!l, e 5" 0' " t:: 0. s" ~ .'" ~ ~ ~ .g I: 1- .. go ~ ~ ~. , ~ if .fJl :'- .f..j !'.J ~ i ~ !-' ~ ~ t;;;; Iri ~ iJ1 i;f ~ I.i' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ff! f & 'R~ ~ (;;..'! ~ ~ ~~ ~ K! ~ g "i "ro' 'l7._ ~. 'R ~ ~ ~Ii i g ~.. e ~1g.9 i 1 ;' (') ga;.. ~ if e,::;;.. f'5'1"~::: ~ e-S"~ !ij t '" ro' ~ I .g"..... ~Rif8: ~S'.. ggog"~ 91...B.f'!.g' 1I! ~S'f{g ~ ~~ I. I I 8: I I ::;; "Ii t Ii: .. .g' .. ff ~ H. ~5 l tll~p.~ ; 9l 1 din! 8 ~ ~ f:n If .. .. g" ;. 9 I ~ fA "ti ~ 1 1! ! ~ I ,'i)~:~ 0' if if" t ~ .!' I'):~".. 1 f ' G. f. 1. f"~ :~ l' 6 6 .M ~ f n.1!1 ~ I ~ ir..JO Ii' I':. ,. M I: t:: c:: &' :.:.. It if r: a". '8 ~ a fa / g go go :!l B. .. tf- : "lflf~[;: N.!l,1l !/j.g'.g'aa '!!. ~~ ;"'-'t:~!. ! i/'!:in' l....~O'jf.:. ~ n.R!:i i;;. e "~: ~ .. '" "Q:fflf.~: ;;' a 0' c: :!'....: r./:. .. '!!.~Q '. ...~. ~''-' rea 0'" : f ~1j"" :~.:;, : "it: ~ *: ~ : \.: . ''...J': : i It);Ji .~; !~} ~~~~.: b' ! c 11 5' I':,. .,,~~: _ 11 e "': f : \.: . l' : : ~ Q." : g. F' , f : ~ ;;' t . ~ 9" 'f 1. .;,~~ : \ [; I ~ ::.~ ~ :v :"''':' , ~ ~ 'II <:. 't.t 'ii!' ~ . f: E; l;. :!!? : :.~:"" ~: d . i 1- p ~. ~.'~ }' i .'J._~rNt. ~'i'f !~';~! 1 j ~ ,-;.; ;~;', ;<4 . . ..., . 'J:"~'. .. ~ . ~ ,~: : :.:! : ~ ~. .:v! t~ a ^ '~ ; ,: ' '- '" . , . a &'l ~ C? ~ \i: : : :(I7:'i: S' : tr.: I l'l:~ : : : ,'Ii ~ i ":!iJ I f. of CJ,f .f. :/ ~~ ~ j ~~! I f5 ~ :~. l ~l: ~ :~ :~ g -5. ! .f! :'1;' : AI: ,., : f\ - : t-.: ". :" :\'0' : . 'g :,: e : : l '''.. f: ; ~ : : .:.. c:. t f t ~ ... C) if €:i r ~ o I ;.. l') a '" ~ "< III ~ ~ ~ ~ "i ;.. S g CJ S ~ W ~ Iri f\!~ f. og> , : : ,. ~ .'0 : . : ,:'0<.. : , ,. if :R . Ii- ff. : :~ :~f~! !y.., : .,., ! ',: . !~ !~-;