HomeMy WebLinkAbout082-06
TOWN 'OF NANTUCKET
':"l ::-",
,
" '..-n......
. ~-~ .
BOARD OF APPEALS
.o'v!:; t.10" -6 D >, :!~ ~
" ~ ~ ; _ ;...J
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date: }Jd tJ~{rn W (?v ftJ , 200(/
To: Parties in Interest and, others concerned with the
----DecisIon" of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:.
-'"'
Application No.:
og;);-O~
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
. Ie
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
~,Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
fiiing an complaint in court within TWENTY (20) days after
this day's date. Notice of the action with a copy of the
com~laint and certified copy of the necision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
(20) days.
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
~uilding CommissJoner
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); 9139-321 (VARIANCES)
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
VBDC LLC, Property Owner )
Shawkemo Hills Association Trust, Appellant )
Assessor's Map 44, Parcel No. 132
57 Shawkemo Road
Certificate of Title No. 20884
Land Court Plan 35819-E, Lot 9
Zoning District: Limited-Use-General-3 (LUG-3)
Ackquire Group, LLC, Property Owner )
Shawkemo Hills Association Trust, Appellant )
Assessor's Map 44, Parcel No. 130
59 Shawkemo Road
Certificate of Title No. 21687
Land Court Plan 35819-E, Lot 10
Zoning District: Limited-Use-General-3 (LUG-3)
DECISION
File No. 081-06
File No. 082-06
1. On Friday, October 13,2006, at 1:00 P.M., following notice duly given as
required by Nantucket Zoning By-law ~ 139-31 C, the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals (the
"Board") held public hearings in these matters at the Conference Room at 2 Fairgrounds Road,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, after which the Board made the following Decisions. The hearings
were combined, but the Board took separate votes as to each matter.
2. These appeals arise out of requests for zoning enforcement with respect to the
properties referenced above, which requests for enforcement were made by counsel for the
Shawkemo Hills Association Trust, c/o Tani P. Mauer, 2 Bamboo Lane, Far Hills, New Jersey
07931 (the "Trust"), by letters to the Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer dated June 28,
BOSlll_ZBA DEC, ACKQUIRE. OCT. 2006 APPEAL UPHELD,DOCfNP1CKERING
2006. The Trust's requests for zoning enforcement were denied by letters from the Nantucket
Zoning Enforcement Officer dated July 13,2006. The Zoning Enforcement Officer concluded
that "Lot 9 meets all dimensional requirements for a buildable property within the Limited Use
General-3 zoning district, including frontage in excess of200-feet." He also concluded that Lot
1 0 has "total frontage combined with Lot 9 exceed[ing] the 400-feet required for two lots (~139-
16B(3)b) . . . and a notice of frontage reduction has been recorded against the deed for Lot 10
(~139-16B(3)d)" and therefore Lot 10 is "a buildable lot with reduced frontage." The Trust
appealed both decisions of the Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer to the Board, pursuant to
Mass. G.L.c. 40A, ~15 and Nantucket Zoning By-law ~139-31, on August 11,2006.
3. The Trust seeks to reverse the decisions of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, to
revoke building permits issued to Ackquire Group in May and June 2005 for improvements to
Lot 10, and a declaration that Lot 9 and Lot 10 are not buildable lots pursuant to Nantucket
Zoning By-law ~ 139-16 (Intensity regulations - frontage).
4. The only materials which the Trust submitted to the Board in support of its
appeals were attached to its Applications for Relief filed with the Board on August 11, 2006. On
September 22, 2006, VBDC LLC, of 18085 Breezy Point Road, Woodland, MN 55391, the
owner of Lot 9 on Land Court Plan 35819-E ("VBDC"), submitted a letter opposing the Trust's
appeals and attached materials, including an Affidavit of Kevin Dale. On September 29,2006,
Ackquire Group, LLC, of37 Old South Road, Suite 6, Nantucket, MA 02554, the owner of Lots
10 and 12 on Land Court Plan 35819-E ("Ackquire Group"), submitted a letter opposing the
Trust's appeals and a sworn statement from Jeffrey Blackwell of Blackwell & Associates, Inc., a
registered land surveyor. On October 2, 2006, VBDC and Ackquire Group submitted a copy of a
Notice of Reduction of Frontage, recorded at Nantucket Land Court as Document No. 117751.
-2-
BOSlll_BOSll U2082748_ 4,DOCfNPICKERING
At the public hearings, counsel for Ackquire Group used several blow-ups to illustrate his
arguments, and submitted reduced copies of those blow-ups to the Board. At the public hearings,
co-counsel for VBDC used several blow-ups to illustrate her arguments, and submitted reduced
copies of those blow-ups to the Board. At the public hearings, co-counsel for VBDC referred to
three letters he had received from counsel for the Trust (dated December 16,2005, January 5,
2006 and July 26,2006), inquiring about purchase of VB DC's Lot 9 for a reduced price, and
copies of those three letters were submitted to the Board.
5. Pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By-law ~ 139-31D, the Nantucket Planning Board
was notified of the appeals. By Memorandum dated October 5,2006, the Planning Board
reported on its unanimous September 25,2006 vote, recommending that the determinations of
the Zoning Enforcement Officer be upheld. The Planning Board reported that: "the roadway
parcel [Lot 3] was included in the approval for the Shawkemo Hills subdivision and was required
by the Planning Board to be dedicated for roadway purposes"; "the roadway parcel [Lot 3] was
to be used for all purposes in which streets may be customarily used in Nantucket. . . [and]
qualifies as frontage pursuant to the Massachusetts Subdivision Control Law. Said parcel is
essentially part of the Shawkemo Road layout, therefore the subject lots have legal frontage";
and Lot 3 (the road lot owned by the Trust) "provides both lots with continuous frontage
containing several line segments, which added together, exceed the minimum requirement of
four hundred (400) linear feet." The Planning Board concluded that the Trust's appeals are
"frivolous and mean spirited."
6. At the public hearings, Robert Daut (counsel for the Trust) spoke in favor of the
Trust's appeals. Andrew Vorce (Planning Board Director), Sander Rikleen (counsel for
Ackquire Group), Diane Rubin (co-counsel for VBDC), Kevin Dale (co-counsel for VBDC, who
- 3 -
BOSlll_BOSll U2082748JDOCINPICKERING
had represented VBDC before the Planning Board when Lots 9 and 10 on Land Court Plan
35819-E were created), and attorney Arthur Reade (who had represented Canopache Nominee
Trust before the Planning Board in connection with a 1991 subdivision which approved certain
improvements to Shawkemo Road) all spoke in opposition to the Trust's appeals.
FINDINGS:
7. In May and June 2005, the Nantucket Building Commissioner issued Building
Permits so that Ackquire Group could build a new single-family dwelling and additional
improvements at 59 Shawkemo Road. After waiting more than one year from the date the
Building Permits were issued, until the new home was nearly completed in full view of the Trust,
the Trust seeks to have the Building Permits revoked, claiming that the Ackquire Group parcel
lacks adequate street frontage. The Trust also seeks a determination that Ackquire Group's
parcel (Lot 10 on Land Court Plan 35819-E) and VBDC's parcel (Lot 9 on Land Court Plan
35819-E) are not buildable lots because they lack adequate street frontage.
8. Ackquire Group's Lot 10 currently has a 6-bedroom main house, a separate 3-
bedroom guest house, a pool house and a pool constructed on it in accordance with the
challenged Building Permits. VBDC's Lot 9 is currently vacant. Lot 3 shown on Land Court
Plan 35819-E is a vacant non-buildable, road lot, currently owned by the Trust. Lot 9 and Lot 10
each conform to the minimum lot size and regularity requirements of the Nantucket Zoning By-
law, and the improvements on Lot 10 conform to all dimensional requirements of the Nantucket
Zoning By-law. Lot 9 (owned by VBDC) abuts Lot 3 (the Trust's road lot), and also abuts land
owned by Trustees of the Trust.
9. Counsel for the Trust made four arguments at the hearing: (a) the deeds
conveying Lot 3 illustrate that Lot 3 was created primarily for street-width change, which cannot
- 4 -
BOSIll_BOSll U2082748_4DOCfNPICKERING
count as frontage; (b) Lot 3 cannot be used for frontage because the existence of an easement to
use Lot 3 for street purposes does not turn Lot 3 into a public way; (c) the boundary between Lot
9 and Lot 3 does not satisfy any defInition of "frontage" under Zoning By-law ~139-2A; and (d)
even if Lot 3 is treated as part of a "street" under Zoning By-law ~ 139-2A, Lots 9 and 10 do not
have sufficient frontage along a single street line.
10. The frontage averaging provisions of Zoning By-law ~139-16B(3) permit the
frontage of Ackquire Group's Lot 10 to be reduced to no less than 50 feet, so long as the
combined street frontage of VB DC's Lot 9 and Ackquire Group's Lot 10 exceeds 400 feet.
Ackquire Group's Lot 10 has 50.01 feet of frontage on Shawkemo Road. VBDC's Lot 9 has in
excess of 450 feet of continuous frontage along Shawkemo Road and Lot 3 (created by Land
Court Plan 35819-C, owned by the Trust). Therefore, Lots 9 and 10 have more than the required
frontage so long as the boundary between Lot 9 and Lot 3 counts as "frontage".
11. Under By-law ~139-2A, the definition of "frontage" reads in part ''the lineal
extent of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street measured along a single street line
affording legal and practical access to the lot."
12. The evidence presented to the Board showed that Lot 3 (owned by the Trust) has
always been part ofShawkemo Road. As described in Jeffrey Blackwell's sworn statement,
when Lot 3 was created, the traveled portion of Shawkemo Road, which was then in its historic
location prior to paving, passed through Lot 3 and it was intended that Lot 3 remain part of
Shawkemo Road. After Lot 3 was created, it was conveyed to the Trustees of Canopache
Nominee Trust, for no monetary consideration, "for the purpose of widening the layout of
Shawkemo Road to encompass the area of the present traveled roadway thereof' (see Document
No. 53652, recorded with Nantucket Deeds). Such deed reserved to the owner of Lot 4 (which
- 5 -
BaS Ill_BaS II U 2082748_ 4,DOCfNPICKERING
included what is now Lots 9 and 10) the right "to use said Lot 3 for all purposes for which streets
now are or hereafter may customarily be used in said Nantucket."
13. The Trustees ofCanopache Nominee Trust hired Mr. Blackwell to prepare a 1991
definitive subdivision plan which showed Shawkemo Road passing through Lot 3 (see Sheet 5 of
the subdivision plan endorsed by the Planning Board on or about July 22, 1991, Nantucket
Planning Board File No. 3505). The Planning Board's February 26, 1991 Decision approving
the subdivision specifically stated in paragraph 3 (at p. 2) that the traveled way of what is now
called Shawkemo Road was within Lot C (now Lot 3) and observed that the "forty foot layout
[of Shimmo Road, now called Shawkemo Road] exists here just to the east of the traveled dirt
road. The approved easement [through Lot C, now Lot 3] will allow the scenic integrity of the
road to be maintained by not moving the existing travelled [sic.] surface." Although the Trustees
of Canopache Nominee Trust subsequently reached an agreement with the adjacent land owner
to the North to share the cost of paving Shawkemo Road, which resulted in subsequent Planning
Board approval of paving within the 40 foot wide "road layout" rather than within Lot 3, that did
not alter Lot 3's status as part ofShawkemo Road for the purpose of the Nantucket Zoning By-
law.
14. When Lot 3 was subsequently conveyed to the Trust, for no consideration, the
deed described Lot 3 as a "road lot" that was "intended to be used to provide right of way for
Shawkemo Road" (see Book 518, Page 89). The instrument creating the Trust likewise defmes
"Roadway" as including Lot 3 (see Nantucket Deeds Book 370, Page 247).
15. Lot 3 being part of Shawkemo Road for purposes of Nantucket zoning analysis,
the boundary between Lot 9 and Lot 3 is properly considered frontage along a street for the
purpose of the Nantucket Zoning By-law. Considered together, Lot 9 (owned by VBDC) and
- 6 -
BOS 111_BOS II U 20827 48 _ 4,DOCfNPICKERING
Lot 10 (owned by Ackquire Group) have more than the 400 feet of continuous street frontage
required for two buildable lots.
16. In late 2004, after the Planning Board had approved a Definitive Subdivision Plan
submitted by VBDC, creating two buildable lots along a new internal subdivision road, the Trust
raised certain objections. The Trust and its counsel thereafter agreed with VBDC to substitute
for the Defmitive Subdivision Plan an alternative approval not required plan creating two
buildable lots utilizing the boundary between Lot 9 and Lot 3 for frontage and the frontage
averaging provisions of Zoning By-law ~ 139-16B(3).
17. At the hearing on October 13, 2006, co-counsel for VBDC presented to the Board
letters from the Trust's counsel, dated December 16,2005 and January 5, 2006, prior to the
Trust's demand for zoning enforcement, offering to purchase VBDC's vacant Lot 9, which
directly abuts the Trust's property, at a heavily discounted price. Prior to filing the present
appeals with the Board, the Trust's counsel sent a third letter, dated July 26, 2006, offering an
even lower purchase price for VBDC's vacant Lot 9. These letters indicate the Trust's motive
for commencing these proceedings.
18. Although not mentioned at the public hearing, the papers submitted by the Trust
in support of its appeals claim that the frontage reduction notice required by Zoning By-law
~ 139-l6B(3)( d) has not been recorded. If such contention has not been waived by the Trust's
failure to make such argument at the public hearing, it is apparent that a frontage reduction
notice complying with Zoning By-law ~139-16B(3)(d) was contained in the deed by which Lot
10 was conveyed by VBDC to Ackquire Group (see Nantucket Land Court Document No.
111004). In addition, although Lot 9 has yet to be conveyed by VBDC or built upon, a frontage
reduction notice complying with By-laws ~139-16B(3)(d) was recorded on October 2,2006,
- 7 -
BOSlll_BOS1J U2082748_ 4,DOCfNPICKERING
referring to both Lots 9 and 10 (see Nantucket Land Court Document No. 117751) and curing
any technical issue.
19. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Board finds that the Zoning
Enforcement Officer acted properly when he (a) refused to revoke Ackquire Group's Building
Permits, and (b) concluded that Ackquire Group's Lot 10 and VBDC's Lot 9 have adequate
street frontage and are buildable due to the frontage averaging provisions of Zoning By-law
~139-16B(3).
20. The Board is troubled by the delay between the grant of the Building Permits for
Lot 10 and the date of the Trust's letters to the Zoning Enforcement Officer demanding zoning
enforcement. This delay is indicative of a lack of good faith by the Trust. The Board is also
troubled by the Trust's disavowal of its prior agreement with VBDC, which was presented to the
Planning Board in January of2005. That agreement caused VBDC to withdraw an approved
Definitive Subdivision Plan creating two buildable lots, and replace it with an agreed approval
not required plan creating two buildable lots (Lots 9 and 10) utilizing the boundary between Lot
9 and Lot 3 for frontage and the frontage averaging provisions of Zoning By-law ~139-16B(3).
Based upon the facts presented to the Board, it shares the opinion of the Planning Board that the
Trust's conduct demonstrates that its appeals to the Board are "frivolous and mean spirited."
VOTES:
Following the presentations to the Board, it was duly moved and seconded:
To overturn the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer in File No. 081-06, which
decision concluded that Lot 9 has adequate frontage and meets all dimensional
requirements of a buildable lot under the Nantucket Zoning By-law.
The Motion was defeated by a vote of 0 in favor and 5 opposed.
It was then duly moved and seconded:
- 8 -
BOSlll_BOSll U2082748_4,DOCfNPICKERING
To overturn the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer in File No. 082-06, which
decision concluded that Lot 10 meets all requirements for frontage averaging pursuant to
Nantucket Zoning By-law ~ 139-16B(3) and all other requirements of a buildable lot
under the Nantucket Zoning By-law.
~--
AJ 0 utyy\ h-v.- & ( R Q-() ()
.-------.---
Kerim Koseatac
~
---1
C :z:
-<:;:'; c:J
4lf>.. ..:::::
:?~ ,
" 0'\
"
,-, -0
, '
~.,.,,~ w
~
V1
- 9 -
BOSI I I_BOSll U2082748_ 4,DOCfNPICKERING
<to
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
PHONE 508-228-7215
PAX 508-228-7205
NOTICE
A Public Hearing ofthe NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS will be held at
1:00 P.M.. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 13. 2006 in the Conference Room, 2
FAIRGROUNDS ROAD, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE NANTUCKET
ELECTRIC COMPANY BUILDING, WITH AN ENTRANCE FROM OLD
SOUTH ROAD, FIRST RIGHT AFTER FAIRGROUNDS ROAD COMING
FROM TOWN WITH ENTRANCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of the following: g
AlQUIRE, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; SHA WKEMO HILLS TR&'T f.q in
ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT ~
N
BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 082-06:
'r:::t
~:.:.....
(.:::l
Applicant (Shawkemo Hills Trust Association) is APPEALING, pursuant tog
Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, the decision ofthe Zoning Enforcement
Officer in a letter dated July 13,2006 in which he refused to declare the Locus
unbuildable due to insufficient frontage, issue a stop work order and revoke the building
permit. The Applicant argues that due to the lack of frontage the lot is not entitled to a
building permit and should not be considered a separately marketable and buildable lot
from the adjacent Lot 9 at 57 Shawkemo Road. Applicant is asking that the Zoning Board
of Appeals find that the lot has insufficient frontage, with a minimum frontage of200 feet
required for this zoning district; that the lot lacks the required legal frontage; that the
ability to benefit from frontage averaging was incorrectly assessed; that all building
permits for Lot 10 be rescinded; that any pending building permits for Lot 10 be ordered
not to issue; that Lot 10 be declared unbuildable; that all construction /building activities
cease and desist on Lot 10; that all construction currently erected on Lot 10 be ordered
demolished or otherwise removed from Lot 10. See the Application in BOA File No.
081-06.
The Premises is located at 59 SHA WKEMO ROAD, Assessor's Map 44, Parcel
130, Land Court Plan 35819-E, Lot 10. The property is zoned L' 'ted-Use-General-3.
LJA
THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN LARG PRINT OR OTHER
ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR
FURmER INFORMATION.
Ul
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
CASE No.O?2-.c:0
FEE: $300.00
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s): Ackquire, LLC
Mailing address: 37 Old South Road, Suite 6, Nantucket, MA 02554
Applicant's name(s): Shawkemo Hills Trust Association
Mailing address: In care of Tani P. Mauer, 2 Bamboo Lane, Far Hills, New Jerse 07931
Locus address: 59 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket, MA 02554
Assessor's MapIParcel:Map 44, Parcel 130
Land Court PlanlPlan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 10
Date lot acquired: 02/'];L/.JJ.2. Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 221687 Zoning District:LUG-3
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None X Yes (describe)
Residential: Number of dwellings_ Duplex_ Apartments_Rental Rooms
Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/n?
or 2005-2006
C of O(s)?
Building Permit Nos: At least permits 415-05. 416-05: and 598-05
Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: None
State below or on a separate addendum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Appeal), Section of
the Zoning By-law, and supporti!lg details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any existing nonconformities:
Please see attached Addendum and exhibits thereto.
~
--I.....~
0'"
.c:: J-,.
.c: -,
z'
::s=o
c:;-J
c:::>
--"
-
("')
r
r"i
:;r,)
-0
VJ
N
N
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.
SIGNA TURE:tl, W.~.J/~ Applicant Attorney/Agent X
(If not owner or owner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring tbis tter before tbe Board)
r IW m!r\'t'.. fleE USE
APplicattJD e v orr;$2-li!Q(a By: Complete: Need copies?: ---:;-..::;;;,
Filed witb T ,n .'Jl!f]1J4 Planning Board:-.1~Bnilding1)tPt" ---r-T M~
Fee deposited witb Town Treasnrer:1-IlidCfgBY: JiS!liJ.v ~ver reqnested?: - Granted: ~ ~-
Hearing notice posted witb Town Clerk:.1-~~ailed:5iM.I&M: 3.J~ ./!:J-5J
Hearing(s) held on:_/~ _ Opened on:~ ~ _ Continued to:~ ~ _ Witbdrawn?:_/~
DECISION DUE BY:~~_ Made:~~_ Filed wffown Clerk:~~_ Mailed:~~
nJ;'rl~I()N A.PPEALED?: _..1_/- SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/0
Linda Williams
-from:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Oaut {bfd@hoveylaw.netl
Wednesday, August 23,200611:38 AM
Unda Williams
William V. Hovey
Date for Hearing
Ms. Williams:
As you know, on Friday, August 11, 2006, Shawkemo Hills Trust Association filed two
appeals to the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
("ZBA") in connection with requests made to the Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer that
he enforce the provisions of the Nantucket zoning By-Laws with respect to property located
at 57 Shawkemo Road and 59 Shawkemo Road in Nantucket. Having reviewed the dates on which
the ZBA hears such appeals, we would request that these two appeals be scheduled and
noticed for the hearing scheduled for October 13, 2006.
If this presents any issues or problems, please feel free to contact me at the phone
number listed or by reply e-mail.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Daut
Robert F. Daut, Esq.
Of Counsel
Law Offices of William V. Hovey
15 Broad Street, Suite 901
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 443-0123
(617) 443-0122 (f)
This communication is from Law Offices of William V. Hovey. E-mail, text or attachments
is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for
the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and
delete this message from your system. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action
taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Communications from our firm may contain or incorporate federal tax advice. Under
recently promulgated US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards, we are required to
inform you that only formal, written tax opinions meeting IRS requirements may be relied
upon by taxpayers for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. Accordingly, this
communication is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the
purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. Please contact
a member of our law firm if you require a formal, written tax opinion that satisfies
applicable IRS requirements, or if you have any other questions regarding federal tax
advice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Williams [mailto:lwilliams@nantucket-ma.gov]
1
1 own ot NantuCKet wet> Vi:) - l'nntaOle Map
Town of Nantucket Web GIS
44 130
59 SHAWKEMO RD
ACKQUIRE GROUP LLC
37 OLD SOUTH RD STE 6
Prop ID
Address
Owner
NOT A LEGAL
For reference
caveats which must be considered when
using this data are the
GIS
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
03/08/2005
$3,000,000
C0021687
2.93 acres
Sale Date
Sale Price
Book/Page
Lot Size
Town of Nantucket, Mass
Map Composed
http://host.appgeo.comlnantucketmalPrintableMap.aspx?Preserve= Width&Map Width=345... 9/21/2006
lUWll Ull'lWllU\,;J\.CL VVCU Ul~ - rllllU1Ul\;; n'J.ap
Town of Nantucket Web GIS
Prop ID
Address
Owner
44 130
59 SHAWKEMO RD
ACKQUIRE GROUP LLC
37 OLD SOUTH RD STE 6
NOT A LEGAL DOCU!>1ENT
Sale Date
Sale Price
Book/Page
Lot Size
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
03/08/2005
$3,000,000
C0021667
2.93 acres
Fo! reference only: Important
caveats which must be considered when
this data are available from the
Nantucket GIS Coordinator.
Town of Nantucket, Mass
Map Composed
http://host.appgeo.comlnantucketmalPrintableMap.aspx?Preserve= Width&Map Width=864... 9/21/2006
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
ZONING BOARD OF AP~&\fuSP12 :55
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS Q~5.;54
PHONE 508-228-7215 TOWN CLef;
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 13.2006 in the Conference Room, 2
FAIRGROUNDS ROAD, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE NANTUCKET
ELECTRIC COMPANY BUD..DING, Wlnl AN ENTRANCE FROM OLD
SOUTH ROAD, FIRST RIGHT AFTER FAIRGROUNDS ROAD COMING
FROM TOWN WITH ENTRANCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING,
NantUCket, Massachusetts, on the Application of the following:
ACKQUIRE GROUP, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; SHA WKEMO HILLS TRUST
ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT
BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 082-06:
Applicant (Shawkemo Hills Trust Association) is APPEALING, pursuant to
Nantucket Zoning By-law Section 139-31, the decision of the Zoning Enforcement
Officer in a letter dated July 13, 2006 in which he refused to declare the Locus
unbuildable due to insufficient frontage, issue a stop work order and revoke the building
permit The Applicant argues that due to the lack of frontage the lot is not entitled to a
building permit and should not be considered a separately marlcetable and buildable lot
from the adjacent Lot 9 at 57 Shawkemo Road. Applicant is asking that the Zoning Board
of Appeals fInd that the lot has i:osufficient frontage, with a minimum frontage of200 feet
required for this zoning district~ that the lot lacks the required legal frontage; that the
ability to benefit from frontage averaging was incorrectly assessed; that all building
permits for Lot lObe rescinded; that any pending building permits for Lot 10 be ordered
not to issue; that Lot lObe declared unbuildable; that all constrUCtion /building activities
cease and desist on Lot 10; that all construction currently erected on Lot lObe ordered
demolished or otherwise removed from Lot 10. See the Application in BOA File No.
081-06.
The Premises is located at 59 SHA WKEMO ROAD, Assessor's Map 44. Parcel
130. Land Court Plan 35819-E, Lot 10. The property is zoned Limited-Use-General-3.
THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN LARGE pRINT OR OTHER
ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR
FURTHER INFORMA nON.
1 . d
SOZl.-8ZZ-80S
swaq UP! apu~,
dSZ:Zl 90 ZZ das
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
CASE NO.
FEE: $300.00
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s): Ackquire, LLC
Mailing address: 37 Old South Road, Suite 6, Nantucket, MA 02554
Applicant's name(s): Shawkemo Hills Trust Association
Mailing address: In care of rani P. Mauer, 2 Bamboo Lane, Far Hills, New Jerse 07931
Locus address: 59 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket, MA 02554 Assessor's MapfParcel:Map 44, Parcel 130
Land Court PlanfPlan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 10
Date lot acquired: 021];L1.Jl.2 Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 221687 Zoning District:LUG-3
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None.-!.. Yes (describe)
Residential: Number of dwellings_ Duplex_ Apartments_Rental Rooms
Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72?
or 2005-2006
C of O(s)?
Building Permit Nos: At least permits 415-05.416-05: and 598-05
Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: None
State below or on a separate addendum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Appeal), Section of
the Zoning B~'-Iaw, and supporting details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any existing nonconformities:
Please see attached Addendum and exhibits thereto.
~
6~l'.
~'
7
8
C)
r
r'l
,-'
-
-
-0
W
N
'-oJ
I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the best of my
knowledge, under the pains and penalties of perjul1'.
SIGNATURE:V\ I ~V '~~__ Applicant Attorney/Agent ><
(If not owner or ;)"wner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring this matter before the Board)
FOR ZBA OFFICE USE
Application received on:_I_I_ By: Complete: Need copies?:
Filed with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Planning Board:_I_I_ Building Dept.:_I_I_ By:
Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:_I_I_ By: Waiver requested?:_Granted:_I_I_
Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Mailed:_I_I_ I&M:_I_I_ & _1_1-
Hearing(s) held on:_I_I_ Opened on:_I_I_ Continued to:_I_I_Withdrawn?:_I_I_
DECISION DUE BY: 1 1 Made: 1 1 Filed wfIown Clerk: 1 1 Mailed: 1 1
--- --- --- ---
DECISION APPEALED?: 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03
---
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
CASE NO.
FEE: $300.00
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s): VBDC, LLC
Mailing address: 3271 Green Dolphin Lane, Naples, FL 34102
Applicant's name(s): Shawkemo Hills Trust Association
Mailing address: In care of Tani P. Mauer. 2 Bamboo Lane. Far Hills. New Jersey 07931
Locus address: 57 Shawkemo Road. Nantucket. MA 02554
Assessor's MaplParcel:Map 44, Pacel 132
Land Court PlanlPlan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 9
Date lot acquired:-.!~-'-.!2J..22.. Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 20884 Zoning District: LUG-3
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None X Yes (describe)
Residential: Number of dwellings_ Duplex_ Apartments_Rental Rooms
Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72?
or
C of O(s)?
Building Permit Nos: Uncertain if any permits yet have issued.
Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: None
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:
Please see attached Addendum and exhibits thereto.
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/ .0c~~~-<..... Applicant Attorney/Agent V
(If not owner or owner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring this matter before the Board)
FOR ZBA OFFICE USE
Application received on:_I_I_ By: Complete: Need copies?:
Filed with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Planning Board:_I_I_ Building Dept.:_I_I_ By:
Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:_I_I_ By:
Waiver requested?:_Granted:_I_I_
Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Mailed:_I_I_ I&M:_I_I_ & _1_1-
Hearing(s) held on:_I_I_ Opened on:~_I_ Continued to:~_I_ Withdrawn?:_I_I_
DECISION DUE BY: I 1 Made: I I Filed wrrown Clerk: 1 1 Mailed: I I
--- --- --- ---
DECISION APPEALED?: 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03
---
1/500
Town of Nantucket
RECEJVEo
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
AUG 0 8 2006
TOWN OF
NMfTUCKET, MA
I
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
MAILfNG ADDRESS... ". ",." "."',,...'.":7)'....' ,''''j.''.'''.........,.. ''ZJ
PROPERTY LOCATION.,....2.c;:.,,~~../:...~
ASSESSORS MAPI? A RC7':J" . i. '/..:.. /~...... .~.................
APPLICANT.....,...... .~~.... .~..........,.,....."..
...~I!t-
, ,
PROPERTY OWNER'".......... ..'..
. .
SEE ATTACHED P AOES
I certify that the foregoing is llist of persons whoe.re owners of abutting property, ownm of
land directly opposite on a.ny public or private street or way; and a.butters of the abullm and all
other land owners within 300 feet of the, property line of owner's property, all as they appea.r?n
the most recent applicable tax list (M.O,L. c. 40A, Section I I Zoning Code Chapter 139.
Section 139-298 (2) -
Ilb.!.... f, ..~cJ.. (;
::~V:
. fJ~~.a/M~
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
It :7 tJO
Town of Nantucket
BOARD ':;CEIVED
FASSESSORS
AUG
o 8 2006
NJ\a !...OWN OF
. vv\' I VCKEr.
I , At",
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LIST OF P ARTlES IN INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
PROPERTY O~ER'...... .,....V (!?,R..&.. ..!:~........".....,...:.,
MAl Lf}jG A D~ RESS..... ,..........,.......... :..... ,'.. ... ... ..... .....,........"".. ...A
PROPERTY LOCATION.......~7"... "...., ... ...... , "......."..,/#
/ff-/C3;;L
ASSESSORS MAPfPARCEL:., ,....,... ".... ... ... ..,...... ... ...... ...,........... ."...
A PPLl CANT...... /l!.;l.(.({:f:::... . ~.. . ..... '" ......... ...
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
1 certify lhallhe foregoing is a Iisl of persons who e.re owners of abutting property, ownet> of
land direcl!}' opposite on any public or private street or way; and abutten of the abutters and all
other land owners within 300 feet of the, property line of owner's property, all as they appear on
lhe most recent applicable tax list (1v{.G.L. c. 40A, Section 11 Zoning Code Chapler 139.
Section 139.29B (2) ..
a;fJ....~..~~
DArt' ,
A ' , L2'/M'
I~'." .... . ~
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
'~",
) ~~
I ',,,-' .......,
j~
I '"
. ~\
I ~.J
\~t-"
~~'\ \~
> ~,
c.; \~, (~ , :
,) N .........1
\j !
\ /
~-~
4! 5, 00
RECEIVED
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
Town of Nantucket
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~
TOWN OF
NANTUCKET, MA
AUG 0 8 2006
LIST OF P ARTlES IN INTEREST IN THE MA TIER OF THE PETITION OF
PRO PER TY OwNER ,44U~1:!!t.? ,,-i/J!tu. ,t:l.kJ:'
MAILrNG AD~RESS"."."..".,... /'}..:.,,,, "."..",,,,,.,..,.. '''.lJ''''''''''
PROPERTY LOCA TIOi'i....... .~~4ftk;t:::.. .Kc-[".,..,
ASSESSORS MAPfP ARCEL:""".~ ~.~". :'1,~. ~""."""""."''',,.,
APPLICANT"..,.,........,tJ~~.....~..............".,..,",'
SEE A TI ACHED PAGES
I cer1ify that the foregoing is a list of persolU who ue owners of abutting proper1y, owners of
liU1d direclly opposite on any public or private street or way; and a.butten of the abutters and all
other land owners within 300 feet of the, property line of owner's property, all &$ they appear on
the most recent applicable tax list (M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 11 Zoning Code Chapter 139.
Section 139.298 (2) .
~~.~,()()6
j) - - /J x!1j~
.tat~"LL"" ,
DATE' ,
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
ADDENDUM TO APPEAL OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S
DECISION OF NON-ENFORCEMENT OF TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING
BY-LAWS
Pursuant to Chapter 139, ~ 139-31 ofthe Code of the Town of Nantucket and
M.G.L. c. 40A, ~ 8, appeal hereby is taken to the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals
("ZBA"). The application for relief to which this addendum is appended arises from a
written decision by which Mr. Marcus Silverstein, the Zoning Enforcement Officer for
the Town of Nantucket ("ZEO"), has refused to enforce Nantucket's Zoning By-Laws.
I Procedural History
On June 28, 2006, pursuant to Chapter 139, ~ 139-25 ofthe Nantucket Zoning
By-Laws ("~ 139-25"), written requests were sent to theZEO seeking enforcement of
Nantucket's Zoning By-Laws ("Enforcement Requests") against the owners of Lots 9 and
10 as depicted on Land Court Plan 35819-E, reflecting an order of subdivision in which
Lots 9 and 10 were created. See Exhibits A and B. Said Lots 9 and 10 specifically are
depicted on Land Court Plan 35819-D, which is a reproduction of the file No. 6824 of the
Nantucket Planning Board. The Enforcement Requests not only sought a declaration that
each of Lots 9 and 10 constitute unbuildable lots pursuant to the Nantucket Zoning By-
Laws, but also requested the ZEO to enforce the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws by revoking
and invalidating any Building Permit that had been issued to the owner of Lot 10 and to
withhold the issuance of any Building Permit being sought or that has issued to the owner
of Lot 9.
On July 13,2006, in written responses to each of the aforementioned Enforcement
Requests, the ZEO refused to grant either the relief requested or any relief at all
("Enforcement Denials"). See Exhibits C and D.
With respect to Lot 9, the respective Enforcement Denial states that, "Lot 9 meets
all dimensional requirements for a buildable property within the Limited Use General-3
zoning district, including frontage in excess of200-feet." Exhibit C.
With respect to Lot 10, the respective Enforcement Denial states that, "[a]s Lot 10
meets the lot area requirements (~ 139-16B(3)a), the total frontage combined with Lot 9
exceeds 400-feet required for two lots (~ 139-16B(3)b), the regularity factor exceeds the
0.55 minimum (~ 139-16B(3)c), and a notice of frontage reduction has been filed against
the deed for Lot 10 (~ 139-16B(3)d), Lot 10 appears to have met all the requirements for
a buildable lot with reduced frontage." Exhibit D.
Consequently, as a result of each ofthose conclusions, the ZEO refused to grant
the relief sought by the Enforcement Requests. Those conclusions, however, are in error
because neither Lot 9 nor Lot 10 has proper and sufficient frontage to be a buildable lot.
A2853-00 1 - 18049
II F actual History
As shown on Land Court Plan 35819-B, a subdivision ofland in 1987 created
Lots 1 and 2. Exhibit,E. Thereafter, as shown on Land Court Plan 35819-C, Lot 2 was
subdivided to create Lots 3 and 4. Exhibit F. In connection with that division, the owners
of Lot 2, Frank H. Low and Clara B. Low ("Lows"), sought the Planning Board's ANR
endorsement for that subdivision of Lot 2 ("Low ANR Plan"), which endorsement the
Planning Board granted in File 3513 on December 10, 1990. Exhibit G.
At the same time the Lows were seeking ANR endorsement for the division of
Lot 2 into Lots 3 and 4, the Canopache Nominee Trust ("Canopache") was seeking
approval for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for a subdivision of land it owned immediately
to the west of Lots 1 and 2 ("Canopache AR Plan"). On February 25, 1991, the Planning
Board, in File 3505, approved the Canopache AR Plan. Exhibit H. In a letter dated
February 26, 1991 certifying the Planning Board's approval of the Canopache AR Plan
("Canopache Certification Letter"), the Planning Board set forth additional conditions
upon which such approval was predicated. Exhibit 1. One condition contained in the
Canopache Certification Letter provided that, "[ e ]asement rights in Lot C on PB 3513,
Frank and Clara Low, which contain part of the traveled way, shall be granted to all
owners of buildable lots in the subdivision and shall be transferable to the County should
the road be taken by the Town or County at some time in the future." Id. As can be seen
by comparing Exhibit E with Exhibit G, "Lot C" on PB 3513 is the same lot as Lot 3 on
Land Court Plan 35819-C.
Three months after Planning Board approval of the Canopache AR Plan, the
Lows, on May 25, 1991, conveyed Lot 3 to Canopache ("Low Conveyance"). The Low
Conveyance was made subject to the creation of "[a]n easement hereby reserved for the
benefit of the remaining land ofthe grantors, shown as Lot 4 on said plan 35819-C, to
pass and repass, to construct, maintain, repair, and replace utility lines, and otherwise to
use said Lot 3 for all purposes for which streets now or hereafter may customarily be
used in said Nantucket." Exhibit J. The current owner of Lot 3, Shawkemo Hills
Association Trust ("Shawkemo Hills"), the Appellant in the instant matter, eventually
acquired Lot 3 by a quitclaim deed dated August 23, 1996. Exhibit K.
Several years later, the Lows sought Planning Board endorsement of an ANR
Plan to subdivide Lot 4 into new Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, which endorsement the Planning
Board granted on April 11, 1997, in File 6162 (" 1997 ANR Plan"). Exhibit 1. It is
critical to note the careful attention paid to the configuration of the boundary line
between proposed Lots 5 and 6 where they meet Shawkemo Road on the 1997 ANR Plan.
Configured diagonally, that boundary line enabled Lot 5 to show a linear extent of
frontage of precisely 200 feet along Shawkemo Road. Had that boundary line between
Lots 5 and 6 at Shawkemo Road been configured in the same manner as the rest of the
boundary between said lots, the linear extent of the Lot 5 boundary with Shawkemo Road
would have been less than 200 feet. Id.
2
A2853-00 1 - 18049
Thereafter, in conformity with the 1997 ANR Plan, the subdivision was
effectuated, as shown on Land Court Plan 35819-D. Exhibit M. On December 15, 1997,
Frank H. Low and Clara B. Low deeded Lot 5 to Philip G. Heasley and Maureen Heasley
("Heasley"). Exhibit N. On September 16,2003, Heasley deeded Lot 5 to VBDC, LLC
("VBDC"), Exhibit 0, a limited liability company in which Philip G. Heasley is a
manager. See Exhibit U.
On January 10,2005, on File 6824, the Planning Board granted Approval Not
Required status to a plan of subdivision submitted by Heasley ("2005 ANR Plan"), by
which planned subdivision Heasley intended to create Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12. Exhibit P
(Planning Board minutes from January 10,2005 meeting and approved 2005 ANR Plan).
Thereafter, Heasley registered the 2005 ANR Plan with the Land Court, which became
Land Court Plan 35819- E. See Exhibit r. Lots 9 and 10 on Exhibit r are the lots that
were the subject of the Enforcement Requests and the Enforcement Denials. Included on
the 2005 ANR Plan is the specific legend that "Planning Board endorsement does not
constitute a determination of conformance under zoning." Id.
Prior to obtaining approval of the 2005 ANR Plan, Heasley and VB DC submitted
other plans to the Planning Board in connection with the lots affected by the 2005 ANR
Plan. In May 2004, on File 6760, the Planning Board approved a subdivision of Lot 5
("2004 ANR Plan"). Exhibit Q. The 2004 ANR Plan formed the predicate upon which
Heasley and VBDC subsequently applied for approval of a Definitive Subdivision Plan in
August, 2004 ("2004 AR Plan"). Exhibit R. On September 27, 2004, the staff ofthe
Planning Board recommended approval of the AR Plan, with apparently slight revisions
made to the recommendation on September 28, 2004 ("AR Approval Recommendation").
Exhibit~. The AR Approval Recommendation noted that the subject site of the 2004 AR
Plan "has approximately eighty-eight (88) feet of frontage along Shawkemo Road." Id.
Additionally, the AR Approval Recommendation noted, including its revisions, that
"Although Lot 9 was created through ANR Plan #6720 [sic] and it does not meets
minimum frontage requirements along Shawkemo Road. and will obtain the minimum
200 feet of frontage from the proposed roadway Shawkemo Ridge Road.". Id.
(strikethrough in original). At its October 14,2004 meeting, the Planning Board voted 3-
1 to approve the 2004 AR Plan.
Thereafter, in December of 2004, a draft of the Planning Board's decision
regarding the 2004 AR Plan was prepared. Exhibit I. That draft decision noted that
because Lot 3 "was dedicated for roadway purposes pertaining to Shawkemo Road," it
was believed by some on the Planning Board that "the subdivision could be accomplished
through ANR and frontage averaging." See Exhibit T. Possibly spurred by those
remarks, Heasley thereafter submitted the 2005 ANR Plan that the Planning Board later
approved, apparently using frontage averaging to determine that Lots 9 and 10 were
approvable building lots.
On February 23, 2005, VBDC conveyed Lot 10 to Ackquire Group, LLC
("Ackquire") by quitclaim deed ("Ackquire Deed"). Exhibit U. Thereafter, on May 6,
2005, Ackquire submitted two applications for building permits on May 6,2005, Exhibit
3
A2853-00 1 - 18049
V, and one application for a building permit on June 23, 2005. Exhibit W. Those permits
were granted, respectively, on May 11,2005 ("May Permits") and June 23, 2005 ("June
Permit"). See Exhibits V and W. Both May Permits and the June Permit all were
approved by the same Mr. Silverstein who rejected the Enforcement Requests at issue
here. In the applications for the May Permits, Ackquire admits in one application to
having only 50'6" of frontage on Shawkemo Road and having only 66'4" frontage in the
other application. Similarly, in the June Permit, Ackquire acknowledges having only
66'4" frontage. These permits should be revoked because Lot 10 is not a buildable lot.
Although it does not appear that any building permit has issued yet for Lot 9,
VBDC actively is endeavoring to sell the lot as being a buildable lot. Specifically, as was
provided to the ZEO, VBDC has placed a listing for Lot 9 in the Inquirer and Mirror,
with one posting occurring on June 1,2006, in which listing it has been stated that the lot
provides, "plenty of privacy on these three acres to build a main house, guest house,
garage, pools and tennis courts." See Exhibit A. Accordingly, because Lot 9 is not a
buildable lot under the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws, the ZEO was asked for relief from a
portrayal to the contrary.
III. Grounds for Relief
Despite the conclusion reached by the ZEO in response to the Zoning
Enforcement Requests, neither Lot 10 nor Lot 9 is a buildable lot. Neither Lot 9 nor Lot
10 contains sufficient frontage, and each, therefore, must be deemed an unbuildable lot.
A. Lot 9 Lacks Sufficient Frontage to Constitute a Buildable Lot
The Zoning Enforcement Denial wrongly concludes that "Lot 9 meets all
dimensional requirements for a buildable property within the Limited Use General-3
zoning district, including frontage in excess of200-feet." Exhibit C. On the contrary, Lot
9 has, at a maximum, only 143.67 feet of frontage along Shawkemo Road. See Exhibit~.
Even a cursory review of the 2005 ANR Plan should make it clear that Lot 9 itself does
not contain frontage sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a buildable lot. That
conclusion becomes inexorably obvious when resort is had to the definition of frontage
found in Chapter 139, ~ 139-1 of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws ("Frontage
Definition"), which defines frontage:as:
The lineal extent of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street
measured alon2 a sin2le street line affording legal and practical
access to the lot. For a lot abutting two or more streets, frontage is
measured along any single street line of the lot. Frontage shall not
include jogs in street width, backup strips and other irregularities in
street line, such as at a turning "T" or hammerhead turnaround or
street-width change.
(emphases added).
4
A2853-00 1 - 18049
1. Lot 9 Lacks Sufficient Frontage to Satisfy the Lineal Extent
Component of Frontage
The most critical aspect of that definition appears as boldened in the first
sentence: lineal extent.. . measured along a single street line. That the term "lineal extent"
denotes a straight, unbroken line is confirmed by the qualifying language "measured
along a single street line" that follows it.
Consequently, the Frontage Definition must be applied to Lot 9 as it appears on
the 2005 ANR Plan. Exhibit'p'. There are two important markers to note along the
boundary of Lot 9 and Shawkemo Road. First, there is the area of Lot 9 that runs from
the left corner of Lot 3 to the full left edge of Lot 9. That stretch of Lot 9 frontage is
87.78 feet. Second, there is the area of Lot 9 that runs from the right corner of Lot 3 to
the right edge of Lot 9. That stretch of Lot 9 frontage is only 143.67 feet. Thus, the 2005
ANR Plan reveals that Lot 9 contains two separate strips of frontage: 1) 87.78 feet on the
left side of Lot 9 and 2) 143.67 feet on the right side of Lot 9. In accordance with the
definition of frontage in ~ 139-1, however, neither of these frontage lines suffices to
satisfy the requirement of Chapter 139, S 139-16A of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws that
a buildable lot must contain frontage of at least 200 feet.
Simply put, Lot 9 cannot be deemed to have sufficient frontage because the
frontage that does exist fails to comport with the lineal extent component of the frontage
requirement.
11. Lot 9 Attributed Frontage Does Not Meet the Lot Boundary
Component of the Frontage Requirement
Given the fact that Lot 9 as Lot 9 does not satisfy the lineal extent component of
the frontage requirement, the ZEO must be basing on some other theory his conclusion
that Lot 9 complies with the frontage requirement of ~ 139-16A. Prior to the filing of this
appeal, the ZEO was asked to elucidate on and provide the basis for that conclusion.
Because the ZEO declined to provide that explanation when requested, stating instead
simply that his letter contained his explanation, the Appellant is left to surmise that the
ZEO determined that sufficient frontage exists because he has included the length of Lot
3 in his determination of frontage for Lot 9. That theory, however, also cannot withstand
the language of the Frontage Definition.
In addition to requiring that frontage consist of the "lineal extent. . . measured
along a single street line," the Frontage Definition also requires that the relevant lineal
extent be "of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street. See S 139-1 ("Frontage").
Lots 9 and 10 were created from Lot 5 as shown on Exhibit L. It is beyond cavil that Lot
3 already was a separate lot from Lot 5, and certainly is a separate lot from either Lot 10
or Lot 9. See Exhibits G, J, K, L, and'p'. Thus, because the Frontage Definition requires
that the lineal extent be "of the boundary between! lot and an abutting street," the
frontage for Lot 3 cannot be used to create a "lineal extent" sufficient to meet the 200-
feet requirement of ~ 139-16A.
5
A2853-00 1 - 18049
This understanding of frontage is buttressed further by the third sentence in the
Frontage Definition, which provides, in relevant part, that "[fjrontage shall not include
jogs in street width, backup strips and other irregularities in street line..." ~ 139-1
("Frontage") (emphasis added). Clearly, it would be an obvious irregularity in street line
to include as part of the frontage for your lot the interceding frontage of a completely
separate, independently-owned lot that your lot surrounds. The purpose of including the
third sentence is convey the stringency of the frontage requirement.
111. Lot 9 Lacks 200 Feet of Frontage Along a Single "Street Line"
Not only does Lot 9 lack a lineal extent of 200 feet of frontage as well as lacking
200 feet of frontage within its own boundary, but Lot 9 also fails to satisfy the
requirement that the frontage be along a street line as defined in the Nantucket Zoning
By-Laws. Whether the "street line" requirement is considered an independent component
of the frontage requirement or as an integral subcomponent, Lot 9 fails to meet that
requirement. As previously noted, for a lot to be buildable, there must exist at least a
200-fooot "lineal extent of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street measured
along a single street line." ~ 139-1 ("Frontage"). Thus, even if one takes for granted all
but the last two words of the definition of frontage, a lot is not buildable unless the
requisite frontage is along a single "street line." Section 139-1 defines street line as
follows: "The line separating a street from a lot as duly determined by matters of
record."S 139-1 ("Street Line") (emphasis added).
Accordingly, if one substitutes the definition provided for the term "street line" in
place of the term itself in the Frontage Definition, then proper frontage requires that there
exist 200 feet "lineal extent of the boundary between a lot and an abutting street
measured along a single line separating a street from a lot as duly determined by matters
of record." Thus viewed, it becomes even more transparent that Lot 9 not only lacks the
required frontage within its own boundaries, but also that Lot 9 may not usurp the
frontage of Lot 3 to satisfy its own frontage deficiency. By including the frontage of Lot
3 to satisfy its frontage deficiency, Lot 9 runs afoul of the "street line" requirement, as the
frontage of Lot 3 is not part of "[t]he line separating a street from [Lot 9] as duly
determined by matters of record." Lot 3 is not now in common ownership with Lot 9,
nor was it in such common ownership at the time that the 2005 ANR Plan was submitted
or endorsed. By language of the definitions of the terms "frontage" and "street line," Lot
9 may not use Lot 3 frontage to achieve the required frontage to qualify as a buildable lot.
IV. The Historical Treatment of the Predecessors to Lot 9 Confirms that
Lot 9 Lacks Sufficient Frontage
The conclusion that Lot 9 lacks sufficient frontage to constitute a buildable lot
further is reinforced by the historical treatment given to the predecessors to Lot 9. For
example, Exhibit K, the 1997 ANR Plan, by which a subdivision of Lot 4 created Lots 5,
6, 7 and 8, provides a prime historical example supporting the conclusion that Lot 9 lacks
sufficient frontage. The relevant information to review in the 1997 ANR is the manner in
which, along Shawkemo Road, Lot 4 was subdivided to create Lots 5 and 6. Prior to the
6
A2853-001 - 18049
1997 ANR subdivision, Lot 4 showed frontage of 605.68 feet, as noted previously. With
the subdivision of Lot 4 along Shawkemo Road, however, extreme and due care were
given to the manner in which Lots 5 and 6 were subdivided along Shawkemo Road. In
particular, along the right edge of Lot 5 along Shawkemo Road, the lineal extent of the
boundary between Lot 5 and the street was configured in such a way that the upper right
boundary between Lots 5 and 6 was cut diagonally: Looking at Exhibit K, it becomes
apparent that the purpose of that diagonal cut was to enable Lot 5 to have a lineal extent
of exactly 200 feet of frontage from the right edge of the Lot 3/Lot 5 boundary to the Lot
5/Lot 6 boundary. The careful inclusion of this diagonal boundary demonstrates the
verity of two principles: 1) that the 200 feet of qualifying frontage must be "along a
single line of the street" and 2) that the 200 feet of qualifying frontage must be contained
within the boundaries of a single lot.
Were it true that one lot owner could use the frontage of an adjoining lot owner
(not in common ownership), then such a diagonal cut of the boundary line would have
been unnecessary. Similarly, were it true that the qualifying frontage does not need to be
along a single line of the street, then the diagonal cut would have been unnecessary
because adding up the two separate frontage areas would have exceeded 200 feet. The
fact remains, however, that qualifying frontage must be: 1) along a single line of the
street and 2) contained within the boundaries of a single lot.
Moreover, this conclusion is further supported by an even older subdivision ofthe
property involved in this situation - the Low ANR Plan. When the Low ANR Plan
created Lot 3 as part of a subdivision of Lot 2, the application for ANR endorsement
noted that despite the change in the shape of the resulting Lot 4, that change would not
leave any lot without sufficient frontage for a buildable lot. See Exhibit G (paragraph 3).
Indeed, the resulting Lots 3 and 4 are shown to have frontage of 240 feet and 605.68 feet,
respectively. Id. The inclusion and qualification of that paragraph 3 of the Low ANR
Plan application, by common sense and logic, would have been entirely unnecessary if
the frontage for Lot 3 were intended to be included in the determination of sufficient
frontage for the new Lot 4. In fact, as the Low ANR Plan specifies, Lot 3 was deemed
unbuildable "due to insufficient area." Id. That finding alone demonstrates that the
dimensional elements of one lot are not intended to be used to shoehorn another lot into
buildability absent express provision.
More recently, even two plans submitted by VBDC/Heasley themselves support
Appellant's position. Specifically, both the 2004 ANR Plan and the 2004 AR Plan, at
least implicitly, if not explicitly, recognize that the frontage for Lot 3 may not be used to
create sufficient frontage for a lot subdivided from Lot 5. In both the 2004 ANR Plan
and the 2004 AR Plan, the then-proposed Lot 9 met its frontage requirements by retaining
the same 200 feet of frontage along Shawkemo Road that constituted sufficient frontage
for the underlying Lot 5. That frontage, of course, incorporated the left diagonal edge of
the lot, creating frontage of exactly 200 feet still. Those plans were submitted that way
because, until the erroneous, ad hoc misunderstanding of frontage that was applied to the
2005 ANR Plan, it was clear to everyone involved that the frontage of Lot 3 along
7
A2853-001 - 18049
Shawkemo Road could not be used to satisfy the frontage requirements of any
subdivision of Lot 5, or any predecessor lot abutting Lot 3.
Consequently, because S 139-16A of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws specifically
provides that unless its frontage equals or exceeds 200 feet, "no lot or parcel of land shall
be built upon, improved or used," the ZEO should have declared Lot 9 unbuildable and
further ordered VB DC to cease and desist from marketing it as a buildable lot.
v. Lot 9 Cannot Aggregate Its Frontage to Meet the Frontage
Requirement
Not only does an independent analysis of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws require
the conclusion that Lot 9 lacks sufficient frontage to constitute a buildable lot, but
regnant case law mandates that finding, too. In a case that squares with the present
situation, the court in Valcourt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 1997 WL 100876 (Mass.
Super. 1997), affd. 48 Mass. App. Ct. 124 (1999), Exhibit X, held that to qualify as
frontage for purposes of build ability, the frontage must be continuous and may not
consist of divided frontage. In Valcourt, the lot at issue was an "h-shaped" lot, where the
frontage for the particular lot consisted of the "legs" of the lower-case "h." Between
those two legs sat land owned by a different party, and behind that land, the land of the
permit applicant continued. The building inspector had issued a permit to the "h-" lot
owner, holding that qualifying frontage need not be continuous. The abutters, seeking to
have the lot declared unbuildable, sought enforcement through the ZEO of Swansea after
a building permit had issued. Successively, the ZEO rejected the request to enforce, and
the Swansea ZBA upheld the ZEO's decision. For its part, the ZBA held that the
planning board's issuance of an ANR endorsement sufficiently established that split
frontage met the zoning requirement for frontage. On the abutters' appeal, however,
Valcourt rejected both the conclusion and rationale advanced by the ZBA.
In analyzing the issue, Valcourt noted that the endorsement of an ANR plan does
not hinge on a determination of zoning compliance, declaring that an ANR endorsement,
as a matter oflaw, "'does not mean that the lots within the endorsed plan are buildable
lots.''' Valcourt, supra at *2 (quoting Cricones v. Planning Board of Dracut, 39
Mass.App.Ct. 264, 268 (1995). The determination of the planning board for purposes of
endorsing an ANR plan "thus does not relieve the building inspector or the board of
appeals from the responsibility to determine whether a lot satisfies the zoning bylaw."
Valcourt, supra at *2. Thereafter, despite the planning board's issuance ofthe ANR
endorsement, Valcourt then found that split frontage is not sufficient to constitute
frontage for purposes of build ability. In analyzing the issue, Valcourt noted that "[t]he
term frontage is commonly understood to mean a single, continuing property line of a lot
running along a public way, an approved way or a street that conforms to the by-law." Id.
at *3. Taking that generally accepted understanding of frontage, Valcourt then observed
that the Swansea by-law contained no language that would support a deviation from the
generally accepted definition and understanding of the term frontage. Id. Similarly, not
only is there no support in the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws for concluding that buildable
frontage may be split, but the language that is used actually demonstrates clearly that
8
A2853-001 - 18049
buildable frontage may not be split, which language has been analyzed in preceding
sections of this addendum.
Accordingly, as a matter of established law, the determination made in Valcourt
must abide here, namely that "[a] combination of frontage from two or more divided
portions [of a lot] cannot satisfy the minimum frontage requirement in the [Nantucket]
by-law." Id. This same rationale should apply to inclusion of the frontage of Lot 3 for
determination of the sufficiency of Lot 9 frontage.
B. Lot 10 Lacks Sufficient Frontage to Constitute a Buildable Lot
In the Enforcement Denial, the ZEO also wrongly determines that Lot 10 qualifies
as buildable. In reaching that conclusion, the ZEO wrongly found that "the total frontage
combined with Lot 9 exceeds the 400-feet required for two lots (~139-16B(3)(b).. . and a
notice of frontage reduction has been recorded against the deed for Lot 1 0 (~139-
16B(3 )d). . ." See Exhibit D. This determination is wrong both in regard to the 400 feet of
combined frontage and with respect to satisfaction of the frontage reduction criteria.
1. Lot 10 Cannot Itself Satisfy the 200-Feet Frontage Requirement
No one would or could argue that Lot 10 by itself can satisfy the frontage
requirement of S 139-16A. Exhibit P reveals that Lot 10 itself has only 50.01 feet of
frontage. Moreover, in the building permits at issue here for Lot 10, even the owner of
Lot 10 claims no more than 66.33 feet of frontage. See Exhibits V and W. Therefore, to
satisfy the frontage requirement of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws, Lot 10 must rely on
some other theory.
n. Lot 10 and Lot 9 Do Not Exceed the 400-Feet Requirement for Two
Lots
The ZEO wrongly concluded that Lot 9 and Lot 10 had combined frontage in
excess of 400 feet. As shown on Exhibit r., the combined frontage of Lot 9 and 10, prior
to the subdivision, that properly would qualify as frontage under Nantucket Zoning By-
Laws (in light of the definition of "frontage" and "street line") equals no more than
193.68 feet. That total consists of the aggregate ofthe strip of frontage running from the
right boundary of Lot 10 at Lot 6 to the right boundary where Lot 3 meets Lot 9 (143.67
feet of frontage from Lot 9 plus 50.01 feet of frontage from Lot 10). That is far less than
the 400 feet required by S 139-16B(3)b cited by the ZEO.
Thus, in determining that Lot 9 and 10 combined had frontage exceeding 400 feet,
the ZEO must have relied on some other theory. Again, however, when requested, the
ZEO refused to explain the basis for his determination, referring instead simply to his
letter and saying that his letter makes the basis of his decision clear. Surmise, then, again
leads one to infer that the ZEO must have been relying on the inclusion ofthe frontage
for Lot 3 in his calculation. As set forth above, however, in the discussion of the
insufficiency of frontage for Lot 9, the frontage for Lot 3 cannot be used to satisfy the
9
A2853-001 - 18049
combined frontage requirement of 400 feet. Inclusion of the frontage for Lot 3 violates
the entirety of the definition of frontage as set forth in the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws.
Moreover, the propriety of including the Lot 3 frontage is not aided by the
conclusion, whether right or wrong, that Lot 3 was "dedicated" for roadway purposes.
To the extent that this "dedication" position is invoked, that proposition arises only
because of certain language found in Exhibit 1. That language, however, cannot be
deemed relevant to the current issue for several reasons. First, the "dedication" in Exhibit
1 relates to an AR Plan for land not involving either Lot 9, Lot 10 or the land from which
Lot 9 and 10 were created. Second, that language does not alter the fact that Lot 3 is not
itself a road, but land abutting a road. Third, to the extent that either Lot 9 or 10 is
deemed to have an easement for use of Lot 3, an easement right does not create an
ownership right, but only a right of use, while frontage denotes a more definitive interest
of ownership. Fourth, the express provisions of the term frontage in the Nantucket
Zoning By-Laws do not permit inclusion of Lot 3 frontage for satisfaction of the frontage
requirement for Lot 9 or 10. Fifth, and most damning, is that inclusion ofthe Lot 3
frontage is not frontage for two lots, but, rather, is inclusion of frontage for ~ lots.
It simply is improper to pretend that three lots really are two lots. The ZEO, and
the Planning Board, could determine that the 400-fee combined frontage was reached
only when the frontage for three lots (Lots 9, 10 and 3) are considered. When the
frontage of only Lots 9 and 10 are combined, the total figure, even for non-continuous
frontage, falls far short of the requisite 400 feet.
Furthermore, the fallacy in the argument that Lot 3 can be used to satisfy the
frontage requirement for other adjoining lots is laid bare when one examines the
implications of that suggestion. Looking at Exhibit P, one observes that Lot 9 has two
legs of frontage, one consisting of 87.78 feet on the left hand side, and one consisting of
143.67 feet on the right side. If Lot 3 could be used to satisfy the 400-feet requirement
for two Lots, then as currently configured, Lot 9 could be subdivided two more times on
the right side, assuming that all dimensional requirements other than frontage were not an
issue. That manipulation would eviscerate the purpose and intent of even having a
frontage definition written in the language used in the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws.
Quite simply, the definition of frontage in the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws
prohibits use ofthe Lot 3 frontage for satisfaction of the 400-feet requirement for Lots 9
and 10 for all of the reasons set forth not only in this specific section, but also for those
reasons explicated in section IILA, supra.
111. Lot 10 Does Not Satisfy the Requirements for Frontage Reduction Set
Forth in ~ 139-16B(3)d
Beyond the fact that Lots 9 and 10 do not between themselves have the requisite
400 feet required for two lots and "frontage averaging," Lot 10 does not, in any event,
qualify for frontage reduction under the provisions set forth in ~ 139-16B(3)d ("Frontage
10
A2853-001 - 18049
Reduction By-Law"). In relevant part, the Frontage Reduction By-Law permits reduction
of frontage for a lot provided that:provides:
d. Notice of the reduction of frontage for any lot under this ~ 139-
16B(3) shall have been recorded or registered as an encumbrance
upon the record title for each lot considered in making any
computation under this section concurrently with the recording or
registration of the plan which created such lot with reduced frontage
or prior to conveyance or building upon any individual lot shown
upon such plan.
(emphases added).
The fact is that Lot 10 does not qualify for frontage reduction pursuant to the
Frontage Reduction By-Law because the requirements set forth therein remain
unsatisfied. First, the Frontage Reduction By-Law requires that there shall be recorded or
registered, against "each lot considered," an encumbrance upon the record title.
Although the ZEO correctly notes in his Lot 10 Enforcement Denial that a notice of
frontage reduction has been recorded against the deed for Lot 10, the ZEO, by the same
token, fails to recognize that no notice of frontage reduction has been recorded or
registered as an encumbrance against the title for Lot 9. See Exhibit Y. That omission is
fatal to the ability of Lot 10 to qualify for frontage reduction under the provisions of the
Frontage Reduction By-Law. The requirement is not merely ministerial such that it can
be overlooked or disregarded. The language of the Frontage Reduction By-Law is
"shall," which is mandatory. The purpose of the recording/registration requirement, of
course, is to enable others to know of the uses to which the respective parcels have been
put. Accordingly, Lot 10 may not rely on the frontage reduction benefit ofthe Frontage
Reduction By-Law to qualify as a buildable lot.
The reason that error is fatal, however, is not simply due to the fact that the
encumbrance has not been recorded against Lot 9 in a general sense. Rather, the error is
fatal because the Frontage Reduction By-Law specifies the window of opportunity during
which the recording/registration shall occur, and that time is: "concurrently with the
recording or registration of the plan which created such lot with reduced frontage or prior
to conveyance or building upon any individual lot shown upon such plan." Clearly, the
required recording/registration of encumbrance against Lot 9 did not occur "concurrently
with the recording or registration of the plan which created such lot with reduced
frontage." Similarly, the required recording/registration of encumbrance against Lot 9
was not made prior to conveyance of Lot 10. Finally, given the fact that no
recording/registration of encumbrance has occurred to this day, and that building on Lot
10 already has commenced, it is clear that Ackquire and VBDC/Heasley missed the last
window of opportunity, too. Read as a whole and as applied to the specific
circumstances of this situation, there can be no dispute that Lot 10 does not qualify for
frontage reduction pursuant to the provisions of the Frontage Reduction By-Law.
11
A2853-00 1 - 18049
Accordingly, the rationale offered by the ZEO errantly concludes that Lot 10
qualifies as a buildable lot due to the benefit of frontage reduction pursuant to the
Frontage Reduction By-Law.
IV. Conclusion
For all of the reasons set forth herein, the Appellant hereby requests that the ZBA
order enforcement of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws by ordering the following relief, to
wit for the ZBA to order:
a) That each and all of the building permits that have issued for
construction/building on Lot 10 hereby be rescinded;
b) That any pending building permits or permit applications pertaining to Lot
10 be hereby ordered not to issue;
c) That Lot 10 be declared an unbuildable lot under the Nantucket Zoning
By-Lws;
d) That all construction/building activies cease and desist on Lot 10;
e) That all construction currently erected on Lot 10 be ordered demolished or
otherwise removed from Lot 10;
1) That each and all of the building permits that have issued for
construction/building on Lot 9 hereby be rescinded;
g) That any pending building permits or permit applications pertaining to Lot
9 be hereby ordered not to issue;
h) That Lot 9 be declared an unbuildable lot under the Nantucket Zoning By-
Laws; and
i) That any owner, agent or representative may not represent Lot 9 as
qualifying or being a buildable lot.
12
A2853-001 - 18049
<D ". ". ". ". ". ". ". ". '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" :lC
...... ". ". ". ". ". ". ". ". -.l -.l -.l -.l -.l -.l -.l -.l -.l II>
'tl
1.0
......
N
0
0 ... ... ... VI .... .... W W U1 U1 U1 U1 ". ". ". '" '" t'
'" '" '" '" '" ... C '" ... C '" CD 0
I-' ... '" CD ~
N
N '" -.l ...
111
I-'
0 ~
'tl
3: ,..
~
iJ III III '" Q iJ iJ :a ~ ~ tl tl ~ :t: III :a "l ~
i 0 Pl :a 0 ~ ~ H >' 0 H
R Cl Z Pl tl tl III t' 'll Q "l
n III Pl n n Pl H H III Pl Pl H ()
>' n gj III III :a lii = :a Pl t1
t' III H fl Pl t'" t' ~ n n III t' I
t' t' t' l'l l'l Coo Coo :lC tl III
n :z: III Pl :a n n Pl Pl o 0 H >' ! ~
H 0 :a Q H 0-'1 0-'1 i ~ 8 n ~ 2:
t' t' i l'l ~
t' 0 n Pl n n :i1 0<
~ :a o 0 0-'1 0-'1 Pl t' ()
t' ~ H Z Z '" :a t' t' ~ t' 0<
t' Z ~ III III n
n :z: Pl Pl n " >'
0-'1 0 :a :a
:a t' Pl Pl ~ ~ " n
c:: tl ~ 0-'1 ~
III ~ 0-'1 0-'1 0-'1
0-'1 " H H ~
Pl o 0 t'
Pl tl 0-'1 0-'1 2: Z H 0
:a :a 0-'1
III c:: c:: "l "l 'll 0-'1
:z: III III o 0 Pl
Pl 0-'1 0-'1 ~ ~
'" Pl Pl >'
tl Pl Pl
III III
H H
en III III ~ ~ n n
... ~ ~ ...... 0
lii lii 0
III ~
~ Pl Pl :t:
Pl !;! t'" t' 0
:lC t' ()
0 0 III III "l t1
Pl '" :a "'I I
~ :z: :z: o 0 III
H H o 0 ~
t' t' l'l :-: 2:
~ t' t' Pl Pl ~
III III ~
~ ~ ()
Z >' >'
0 III III Pl
:lC III III 0-'1
0 0
0-'1 n n '" '"
'" H ~ ~
>- 0-'1
0-'1 '"
H c:: ~ ~
0 III
Z 0-'1
0-'1 0-'1
0-'1 '" '"
'"
\oJ -.l ... '" ". '" '" 'll 'll 'll 'll 'll ~ U1 '" ... '" >-
'" U1 ". CD '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 U1 ... c 0.
-.l '" III -.l -.l 0 c III '" 0.
... III CD ~ ~ ... ... III III III III III 0-'1 U1 ~ t1
i 0 0 0 ~ 0 III 'll '" ()
Q n Q Q H H H H i ~ n :a ..
:a 0 '" :a l'l ~ ~ >-l III
Pl ~ ~ !;! Pl Pl ". ... ... ... ... :z:
~ III Pl Pl '" '" '" U1 U1 0 H
0 Z Z en -.l -.l 0 ~ = >-l ~
:z: I n c c t'
tl H H :z: tl tl '" '" 5 Pl n
0 t' :a H 0 0 ~ III l'l
t' t'" n t' I:' I:' Pl
'll t' I:' 'll 'll >- ~ :a
:z: '" :i1 Pl III :z: :z: 'll
H 0 H H 0-'1 ~ Q tl
2: r; 5 Z Z '"
~ U1 III
~ :t: 0-'1 ~
5 5 III
0-'1
Pl
CD
:lC
II>
,..
...
,..
::l
III
>'
0.
0.
t1
()
01
01
'"
~ n I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III III "'I a 0-'1 Z n n
~ 'll 'll ~ 0 0 :z: ,.,
'll '" '" :a :a :a :a H ~
I:' n I:' I:' H H 0 0-'1 n '<
Pl 0 Pl Pl Z ~ :z: 0< ~ :z: >-
III ~ 2: n III III n n n C) H 0 C)
l'l l'l l'l :0: "'I "'I I:' :a 0 'll 0
Pl Pl Pl Pl H H I:' l'l >'
0-'1 0-'1 0-'1 0-'1 Pl Pl III t'
t' I:' :lC
tl tl
0 III
~ Pl
>'
~ n
:z:
CD
........
"" "" "" '" '" '" '" '" '" 3:
~ tIlo ~ ....,J ...J -.,J ....,J ...J ...J PJ
'I:l
"
""
tv
o
(')
I-'
tv
W
tv
........U1U1U1U1U1"".... t'
w '" w '" .... 0 "'.... 0
o m ~
I-'
,j:>.
"I:l
3:
>- I:Il :<l
n 0 l'J
:>l c: 2:
10 n rn
c: >- n
~ H 8
l'J rn l'J
o :<l
G:l t'
:<l 0 n
o ~ i!:
~ : ~
t' :<l t'
n c: tl
rn
>i II'
l'J
l'J tl
; ;
n n
:>l :>l
l'J l'J
>i >i
n n
o 0
2: 2:
rn rn
l'J l'J
:<l :<l
>i >i
>i >i
H H
o 0
2: 2:
tl tl ~
~ ~ c:
H H tz:t
rn rn :<l
'" '" 3:
o 0 H >-
~ ~ ~ Q
t-l >i l'J t'
:<l :<l t' t'
n
n
rn "" "" "d
:.: 0 0
~ ~ ~
t'
n
o
[g i
~ 0
:<l ~
tl t:"
>i
:.:
~ ~
l'J
en
en
....
rn
~
!i
o
:<l
tl
2:
o
3:
t-l
:<l
H H
"d "d "d
000
I:Il I:Il I:Il
000
~ ~ ~
.... .... .... ....
w W U1 lJ1
.., ..,
o 0
\D \D
~ ~
l'J l'J
t' t'
I:Il I:Il
:<l :<l
o 0
o 0
:>l :>l
l'J l'J
~ ~
:<l :<l
~ ~
t' t'
t-l >i
>< ><
t-l >i
:<l :<l
"d t-l U1 >-
O::€U1 Po
o 0 Po
I:Il 11
o I:Il "d (II
~ i ~ :
8 ~
~ :
"d
>i
~ ~
I:Il (II
~ 7
fll
II'
>i
~
H
n n
'- 0
o
~ ~
t' (II
"" 11
"" I
fll
~ 2:
~ ~
l'J
t-l
U1
::€
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn rn "" ~ n
"d "d ;; 1-'-
:<l :<l ~
H H '<
~ ~ >' ~ ~ ~ :z: :.: ><
G:l H 0
:>l :>l :>l "" "" t' :<l
l'J l'J l'J H H t" :>l
>i >i >i l'J l'J rn
t" t"
tl tl
c:
::l
1-'-
~
2:
~
(II
>
tIl
~~
C:::tr.l
n::tl
~tJl
tr.l
.,t'4
H
tJl
~~
Z
(j)
3:
III
1-'-
....
1-'-
::l
III
>-
Po
Po
11
(II
fll
fll
'"
'))
.........
... ... ... '" '" '" '" '" '" x
,e.. .Jlro ". ....,J ....,J ...,J .....:I -..J o"J t>>
'0
\D
.........
,~
o
f-'f-'UlUlUlUlUl...... t"
w '" w '" f-' 0 '" f-' 0
o m ~
I-'
U1
o
o
.I>
't1
3:
>' tJl :<l
n 0 tz.l
g 9 ~
H H :.:
:<l t"
tz.l en tz.l
o :<l
Gl t"
:<l 0 n
o X
~ : ~
t" :<l t"
n c::: t:l
en
>-3 II>
tz.l
tz.l t:l
; ;
n n
:"l :"l
tz.l tz.l
>-3 >-3
n n
o 0
!Z: !Z:
tIl en
tz.l tz.l
:<l :<l
~ ~
>-3 >-3
H H
o 0
!Z: !Z:
t:l t:l ~
~ ~ d
H H tzJ
tIl en :<l
C. C. x
o 0 H >'
i:i i:i ~ ~ ~
>-3 >-3 tz.l t" C)
:<l :<l t" t"
n
n
tIl "l "l It!
:.: 0 0
~ ~ ~
t"
'"
f-'
en
~
tz.l
~
~
!Z:
o
X
>-3
:<l
H H
~ ~
tz.l tz.l
t" t"
tJl tJl
:<l :<l
o 0
o 0
:"l :"l
tz.l tz.l
~ ~
:<l :<l
tz.l tz.l
~ ~
>-3 ~
0< 0<
~ ~
:<l :<l
~ ~
tJl C)
lil i
11I
II>
>-3
~
H
n n
'- 0
o
~ ~
t" C)
"l t1
"l I
III
~ !Z:
Gl ~
i:; C)
tz.l
~
~~~;g;g;g;g~~ ~
'" 0 0 Po
o co tJl tll tll tll tll t1
t" >'OOOOtJllt! C)
~85~~~~i~ :
oln 0
~~~ o~
~~~ ~>'
~ tz.l It!
:.: ~
~ ~
tz.l
'"
f-' f-' f-' f-'
w w U1 U1
-.I -.I
o 0
'" '"
Ul
:l:
~ I ~ ~ ~ tIl tIl "l ~ n
It! It! 1:; ~ ....
:<l :<l ~
H H '<
d ~ ~ :.: 0<
n !Z: n n H 0
:"l :"l :"l "l "l t" :<l
tz.l tz.l tz.l H H t" :"l
>-l >-l >-3 l"l l"l tIl
t" t"
t:l t:l
s:
....
~
~
~~
c:ll:z:l
n::tl
?ltn
I:z:I
~t"l
H
tn
~~
!2:
G:l
X
III
....
f-'
....
::l
ill
>'
Po
Po
t1
C)
rn
III
'"
ii ....
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
15 BROAD STREET, SUITE 901
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETIS 021 09
LJ COpy
WILLIAM V. HOVEY
Telephone 617-443-0123
Telecopier 617-443-0122
Writer's e-mail: wvh@hoveylaw.net
Duxbury Officc
25 Meeting House Road
Duxbury, ~ 02332-4405
Telephone 781-934-0583
Telecopier 781-934-2913
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F. DAUT
~CHAELL.D'AMORE,JR
INDIA L. MINCHOFF
ADAM V. RusSO
Please Send Correspondencc
To Boston Address
June 28, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT
Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer
37 Washington Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
RE: LOT90NLANDCOURTPLAN35819E
OWNED BY VBDC LLC
Dear ZEO:
On behalf of our clients, the Trustees of Shawkemo Hills Association Trust as owners of
Lot 3 on Land Court Plan 35819 C ("the Trust"), we hereby notify you, pursuant to M.G.L.
Chapter 40A, S 7 and pursuant to Article V, S139-25 ofthe Nantucket Zoning By-Law, ofthe
Trust's belief that the owners of Lot 9, as shown on the aforementioned Land Court Plan, are
marketing Lot 9 as a buildable lot even though Lot 9 may have insufficient frontage on
Shawkemo Road to be a buildable lot. In particular, a listing for Lot 9 has appeared as recently
as June 1, 2006 in the Inquirer and Mirror. That listing asserts that "[tlhere is plenty of privacy
on these three acres to build a main house, guest house, garage, pools and tennis court." See
enclosure.
Per the provisions of Article V, S 139-25 of the Nantucket Zoning By-Law, the Trust
requests that you enforce the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws by: 1) declaring that
Lot 9 is not a buildable lot because it lacks sufficient frontage and 2) issuing a cease and desist
letter to the owners of Lot 9 prohibiting them from continuing to market Lot 9 as a buildable lot.
the Trust submits that offering Lot 9 as a buildable lot in the face of insufficient frontage
A2853-001 - 17766
_ _. _ ~ ~,. '....."r..., \ ..l-.o~o]..," .,...", "TtnO thp 1 <:<:n::lnce
:'''::.';';:.'~'''':''''':''':)::!'''''':.k.,.::..,..;OIfIV.'
,.......;...~.~r....:"J::~.:: :,.;,;.~:~;:r...,"!;M"'::. . i'~,:,.,~,,:~'''a...:)t.I;j';.i ";';.\t~;:~.!e(>~;~~. ~':':..~$::"--r ...~~,*
. .~ON(I [GND ill: J O\.,.ON1'\.J HEAl)
Z
:.
......
L,
1-/
c:
n
"
!"l'i
"-!
''';'~:'~;-'-'.;-..:-::''';:.s;;....;~....:...;.:.;.,.
;,~;.:'::':"'-':f'.:,:::",:,:~,;.':': ....a;r"..
POND. OJ) [DNTT ot., -iT-iT: ."10C);:~S
sr- ~ E'" s.. :::- "g-' 9- ?; ::J >
~ c....~ iU' E A.l n PI'" ~o ::
::r :::- Ii r. ~. p. ~ -.:: =:::
0: t: O.!j ~ .. e Ii ;::j'.., I:
. n g ~ ;a~ - s :..~ =-
.e:"O :: ::ro'- .. t'; III
~?':l C:ln~.3Jt_
1':-1;'~"'~~;
B;;Sln~~g;l
~ Iii a !;--< Ei' ::!..
,..."0 E:l I') Ii:
020 cr-E..-
o ~ ~ ~ ? ,r.;' ~ '5-
::J .... ..,:s. ::r _
o-<n::l:;:T"'R""
~ cOQ;S~.J:r
Z :; ~ ~8 ~ E. g' ~
S'S=;3a..B~.g
~ ~. g" 3 ~ ~ ~, 3
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. t!..
:;:- 8 ~ a,I _., .,J :;
::l '" ::I. Ol ~.lJ\l ~
--g ~ ~U; s-::i :;, g:
:.: P. c 1ft n.
::. g::l 3 F ~ n
!:l n ;:!'l ~ E. c.. c !5
n a.... a..:l . ...,Q,.
!i:?>.g o !:I JI: ~E>":I
s: -. ~ "0 ... f> Q ::r::l -:;!.
n s;" - _. :;::' 0.. ~ :
~ g. ~ a !r o..~ n !L ~
n LoI ,,= _. 0.. ~ e- ~ ..
rn ... ill( :::. ~ ~ =: ~ 0 =' =
,....,.....":1 ~ ... _!!:.........::I ...
'"' t-.l", ... ~ :r ;:,.., ., ~ -
c~OC;;R::l""Eir;":I
, C::: \0"" n e.."'e "" :r lk ~. 0
('") Y' F.; 2 -=?"" ~'..g ~ E n
/'rl 0....... ~... 0.., =
-I 0 l 'J n cr ~ ~'::l ..., n ....
-IoO~c'~5Z"'--
!". I ~",..~;;,.,c"~
mli.O::l-~::l-
g:: ~ ~if"~g5"2;
;;;,- E~-~E:"~i
~ ~ ~ g H P ~. ..; ~
~ "X ~ C -0 =. n ~.
x.P,l8~g;
a. ? 2. :- ~ r; Q
::_tT;\f"I~Q
If-: ~ g !l !;. ~
p. 2: -'''C ::: c:
~ .,.' ..... 5 :; =
= i:i' 8 !:.;;- a.
tt ... = = ::a
~ ~ F p F-~
~ ~ G 5 ~ g- "";,0
<" Z ;.. Q,. :, ... ~ E.
r: :; 5"'C't'J'Q ztO ~ ~
~ .., Co-~' g ~ ~ n
.-:~. ~ ~ :; ~ ~ J:
~ ...;:: .9 'l - C. ,...
m::J ..~__.-::c.
o"'''~:::onn
." 9 S p- E..~ ::r III
r-' _ .,., - 0 jI.)
m . 0.. ..;~' ~ ::I n
n o..:ro-;:;
C ~!>." ~ ;;;.
I II 9:. i'l Q..::-
In '" _.::l ... X
>( "''''''n"'
n n: r;':;-;::J ....
~ s- ~ 0... 2. fL
~ ri g:r.c
~ i-! 9-;;: 'T1::l
::na,_::!~
~ 4,n- n :5...0
~ c: K. - s.
G R' c ~ ~
Ii: ::r r.
. .,. s- '" ~
c,:l'n""O'
~:r "c...
:.l 0.. Cl. r.
o I.rl '" 0 .:.
~~R-s~
~. ~:'.:.+.
'~~",' ,.-'"
~- >:.::'::',
, ~.:;,."-,,;?:
.~ - ft'~i";~~"
,,:, " . ~ ""-It ..'
:~, ..' ::l~' ~,,:-:,
;;,r~~', }~ ,,,:'\\;I'~;':'
,<., ,1-:1 ,. ,~...~."
. o,~ ' .C'f~ I 't'" ".
;i;""u E~tl, .:~t.
~, ~.,.. ,~'.... :1."+""1 "I: ,,':
;/lit; . ',~;;"~': ;.:, 'I:";;;.,.
:,;;,r,:.Jt'f: ~..~,;,.ill iffY: ,,':' .,: :
r,"~~~ j ,_":":-,' I Lr.\: ~ .'..'
"..~~)t ..,:' ..i .~. '
,..:~..,:.-,.<:'t i ~,,",' ',:,
;~~~~:~.J:d, j' ""ui'~
-:-"'
i'
,,:
('")1:1I
tII =~
.. ..
;. ~ ~
.........,.,
; s't:I!'
.... 0
: ::e:; :
II:"' Cl ft ..
.-co .. ...
~:'Fg
t::r~
Ji... .. D
.. ~D""-
ft-:..-< :
I"" _. D
"::::et:l
e ..,.. g
=~;;::
.. c C"_
. . = :
till ..
o ::e("'l 0
III C ... 0
~. ~ ~. II
.. ft II CI
,.," :r"
-. II Ill!
C . =
o rD
-II
~ ::
Z r^
-! V.I 1ft
;: 0 p
~ r+ ;
.... ....... '"
(5 ..J "'
Z 1'9\ ~
> \.., ~
; C-~
m ...." ..
> ~ 0
S tn''''
0....
o II
.. '"
o _. In
.. tI > lIIl
.:--1"""
",..,rno
.." "'~
o ; > '"
: n Ill"
.. ft lI'J U1
~:: C"
.. e: n C'J
-... - 1M
; ~ ~~
~~. :;:~
= n - D
-. II In D
<", Jr-
P !.::!::
-..-
~::e("'l:'
'< 0 .. ~
tI t:::::: ... -.
n - 0 "
<=-_D
_00' -
:: D
..
..;.f.~~'.:'"~.~'
~rj
-iII!~"""/
l~~r,
if"\,ihi:. l.
....'.
;.;r.
\ i'~~
. ::7';~ .:;':~
".-~'
;";:.:: .
.'
,
>--{
,....,
~
~
Z
m
<
m
fl:i
...., ,
;~:_:.~::, .;-;~*:';':::,~:.:~:....;:...:,;q;:":":L~:,r:~:.. ::U::.:;-:;::'.~':>-~-.~..::. .;':.:.:t;:~~,.._-._I<~~f'.. ~ :+,,~-.~.::>~;..,..:::~;;':.~ :';'~:':. :.~': ';;,;....- ..~':/>:. ;-;,~;~~ ':~/l~;:::;:::;-;,~:~.t:~..:.!~.:;1~;: .:t;i:: ::;.s;,:-.itii.";::~:;...~ii::."" :.{::,::~~'::~,:;,t.
,LN]O'dOn I H.L ~ J..3J'dNJ1VA"'- 'ir O\".JOJOd ~ lIOR'tIVH -L3J/:)J1l.NVi~J
T ....J
t.,.""
.<( ":", :;7"" ~
. ":<t.:~::~~~::;.:~.:, ::::: :. j t:
....-,;: . ~ .~.7".~
~: ~'.:}~:~r~""-.~..; f
~:;~::;'~d
iBnl:l1-l . W '\J' 1
~
o
-
z
,..,
t;
~;
:-:
>-
~
~
~
~
-
.""\
'-'
..
~
...... '
~
z
o
.
n
.-.
~
~
7'
n
D
<
~
.
~
,..,
'-"
Z
D
?-
-
r":
'.....
"<
If
iJ':
:r
~
~'
,...,
'-"
~
;>
t;C
ro
:>
j::
~
-oj
::r
<D
5'
.0
!;.
$
....
o
:J
Q.
~
""
.....
o
.....
<-
C
::J
<D
I\)
8
0-
-0
Q
(Q
<D
UJ
'-0
dor:ro 90 E2 unr
w:::.; .~::::. ..~iit~; -.:- ;;._.-.:~~...~i;';';";'~:"''''':'6-~....j.d~: ....,*-l:' ". ':::H_" ::... :--.......~ ..~: _c'
'POND. COATUE. GI'BBS [01<1) ,'j:; ,~,\ LAC't.~,r:;:"
. . ....~..,....
~'~~JJ;
...~c
~. ~'
,ofi:." '~';;l:
....!1:."a...1h
~,:'g"\iJ~~~:!'
;,.': _..-.'>'
:"i<:-...~~...:;._~
{j,"=,>
~~'~
C1 n ~
Q..c
::r:..:c
;>0 .., -<
~~;;r
:z~o
~ g~
CPO g
.., 0
~ 0
:r.-.. ,
~ ~
...
c:
'"
<
,.,
C'::'>>
Iii ir~~
..;Q..-Ic
....,,::c'"
"'-Cl-<
s....O<"'O
~.!'-'...- '"'
~~z~
. VI -I t;;
~o: >
00Z2
~p~o
., '0
:z
'~
~
r:
..:
B 55, ~ ~.~ g1
C c: < ::I III -'..
~ ~ III ... ~ ... ~
-.Q~~i.T'~
DOl: 0 :0;-::; 0- a
:::~::I~SE..o
Ci'~...~::r:gr-'
... ::rif~ c:'" G
~g~::I::op.
c '" - S ... "
:=.:!' g-- a.. ~ v.'
!" ~::r:: :E
~ Ill;:;' g
lU~o-:rDJ
O'Qric~;:;
!'~:"'nc...
-0 ..; g -.
gC~a..::I
-~n~&
III =.: _.::; n
::3 ::;l.. UI ...
a.. 50> 1- ::. g
fl3g~;:
~ ~ "'< ~ ~.
2,-'0 c <
;r. ::I """f')......."
';;...,'.
.,~~ .
~
n
r-
c
~
~:.~-:~. .:::
.....-.,.
..;.::;.;.... ~~.
''-:'':=.: "-'!if:
tr 8 ~~ 5":l S F. ~ g ~::l
R 3 ;::, e: ::: "? t:...:c a, n ::' ~
if""'.g g. ~ 5 t'\ ~ nIT.....
2gr:~:r~ognRlo'io
..::> f;:a..-''''!l;:lc''
i':' c..:: -::< ~ ... 2 l:l a...9- c, 0
:i _,:g E:"", 0 ::I'1i; - 2":1
E.;: g lr:'"~. ~ n g' ~ a ;: I'
_" I"'t .., _ ~ " a- =' 0 .... ~
;::rc::_<n" c..cGi
QO::; Ft'tQ...o....nU
3 :r 3' :;:: c -;. ';! :l Q a..-
'l g . ;:,::: :l :: "'
, .-Il::=a.c..;['
C - Ul 2 !!:.:f'!Jll
~~t::::tr:a. n
... H "t:I ;; ~ 5'
5- -g !:" '~, ~ ~. ~
n ~. ~ 0 .0... &- ;;
:r'~~"'t'::i
E' ~ : ~ ::r C 0-
Q~o!5~E:~
n';'; ;- Q." g- :i
Or;lto~~a
;;;. ~ ~ !l' =.: It
::: :::l ;> q 1":1"< ..
r-' -"..... (\. ~ -- ~
~~~~:rti~
I ..., > ~ "'0 ':r'~ ::-:...; Vl
~. ~ ~ g ~ ~. 5' 2:~
s.. >' ~ :- ~ ~ OQ :.~.
.. ;i; ~ f) > ~~ ~ g
_-<--::2::1~..n'"
io'l ":l O'~' g d.. ~ ~ S
~ a :, r-. ~ n ~ a.. Q..
~." 5 ~ ri'1 Q..8 C')
Ob1o.J....O~ =""
... n:.t: n ."'" ::r- ~ ~
g Ii ~ ~ ~ "t:I ~ g' tl.
00 ~ ~ ri ~ ~ 0
. ~ n ::L.... ~. ~ ~ E
1-<, g e-9-'Q.,,< 1)
n _, c: " .., It ::r
r-3cr::::;J=0
5i:i5;o;;~;-:::
..,~!;O'::ln
<:_;,n......,~O"'o
11l;;!1's-~n~='l
'TIlt III n
:: =:: X ~
~~'8 Q...~
~:~ ~ 1 ~
VI:r ~~
if 8 ~ 3. c;-
~ a.. ,c.. s- ~
tc...,
~ ::.
r:
It
>0:>.-
~ ~
......~
2t"'
~~
~ _0
- 0
CPO
~ 0
r,'
Q
,:::;:' ...._Ui::~.../:::.;;:t;.:}:::~::';:.~,-~_.;...;.:::.~.::} .:,_~.l~"::.Jt~.::.~;;i~:.: t;"I~::. .....w_. w.... :J.:.:.::
S ~F
~.:,~~ ~:.
. :..::.;:.~: .
,ns ., Sl13.A:1N WOJ. ~ ..U5NO:)SViS ;,1:;
_.....4.
~u"'''-V'
....A1...........n....~.
_ _IIJ ~ ~ _.J. .'.,""""
cJ3nl:::lW . W 'B' 1
.....
di-l: 10 90 EZ unC
^ i
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
15 BROAD STREET, SUITE 901
BOSTON, MASSACHUSEITS 02109
WILLIAM V. HOVEY
Telephone 617-443-0123
Telecopier 617-443-0122
Writer's e-mail: wvh@hovey1aw.net
Duxbury Office
25 Meeting House Road
Duxbury, MA 02331-4405
Telephone 781-934--0583
T elecopier 781-934-2913
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F. DAUT
MICHAEL L. D' AMORE, JR
INDIA L. MINCH OFF
ADAM V. Russo
Please Send Correspondence
To Boston Address
June 28, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer
37 Washington Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
RE: LOT 10 ON LAND COURT PLAN 35819E
OWNED BY ACKQUlRE GROUP, LLC
Dear ZEO:
On behalf of our clients, the Trustees of Shawkemo Hills Association Trust as owners of
Lot 3 on Land Court Plan 35819 C ("the Trust"), we hereby notify you, pursuant to M.G.L.
Chapter 40A, S 7 and pursuant to Chapter 139, Article V of the Nantucket Zoning By-Law, of
the Trust's belief that the owners of Lot 10, as shown on the aforementioned Land Court Plan
,
currently are building in violation of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws. In particular, although the
owners of Lot 10 received a building permit, it is the belief of the Trust that said permit was not
validly issued, as Lot 10 lacks sufficient, legal cognizable frontage to qualify as a buildable lot.
Per the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By-Law, the Trust requests that you enforce
the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws by: 1) declaring that Lot 10 is not a buildable
lot because it lacks sufficient frontage and 2) issuing a stop order to the owners of Lot 10
requiring them to cease and desist from any and all building activities on that Lot. In addition to
issuing a stop order to the owners of Lot 10, the Trust further requests that you revoke, pursuant
to 9 139-26(F) ofthe Zoning Enforcement By-Law, any and all building permits that have been
A2853-00 1 - 17765
"
~/.
(;'
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
ZEO Lot 10 Letter
June 28, 2006
Page 2 of2
issued to the owners of Lot 10, as the Trust believes that Lot 10 lacks sufficient, legal cognizable
frontage to qualify as a buildable lot under the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws.
Accordingly, our clients look forward to receiving your decision within fourteen (14)
days of your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
WVH/vrnm
A2853-00 J - 17765
BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT.
TOWN BUILDING l..NNEX
37 WASHINGTON STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Telephone 508-228-7222
Tele Fax 508-228-7249
July 13,2006
Law Offices of William V. Hovey
c/o William V. Hovey
15 Broad St., Suite 901
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Hovey,
I have received and reviewed your request for enforcement, dated June 28, 2006,
concerning the property therein called "Lot 9 on Land Court Plan 35 8l9E." Specifically,
you requested that Lot 9 be declared un-buildable due to insufficient frontage, that a
cease and desist letter issue prohibiting the owners from marketing Lot 9 as a buildable
lot, and that any pending permit application be denied and/or any issued building permit
be revoked.
After careful consideration of the facts of this matter as they have been presented to me, I
see that Lot 9 meets all dimensional requirements for a buildable property within the
Limited Use General-3 zoning district, including frontage in excess of200-feet.
Therefore, I fmd no enforceable violation of the Zoning Code at this time.
Please be advised that an appeal of Ihis denial mal' be !iled within 30 dal's of this notice with the Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to
~139-31 of the Town of Nantucket Zoning Code.
BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT.
TOWN BUILDING ANNEX
37 WASHINGTON STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Telephone 508-228-7222
Tele Fax 508-228-7249
July 13,2006
Law Offices of William V. Hovey
c/o William V. Hovey
15 Broad St., Suite 901
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Hovey,
I have received and reviewed your request for enforcement, dated June 28, 2006,
concerning the property therein called "Lot 10 on Land Court Plan 35819E."
Specifically, you requested that Lot 1 0 be declared un-buildable due to insufficient
frontage, that a stop work order issue prohibiting the owners for further building
activities, and that any issued building permit be revoked.
After careful consideration of the facts of this matter as they have been presented to me, I
see that Lot 1 0 was created using the benefits of frontage reduction as allowed in ~ 13 9-
16B(3) of the Zoning Code. AsLot 10 meets the lot area requirements (s 139-16B(3)a),
the total frontage combined with Lot 9 exceeds the 400-feet required for two lots CS139-
16B(3)b), the regularity factor exceeds the 0.55 minimum (S139-16B(3)c), and a notice
of frontage reduction has been recorded against the deed for Lot 10 (S 13 9-16B(3 )d), Lot
10 appears to have met all the requirements for the creation of a buildable lot with
reduced frontage. Therefore, I can fmd no enforceable violation of the Zoning Code at
this time.
Please be advised that an appeal of this denial may be liIed within 30 days of this notice with the Zoning Board of Appeals. pursuant to
~]39-31 of the Town of Nantucket Zoning Code.
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
358/9 B
The BSe Group, Surveyors
11
~
~
~
September 18, 1987
PM.. No. 1431IA
~
...
6
....
..
~
l; ~
~
1: ""
,Ill ~
~
It!
U
t.;
-'>/0.-;
'<~6' -'>
2
~
~
~.
~
%
"
k
rt
'"
~
~~
, t
~.
:,;
'li
U
\:)
\:)
<::i
~
/
~
I
~
<:i
~ I
/-
5/0.29
, ,C,B.
~.
, ,c:tl. .
00-
Smilh
5.J88 A
2181
5-'88A
c.B. '99,05~C,B. - 127.79 /
N '5.1'
E.
F ronklin
PI""
CIrl.
Subdivision of Land
Shown on Plan 35BI9A
Flied with Cer!. of Title No. 6165 .
Registry District of Nantucket County
Separate certificates of title m7 be issued for land
~~Ot~~ g~~~.n as ,.l,q(s, ,( {1(1p....., 2'" ',,,... ~ ~
u~\!d:!:1: ~ d-~}
,!'.~l!-,~~,~~!!!" ~I
No,
No,
Abut/ers are shown as
on original decree plan.
Copy of part of plan
-filadin-
LAND REGISTRA TION OFFICE
fC11. I.J. 19.91
Scale or this plan 150 t88t fa an inch
Louis A. Moore, Enginser lor Court
nG
Fonn LCE-S-J. lm-6-1ll
\0
~
~
=>
Z
U!
~
i:i:
;::
a:;
~
::::
;-
~
:::I
'-LJ
~
z
<:
...J
a..
~-
~
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
c
Harf-Blackwell 8 Associates, Inc. Surveyors
358/9
----........
/.... "-
" '\ -
/ \.----
/
I
\
\
\.
'\
\
,
"
,
, -
-----
Subdivision of Lot 2
Shown on Plan 35819B
Filed with Cerl. of Tille No.
Registry Districf of Nantucket County
Separate certificates of title may be issued for land
~';,',: 3~~n eke'.;;... .......~
.mH'9~{......Vcc'J~d
nr;
..:
'"
Q
~
Q
!Xl
Form LeE.S.]. Jm-6-18
December 7. 1990
~
--------
S~4Jh, "
~.~C~O
/--------...........
....... /.... ......"
" // \
Y Df11oi1 \
Scale I in : 50 fl. I
"
;4_
-...., ~
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
t
I
/
/
_./
~
~
--"
,
,
....
....
!';an '---'"Ai;---
/Ro.6"8 '
NoS/" Jc"C'O-
It' ...... I,l.
-/\ -- !:l r<
"W/A \ G ~'
''-.....___-1 'I<" b
\ .'
\. ~
ROAD -__ ',-
/4aoo WkMJ
~WA
S $8. 5$'16"' C
605.68
, o:a
.....
- ~
- II
I ~
l.
...
I ~
C>.,
~ ~
~ ci _....rJ
k'" :z: ;.t,"i
'"
<0 w ...~
... ~
<:l'
~ u
~
;::
, a:
.i.Uo:
~ "t ..,
~ ~ ~
~ ill'
lr)" ~ 3
~ CI,
W
~ ~ -'
u:
">C( z
\~~ <(
....
~ , 0-
m
i:
'" to-
~
&
it
= G8.IG8 ~
...
.
\'!
15
4
u.i
0;
~
~
'ti
'"
~~
~t
/
------= E. smilh
Frank/m '
5J8SA
P/4ll";;-"ZI81
c.rf.
Abutters are shown as
on original decree plan.
Copy 0' pari 0' plan
-1iI.din-
LAND REG/STRA TlON OFF/CE
FEl1.1J; 1991
Scale of this plan ISO teer to an inch
Louis A. Moore, EnginBsr for Court
~t
..,.
-'
HB-340
FOR M A
~PPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROV~L
File one completed form with the planning Board and one copy with the
Town Clerk.
Dec. 7
OCTOBER 22
, 19 90
To the planning Board of the Town of Nantucket:
The unders ig ned wishes to record the acc,Qrnpanying plan and reques ts a
determination and endorsement by said Board that approval by it under
the Subdivision control Law is not required. The undersigned believes
that such approval is not required for the following reasons: (Circle
as appropr ia te . ) .,
1. The accompanying plan is not a subdivision because, the plan does
not show a division of land.
2. The division of the tract of land shown on the accompanying plan is
not a subdivision because every lot on the plan has frontage of at
least such distance as is presently required by the Nantucket
Zoning By-Law under Section 5 which requires feet for erection
of a bu ilding on such lotj and every lot shownon the plan has' such
frontage on:
a. a public way or ways which the city or Town Clerk certifies is
maintained and used as a public way, namely
or
a way shown on a plan theretofore approved and endorsed in
accordance with the Subdiv~sion control Law, namely ,
on ' and subject
to the following conditions ;or
, b.
'c.
a way in existence on ' the date when the
Subdivision Control Law, became effective - in, the Town of
Nantucket having, in the opInion of' the Planning Board,
sufficient wiath, suitable grades, and adequate construction to
prov ide for the' needs of vehicular traffic' in i:-ela~tion to - the"
proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served th'e/eby, -, 'and" '.
for the installation of munic ipal, serv ices to serve such land
and the buildings erected or- to be erected thereon, namely
. ~~ ;;. ~ .
.:::.....i.
" -
..
0" The division of the tract of land shown on the a"ccompa'ny"ing"'plan' i's~ ""
not a "subd iv isioo If because it shows a proposed,- conveyance!o'ther\ ',: ,-
instrument, namely CONVEYANCE which adds to/takes
away from/changes the size and shape, of, lots in such a manner so
that no lot affected is left without frontage as required by the
Nantucket Zoning By-Law under Section 5, which requires ~ feet.
300
i
~..J
("'n,1 O-:1-:7_onr-
swetTTtl1l ecUt,
d~c:?n qn ~? Tnr
~"'-~-A
"""'.."
,',<;-'
....
.....,
.n
H]l-340
FORM A
4. The division of the tract of land shown on the accompanying plan is
not a subdivisio~ because two or more buildings, specifically
buildings were standing on the plan prior to 1955, the date when
the Subdivision Control Law went into effect in the Town of
Nantucket t and one of such buildings remains standing on each of
the lots/said buildings as shown and located on the accompanying
plan. Evidence of the existence of such buildings prior to the
'-:-effective date of the Subdivision Cont'.ro1 Law is submitted ,as
ifollows: .
5'. other reasons or comments: (see M.G.L., Chapter 41, section 81.L)
Name of Reg istered Land surveyor CHARLES W. HART
Address 6 YOUNGS WAY, NANTUCKET, MA.. 02:';(:>4
The owner's title to the land is derived under deed from CLARA B. LOW
1 date FEB. 16 , 1971 1 and recorded
in Nantucket Registry of Deeds" Book , Page - or Land Court
Certificate 'of Title, No. 6885: ". , registered in Nantucket District
Book , Page and shown on Assessor's Map No.' 44 Parcel No.
4
Name and address of Applicant: (to include all the names and addresses
of the' principals of the owner entity such as (ie.) principal officers
of a cooperation, trustees of the trust and partners of a partnership. )
F~ANK H. LOW AND CLARA B. LOW
~., ,lOAN STREET
r.HAl''PAQ!TA, NY 105]4 :
Name of owner: '\<'RANK H. LO'1 AND CLARA B. LOW
Owner I s 'address.: 33, JOAN STREET.CHAPPAOUA; NY --10514
. .' ..; . .
I hereby c~d:.ify, that 'the applica~t.(s}" itemiz~d above have been
authorized by Ine"'t:o fil~: ,~. subdi vis iop _ pl~n" ~ri tlJ:. the plan,ning Board on
pro~erty, t-.hat, I own... ','~ l( ~ -,'- ~ ~ ~~vJ
. o~ne~ I~. signature
. .,
..
Planning, Board File No. 3~) :s
E~~~~Semen t Date': \ j~\ \'~) ~6 ,
.{
,.,
i\ ~
t~ It d
ii
bu.!, \Q1u J!~ bf. (;W,,--tlN(
___. ~__ ~~~ ~rneTTTTm eOUT' d~c:~n Qn R~ Tnr
. . " . .'~. ~ . :'.: .~...,.:: .
. _. .. l'~ ".'
.' ", ':/:~ _, ,,~'::,:', ,\'::'lIIP'rr:,~r A': ~WK" 1-<E.Rii:OI-l: C'O~t:t:YS
~i;I~~0~i,~":~:;,~~~~~fI~.
44-3.1
'lZA.ilO'PACJ(E:' NO'/o.(MlE.t: TRUST'
./
1.
E:
j1~A.~t
'.,
\'l.
08'
. t..
~.
, ",jI
,.-
'.
j-;-'
.:" .'.
..:.,.... .:.,-
" '
'~ :.. .'
.:,'!" :
::.;.
.' . -.(~.:. .j...-.
", ,: " ~~i;A', ,:. - ':;. ~
A:JU;A::'.- ':a6i'[&r~-s.'7::'
~~ ..,:.....
'. ....~.. . :.
~~r~;~:
..... "
.....
~. ~ .~:
'.~,
.. ,
,
't;
.........
';'
"
.' ~.,'
,.,;;:.;.
. .. .. ......;, ~
;:,;' :',~.." >: : '::.,__:::/ -,0~f, .'c:'~:~;~ :::.tIIJr~-?:~t:,
., '. '" :':';";~ ..c'.. ~:: ~7 .......
.,~.. ..t- . -
.~~ ...
.",',.
J. :;
'. ..e
. ,:-:,::::;,:~{,::~:.: -.
.,'c"
. .' .
'r'
;-
",>:~:,~~~~~~Att};j;~(;~::
. J.<:OQJie,l1;cJJe.t' '~I rit .'~,::rR1t,'-'-:JA"'D: ,;
,SW~:f~
; "t.,:'.
r:;'."""!",.':
.,.... '.
.;'.
.. '':'
........
......
'.' .
~. t,.:.
,....
.: .:.'.;.. ....
;:..:.'. .~
r"
:.,
3!tiUA~~i..,'. 04;':':':;;:::
.' . ' ;.' .'.. ~ . .' . :'.. '.: . "~.:":' ...-:.....
,. .,...... ..' .(~. ::'
l. ',' ~., ;.'~:.' '. ...
.,":~';/,.:..""'" , - .'
......,.
..~;. ;':. '., ;... ".
.' '.:',.
- . .1
nnr-
c; UI P T T T T m
E>OUl,
d-l-.c:::>n
on
P?
TnI'
.... ;"'.~ . .
'-''':\/~ii:::t, .
. ".... . . "I!
'. .~'. '. - : .: . ...... ~
....:-
" :..
\
. .:' ~ '.... . .
-.:'
-.:: . . -:'~:-::a;.,
. &/N,<f.trAc,J{C '/'-IOi-tf:1IoICF; T:R 1ISJ'
\4.-'
',~
..Il;l.- .
}
.. _'It:":-... .
.. . -..' . ..- ~
_ :-' ::. ~ .~'r.. ...-~
---_--..:-:.:-..--....
-.....
'.
r
1.
9,
~'"
.~,
. '~
~~.;': '~.'~ ~ ': '
"l,;,~'-'
, I '
~'
'~:,
~'
I<t ~
~~ .';' .
. ,:
QJ,
~
o
'~
I..J
~
")
,'..:( ,
::t'
\f.l
, ".'liJ!d4,~6,:' > .
"351)
.. FtL.C Yo'.
~
,(l'},'
10
,iJ")
N01':5':<, ~,r" c
:i.Ji;tB(/'.LDA.~LJ:;
.4<KF:A., "
'~%'~~=k.k
- .....
'..'.'. :~~
. !o .~. . . . . .
.' ...~ . \.
'.\
7'-<<?6. '. AC'Ni#;,., ~l1lWx,(
(frk':~:a:,::U1er'
~,~,~tlJ {i1ATe.cK
" 1"0." ' '-"',
"" "
..j;!O-';_' " : "j;j/'"O
~~;:':;,""'.
. .'.
, "
..-.' .
. - :' . ....~......:
.' ..... '.' ..:~ :'" . '~:' .... ..~-.."
........ .,. -.. .' -.., -'~'. .' '.:,.
, " ' ,..'Pl.A'N,: "0'0. LAitt>:',i:(.,,: ",': ,- -' ".
';' - :1;ttidfi/: 7r1;JJ:~;1(tr:>Ji4~s5:iidp{{J/SEftf
:;~'~lt~r;:f:'~A~~'
'.RCA.,O
...~ ..: .
..
"
,;
o
:,'
""~:"
:....::J"
'.' ,:.60,' ,r '; ".' ':.adO ' , '
swetTTtl'l epUt,
dt,.C;:?,O
. "1~'13~.~~,
-,:~ '. m::..' .,."J~
90 A2 Tnr
fJ.
1ill'~'
t: J '
I"'"'.,
~.:.......
':';...:
"'.':'
~ : ~
f':11
.
~.~
.- .,,~
(~
. ..~-'::1
.. · 1(\
I
". i..
"~'...
Pi
to-
t
...;.~
-. ~
-," :1
"~ ~?l'
;--".~
",' '''''5'''
,~.-
~:-. ....
....). c,,.,.
:,. ...
,:,';i? ~
'"
\j;~
~, ",
. .. ;:
~ =:',
........ ....~.
i~~
-"''''-~1'
~----- ,'-'
.. '::i--?:-~:.
. "
:-'-"~
':--,'" '-. ,..:,..,
' ~.,
.~. I
l
-..-
-,
SHAWKEMO
(l"WIY'A.r.. - W'''''
- N
4 7:~'~' z.;- r s.,.,c;;c
no,,,,, I
@ I
A.ItIrA......a...r: ).
- -" I:
" / i
rAin ~rA/IIII ... 4.Ir . / I
is ,.. <<E ItES~K:'TED ~1tItI:Ir/
C....'r<cACr""""'. ~~urrAl4 AMD ~
//T1(GE CLL"A~ ~
,/ Ar.c.< .,,--.&1':
.,./ ZSMI ~
~_........--....-
I~
t:
~
.,'"
...
I
I
'0
Ii
I
I
k=- -_!!!L__
'd'"/I.
L'
,A,
-..,....c
CAAC~
--- ""'"
~ ~~ EN~~ ,/
~
h/~
/1PiI' \
( \0
\ A.t:C.L. 1046~ 6SJ1:
e..::r"s.~
U>r' 'S' l
y-aulLbJlWi,. EA/V~_-\
1-~
\. \
~'b \
'~\ ?
/
\ ,,p~
~/
:'~.
t.;;:-~o_--,
01 __""'
f I c.uc~E>rr
(
\
\
'i
~\
\.
'4<,
.-a- .,.
0.0 TE, IT Po'.J.I /Ir /
,
" JOANNE ..., HOLDGA no. CLERK OF
THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET,HEREBY
CE"R TIFY THA r THE NO nCE OF APP-
RovAl OF THIS PLAN BY THE PLANN-
ING BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND
RECORDED A T THIS OFFICE AND NO
NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS RECEIVED
DURING THE TWENTY 0.0 YS NEXT
AFTER SUCH RECEIPT ANO RECORO-
ING OF S .010 NO ncE.
/u-.,Jt, ~
f.l TOWN tERK
t:'
.1..., . I " ....1
............ Alico...a. ca......o.....nDH
" "I" ,: r
AlL UJT'S SHOWN ON THIS fl'l.Nl AAC. Sl..I8JECT "TO CERTAIN
Rf:5TR1cnONS. "'ClUDtHC l..NTATlC>f.4S ON S(c.otiD DWW.JHGS
ON lOTS ~.6.7.B AND g. COHSEft'VAl'lOfr( AESTRtCllOHS tal LOt 10.
AHD RESTRfCllONS PROHHJITIHC USE OF LOTS 11 NICJ 12 01H0I
~ F'JR "~owAr PURPOSES. Nf! SET fOltTli .. A DfCl..NlA.fl)N
~~Rl~~~~ M~ ~"p~u.,CXXJNfY
=
HIll !OP R~ IS SHOWN AS A PROPUnY 9OlJND.AIn' QM..y NO
MS ",or 8E(N ,.pPROVED IJY lH{ PUNNIHC BQ.I.RO IN CONNECOON
"!"i !r-fCS p~t
",.,..,)
r ~
, '"
~ ~
, .
,g
r-
...
o
~.~I&JIf:
L nw4 Ac.
WI
ROAD
/:--@
~ .-...,.u:
ESt,
c. -
6 $.
rr8,~
15' 15" C
S 'a;-s: \"'
...- I
.:-:;.1" MAMUC 10
8 ~ 11i./~
,._-------~./ \,
." ,." ./ -1fD'~
./
<<
\ L.... 7 ~.
y"'- - /lUILP 1414 .<<Mnito'" _'\. ....
\ f7\ ~
\ \.!...I ~
A.IrlCA.~'"" .".
\,-rTfS k /' ..... :;-
\~ ,..ft/
" ./
\ ''/'/
~
....1tCA..~...r.
L4I;S ....
- "
VJ OS' 04- W
;.t
s'"
v'
@
@
~.a..LlItA.u.r
LL; .aIIII9-A
'-
"' - ~~. ....J
IIAlilrltJc<<cr
HAIt~..
An'ftDVAL UMZJtDt r..c-..,..,......8I:)II/
atwntoL l.A1trr L&DcI.-:JL ~
4Ua..11'C""I'IIA~~
IN TJiC "'A.NnInrcT IlECIPJ1:.F'
IIF .Da:::DC,.-.xD ..... .....
NAWTUCKEr "LANA/me;
A~-)
({~
A,l.J.~L ~
rJti-:F
. et:AOTZ':S t:DI<<~t:rr..... #W'.D.
a .DrC~na t'allltl:tar.... ., .c ~
):
.r,S.73
~
; .,.
";' =
.
.
r:;,
..
.,
;..aP
MJrr LD r 10 J/IJ NOr A. a.JIL.OA.lII..C
UT ....AID IUU.LL -= &lUKAl:T "'
~(3T'lIt'/cr,0N3 ~ cn,.,r\fI:'YCIJ << ,.;c
rn A. QUA.urtCTJ ~A..noN'
ou;,.(Wtr.A~. A.Jt r<<:K ntr ~
""nt TN€' I"t..AN'IWfi ao.AJt.D.
r cr~n,..,.. THAT TH'IS t-LI..N
'-"'AS f"1tC,.A..ItCfJ I1IF CDN"FlJ~.
NAK::E ""'T)( THe' /tUl..ES A.ND
Jt.a;.UUT1ON':J OF TKC 1I!:.E1;.
1S1"I:J:5 OF D.Q;DS.
IIGrc.tD~ n~ IZ ~ Mar."
AND ~C" l'b __ ~ AI rIfF
MII.....~ .oU.3oC1.A.T.GU'. AM ...~_
Oll:. ~ T#(C 1tIw'Jt,( AND CQII"".,.... OF
lfA.NrvOC'Er.
7:'DM1Wf; L.U...-'
#/,.,. AItCA.
HIW nroNT.l.i:;C
no,," r.AJtD &..
.,De ~ ,Ita.. Ii..
_1OU1flJ rover ICA.TKI
. AOaoo ..r
100 fT
3S fT
III Fr
7].
r
llIlfi'.
1t
J
~
~ ~
15'..,... "---; ...."""- ......
---
--
.:I-n..... --
-
.....ltlCl<ET _ M DEEDs
... ;~'UJr ,; 3 j~<li
....-. lu ~-_ ~
_IlL ..'
-- '1:-----
A.../".(L-}.t./~u/G
- '......'
-
l'IO.B:rmu:
SHAW'#(CMO 1-i1U-S
LA Wc
SUBDIVISION
"'EMIm fOIl:
CANa,..ACJrtc II/JOAIIIJIItICr
noun-
aQIII:zr II1ESrMlll::loilt AIM
~-..o._
.IIC'CD --..c 3K . ,.. ..
HART~&ASSl:lCUl1:S.NC.
PlDFESSOw.LN<<I ~
6'1OlNGS _
I'W'flU::kE'( MASS, 0Z!i6C
ISOlII 231-52!IZ
~CCJ""I'LC..~
""rr "..... I.X.
N~cr.",,":. -
PlAH 1ITIL
.DEF7W FTTYE: J"L(,.,
OF UWD IN
N"AWrUCKCr
SCAli r,
t ::d
0' , '-
Or.!'J: '" 'J S>tiO I
"".-,..
O.-Et-Jo~ r. J
FEtDe.:(JI(
.LIbNlj "8 ..-... cr:
/ i
,r..-:.....
;.,'
~:
~.
'-'
-'
3-7::~
-,E-1
_ -J_
=--:--?
;-2f
'0
j-,~,
f=. -:
'~~:.
.,~:..
- ~~.
:- ;-.
-.......
'-,-".
-~;
~~;
-:;:::
-:-:.~
--
::-:--.:
~,~
r f '
...4
~1j.LT A
f;'
l..,y
~'-'
() 31 () - z..t=!
#.. I
~<
.............
...~"'lJCIr .....
./:"'0../..--.....('1--'-"
--./ ....".......
l;t~Y.i\
i.\' - j:j
- -' :4 -
\..c:.... -. ...j
...'/'4....-- ...~~
~'~~~,~fl'"
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
4 NORTH WATER STREET NANTUCKET. MASSACHUSETTS 02554-3593
(508) 228-7233
APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN
SBAWKEMO RTT.T~ LANE PB #3505
February 26, 1991
canopache Nominee Trust
Robert S. Westbrook
61 Allwood Road
Darien, CT 06820
s
Re: Shawkemo Hills Lane Subdivi
BY CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Rodewald:
It is hereby certified that the Planning Board of the Town
of Nantucket, at a meeting on February 25, 1991, voted to APPROVE
your 8- lot Definitive Plan (5 buildable lots, 2 lots for roadway
purposes only, 1 lot for conservation) for a tract located off
Shawkemo Road.
Approval of the subdivision, on plans prepared by Jeffrey L.
BlackWell of Hart-Blackwell and Associates and dated October 24,
1990 and a Landscape plan dated January 12, 1991, evolving out of
a preliminary plan submitted on March 28, 1990, is granted
conditional upon compliance with the Town1s Rules and Requlations
Governinq the subdivision of Land (as amended through October 13,
1987), and on the following additional requirements and
agreements:
1. Lot,101s status as an open space lot, never to be developed,
is an unconditional requirem~nt of this subdivision1s approval as
reduced road requirements and infrastructure requirements are
keyed to Lot 10 being undeveloped land. Lot 10 shall be;
A. subject to a conservation restriction held by the
Homeowner I s Association to be created under Paragraph 12
and/or held and enforced by a qualified conservation
organization with the Planning Board named as third party
enforcement agent. '
B. approved as a conservation restriction under MA state
Laws, Chapter 184 held and enforced by a qualified
conservation organization,
S'd
SOZl..-8ZZ-80S
5Wl:qII1f'1 I:!pU~-'
dSZ:Zl 90 8Z Inr
Shawkemo Hills Lane subdivision PB# 3505
Decision - February 25, 1991
2
C. conveyed in fee to a qualified conservation
organization.
Draft documents of restrictions or conveyance of lot 10 shall be
submitted and accepted by the Board prior to endorsement of the
plans and recorded copies submitted to the,' Board prior to the
release of the first lot.
The Board understands that Lot 4, not included in the definitive
plan but included in the preliminary plan and referred to in
preliminary plan approval, is to be transferred to adjacent
property ownerS as an open space lot and shall be placed under a
conservation restriction through application of a deed
restriction. '
2. Sbawkemo Road shall be constructed as per plans submitted to
a 12' wide asphalt road with Cape Cod berm included within that
width along both sides o! the road for the entire length of the
improved section of road, approximately 1300 feet, ending
approximately 25' beyond the turn off to Shawkemo Hills Lane.
The road shall widen to a width of 18 I for the first 301 of
roadway beginning at its intersection with pOlpis Road, and have
two gravel turn-outs as per the plans. Shawkemo Hills Lane shall
be constructed as per plans to a 12' wide asphalt road to the
200' station and then continue to the dead end of the road asa
12' wide gravel specification road.
3. Easement Rights in Lot C on PB 3513, Frank and clara Low,
which contain part of the traveled way, shall be granted to all
owners of buildable lots in the subdivision and shall be
transferable to the County should the road be taken by the Town
or county at some time in the future.
"While the Board does not allow access to be gained from an
easement, a forty foot layout exists here just to the east of the
travelled dirt road. The approved easement will allow the
scenic integrity of the road to be maintained by not moving the
existing travelled surface.
4. A Negative Determination or an Order of Conditions from the
Conservation commission shall be submitted prior to endorsement
of the plans.
5. Lots 6 and 7 shall be restricted to driveway access off of
Shawkemo Hi}ls Lane.
6. A location for on-site brush disposal shall be indicated on
the plan prior to endorsement of the plans.
v'd
502L-822-80S
swetTTtl'l eput.,
d~~:~T an OJ Tn~
Shawkemo Hills Lane Subd~vision PB# 3505
Decision - February 25, 1991
3
7. Reference to the Covenant, Restrictions on Lots 10, 11 & 12
(the conservation lot and the roadway lots), and limitations
against second dwellings shall be noted on the plan.
S. Lots restricted to one single family dwelling only shall be
so designated and appropriatelY restricted prior to the release
of the third lot. Deed restrictions to lots so designated shall
be provided to the Board prior to the release of those lots.
Language surviving the covenant with the Planning Board shall
stipulate that no more than 2 lots are permitted to have second
dwellings.
9. The following details for Shawkemo Road shall be added to
the plan.
a. timber wall detail
b. paved waterway and stone and splash pad detail
10. Fire protection shall be in place, fully operational and
acceptable to the Fire Department prior to release of the 4th
lot.
11. All recommendations of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
regarding roadway and drainage improvements shall be followed
and plans revised to address those recolIllllendations prior to
endorsement.
12. A homeowner's association shall be established, and be
sufficiently endowed to provide for the maintenance of
subdivision privately owned roadways, landscaping, and any other
common property within the subdivision.
A road maintenance endowment fund shall be established for
the upkeep of the gravel road and all catch basins and drainage
structures in the amount of $2600.00 to cover the grading of the
gravel road twice yearly and as needed additionally and cleaning
of drainage structures along both roads to ensure the proper
long-term maintenance of the roads. This fund shall be
administered by a Homeowners' Association with the Planning Board
named as a third party enforcing agent. A maintenance schedule
including these stipulations shall be incorporated into the
documents creating the fund.
13. Shawkemo Hills Lane shall be designated as one separate lot
or dimensioned parcel and so noted on the plan (rather than
separated out to individual lots owning to the center line) and
shall be transferred out as a whole to the Homeowner's
, Association prior to the release of the last 2 lots.
~'d
~n7.I,- R7.7.- Rn~
swe1TT11'l epU1:,
d~~:~T Qn 07 Tnr
4
Shawkemo Hills Lane Subdivision PB# 3505
Decision - February 25, 1991
14. The following recorded legal instruments, separate from the
covenant, shall be in place prior to plan endorsement or as
otherwise noted:
A. Restrictions upon or conveyance of lot 10 to be in place
prior to the release of the first lot, as per paragraph
one.
B. Drainage and utility easements
c. Homeowners Association Documents
D. Road Maintenance Endowment Agreement
E Declaration of Restrictions including
1. transfer of road to Homeowner's Association prior
to release of last two lots
2 . restriction against further suhdi vis ion of the
land shown upon this subdivision, plan except for
plans which create no addi tional building lots
within said land.
3. restricted driveway access ,to Shawkemo Hills Lane
for lots 5, 6 & 7.
4. restriction against second dwellings to be put on
3 of the 5 lots prior to release of the 3rd lot
5. building envelopes
15. The following waivers shall be extended:
(3.02)
(3.06)
(3.07)
(3.09 )
(4.03e)
(4 . 18 )
(4.19)
(4.20)
(4.21)
Public open Spaces
one dwelling per lot - 3 of the 5 building lots
"No Further Subdivision except for plans which
create no additional building lots within said
land shown on the subdivision plan
Reverse lot frontage - lots 5, 6 & 7 shall gain
frontage and access from Shawkemo Hills Lane.
Design standards in favor of the rural road
alternative due to restricted density and
submission of landscape preservation plan dated
January 12, 1991 to mai~tain rural nature of the
area.
sidewalks
bicycle paths
street lights
bridges
16. The Board notes that the building envelope provided on lot 5
conforms with the sideyard setback requirement of 10 feet as per
the zoning bylaw in effect at the time of the preliminary plan
submission (March 28, 1990) and definitive plan submission
(october 24, 1990). Article 22 of the November 1990 Special Town
Meeting resulting in the requirement of maintaining a front yard
n',J
r-n-,J 0,""'7 nnr-
C III P T T T T IT'l C n I I T -,
..J,..",................ -- -- ---
Sha~kemo Hills Lane Subdivision PB# 3505
Decision - February 25, ~991
5
setback from each street ~hich the lot abuts (in this case 35'
from the unconstructed HilltoP Road) is therefore not applicable.
The envelope on lot 5 showing a 10 foot sideyard setback from
"HilltoP Road" is appropriate as \\1ell as in conformance with
zoning as it facilitates building siting at a lower and less
visible location on the lot.
17. Plans and associated legal documents shall be presented to
the planning Board for endorsement within 90 days of the date of
this approval (May 27 I 1991). The Planning Board will not
endorse these plans until the above modifications have been made.
No building permit shall be issued without both a signed
decision and an endorsed set of plans.
18. The construction of all ways and the installation of all
municipal services shall be completed in accordance with the
applicable rules and regulations of the board wi thin 5 years
from the .date of this approval (February 25, 1996). Failure to
so co~plete shall automatically rescind approval of the plan.
19. The Board agrees to release one building lot prior to the
completion of improvements and upon receipt of recorded
restrictions including restrictions on or conveyance of lot 10 as
per paragraph one. At reception of executed restrictions or
executed conveyance documents for lot 10, it too may be
released from the covenant prior to completion of improvements.
~~.}
-.~... _. ~'..'.",,'.._--.-...' ..
I . d
c; n 2/, - 822 - 80S
5W\?~IPf'l \?PU~I
dOE :21 90 82 In[
:: \ ':'-'> :. .
Shawkerno Hills Lane Subdivision PB# 3505
Decision- February 25,' 1991
6
. :. '. to.; .,:" . .... \:. . I
please. call the Planning staff at 228-7233 with. any
qUestions regarding this decision.
I '.~
APPROVED
~~
wff~
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
COMMoNWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NANTUCKET. 55 'h\ /N'--( ~ 4 · 19:JJ
Then personallY appeared S~~~ 'J, ~vX\ Q..r, one of the above-
named members of the Planning Board of Nantucket, Massachusetts
and acknowledged the fore-going instrument to be his/her free act
and deed before me. n .0 '
~~ l<-.l~otarv Public
My commission Expires; (G/r-)q~
ift:lll:/LI/I )lltt [llu 1/;' III!
l"fltffC JiJ /ltl'jnZ/ Me/;
~I
R'd
S02L.-8Z2-80S
swe~II~1'l epu~'1
dOE:Zl 90 82 Inr
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ contro lie!
~istry of Deeds
r
....11..
\111.
Or.'.'U~:-; ;....
~... l..~ .....v."dI
nEED WITH RESERVATION
Or:' EASBMENT
We, FRAN[i(. H. I,Ot-ll and C-L1\R.~ B. LOW I ot Chappaqua. New York, fot
con:;;ideration paid, grant. to ROSEilT S. WEST-BROOK and WILLIAl'1 y..
a.OOEWALP, as True tees of CANOP/I,CHE NOMINEE TRUST under
Declaration of T~U&t dated June 13, 1987, r~g15tered a~ Document
NO. 40447 at Nantucket Registry pi~trict, having tbeir principal
place of business at 61 Allwood Ro~d, Oa~ienl Connecticut 06820.
~ri t.h QU 1 TCLAIM COVENAN'rs,
That; ce:-tain par:cel of land :d tuateo in Nantucket, NantucKet
County I Massachusetts, adjacent to SnawKemo Roaci. bounded ana
oe6c~ibed as follows;
NORTH eM1'ERLt
by Shawkemo Road, two hundred forty \240.00}
feet. and
SOUT11EAS'!ERLY
four (4,OO} feetJ
'iiESTERL '[
on(!) hundred t.'\o'enty and 68/100 (120.68} feet,
one hundred twenty and 68/100 {110.68) feet,
and
sourHWES'rERLY
NORTHWESTERLY
four:: {4. 00) f.eet by Lot 4 on
hereinafter mentioned.
plan
Said land is shown as Lot 3 on Land Cou,t plan 35819-C.
This conveyance is made subject to the following .atters:
la} An easement hereby reserved for: the bene-fit of t.hg
rema~n~n9 land of the grantors I shown as Lot 4. on saio E>lan
35819-C. to pass and repaesl to construct, roaintaint repair 3nd
t"eplace utility lines, and othet:'wi5e to use said Lot 3 for all
purpo/Ses fot:' 1rIhicn streets nOW ar~ or nereafter may cust.omarily
be used in said Nantucket.
(b) Real estate ta~es asse.ssed by tne 'l'own of Nantucket
for th~ fi$cal yeacS 1991 and 1992.
ro~ title, see cereificate of Title No. 6885 at ~antucket
Re9ist~Y District.
LAND COURT, f.\.G:;.tGil\. ihe land
ht.~llin descril1~r. y~1I l:::, !?\owr: nn
QlJf anprovt:d n~,w t\~ t~.:~!H'.! r,:,
AP R ~':J i:)~1
Plall 3~ID~..~-
(E(tJAlNm ~S l{) ilf_:;C\-\iP1,m! C~itY:
LO\,lis A" lJ,ootl\. ttl'J!n~ LM So
-).-
bttp:/ Iwww.masslandrecords.comlmalr/ controllel
gistry of Deeds
II III11IJUIlJ
If"~";-,,,,,,,;i%,;;],. 1M,.",;:",',",',,'
.151
Cr~r.::--.: ?
_.__....iJ~""'U
This conveyance is made without monet~ry consiaerationJ for the
purpo$~ of widening the layout of Shawkemo Road to encompass the
area of the present travelled roadway thereof.
E~ecuted and sealed on
~ 21{"
~~d'~
l"t:ank H.. Low
1 1991.
C.SLO-.~ I-\~ ~ M..L.
Clat'a. B. LOW
STATE OF NEW YORK
~<"..,":C~~b~ CCU('\~ ' 56.
\Y\Qu 2_~ib
1 1991
Then personally appeared the above-named Fr-ank H. Low and
~cknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act ana
deeo, before me,
My commisaicn
~/!J~ ~~~.
1 Not~~y Public
CLArI1r. A. lOlYlllAflpf
expires. tfotllr)' PUI>';C. Stille "f '"~w Yllrk'
.. . . N~. 4;."4:':O4--~
Osul,.r,a,,1 -1 ....:. ..... ,
rwu. ,." .' .__......:. "(".t..J' .....,II"tv
IItm :7, ''0': :.t'.' , I;~ q"i
);
~
eo
... """
. .'
=cI,'
r~
.'<:1'
.....x
-a-.<t:
~
nro IIlplf/f{
or:..,r)o ~
t(~
-2-
ejw!9/CANDEDEIi.
http://WWW .rnasslandrecorcts.comJrnaLrl contrOller {CUnUIli:1UUUi:l.g-:;vi:ll ...
lstry of Deeds
[
g\lfl...
.~
I
1
,
.. ..
} ; : ~
~
CaT)
f6
(:)
d
z
....
m
~
i3
8
~ .'~
~1 /'\ ..' r
% :l I-..J \ '
~ 0 I \t1 IS ~J ...... ~
i::' i=\)l "i% '" ~
.!if ~,~: " ::; ~ . W' ~
~ ~ ~ I; ~ ~l F ~ d~l ~ . ~
~~.i ~ ~~.J 't \l f~rt:~ 'i!~'1 r 1
I- ....~ I::- Cl: '9 I I", ;"~ ~
Z -~Olol' ~",Ii:;~
LU --;. ~ Ii. g I:f: ~ ~':=- ~~::>
:E .-. ~ d g ;,:;,1- 0 I'"
~'IoI; ~ o. ., ~ ,-,.'::! ~ :c;'
~ ~ _ W 0 fu ~ cr.':;~ - ~
o ~ >~ <J~~.;te;,!-!o;:
O flI; iii s!?,'i!,2 ~lT.~
..... ~ 0 c..'f.-"6- ~~~iE J
..... IoU [';:$ ~~
a:; .r~ GtW
.....,
v'...'.~...
--j '-
~,
,";
......,Af.-.r\nrl'"'\ ArTYlI.lr
nrrp://www .IIlIIS~li1l1Ul c;...U' u:>....UIW llHW I ,-,VllU VUV'
istry of Deeds
1l.!'II.~ll.IIMII.1 '\I~ 1!~:t11
ldl!!lllliBI _ lIB I,;";,,.
mJlI1
C3/11/Q3 15:45
"5'617 "120 S760
JORN BRAZILtAN ~~~ KINKOS
111 ~'ll (}
05991.3
s(lm\0410r~Gf 121
gJft!t':teA~B OF TRtJB'l'U
I. Clifford E. Barbour, Jr. t as T~tea of canopaohe. Realty
TrUst. under Declaration of l'rust o.at$d June 13, l~Sj, a.nd noted
as Document }fo. 40447 on certification of Title No. 13,141 at the
Nantuck.et ~e9istry District of the Land court., hereby c~rtify as
folloWS: '
l. :r ani the 60le Trustee of said Trust and I am not the
sele Beneficiary of ~aid Trust.
2. That said Trust has not been altered, amended; revoked
or terlllinatad.
~. That I have been duly authorized and directe~ by all of
the Beneficiariea of 5ai6 Tr~$t all of who~ are o~
majority4 to. ex.cute,sign; deliver a deed to zyd$cO
Investtllentsl 'tno of the. real estllte l)! Shawkelllo ttills
Lane I Nantuoket I MA and to further execute any ~nd all
dQcu~ents that would effectuate said oonveyance.
EXECU~ED as a s$al$d ins~ent this '2~day oi March, 1~93.
C~OP~CHE NOMINEE TRUST
By:
S~AT~ OF TENNESSEE
March ~ 11 1993
CAMPBEU., S51.
Then pex-sonally appeB.J;ed the above-named Clifford E,... >.ir' ,,"," "
Barbour, Jr. .nd acknoWladged tl>. far.9o in9 instrum.nt ..t'" '.b." td.s' 0'"
free act alid deed, as 'l'rustee, before me-, :' '.".-' ...,' '. -.:J....
; ~,(-'.~ O"1~~~'~""'~J'~ :~":
. r',\"":"'- .: i......~ :
".. ! (;-=. ~'.- .,," .-~-': ..
1'-"t~q'~"- '..',;,. '
. ('::':Xr;..I~"u .:~.,
~
NotarY public:
~y commission expires:
j bc\fqtla4\ttL,J; tee,,,rt
MAR 1 7 1993
!) : II 1*1
SANOAA M CHADWICK
I\rtEST REGlsrER
NANTUCKET COUNTY
liEC'O ENTERED
Q 1A/,)1111{; 'h1" P1o./f
nup://WWW.l11CCS:ili:1.l1Ulc;......UlU;).\.IUU.1J.lUa.u., ""'-'&.U& _.&---
istry of Deeds
\II"'Pl%';'III"'~' B""'" III"" ':; 1I1::;;;;\\Bi"',~\j'i .~
it.,..gi'x ~ _~,-".J .~ Y. t? :.'_~!, ',I!"/J
,.',.'" .,' ,.'" 11 J,!,I.
11111I
(fan ZI~~
l.S',.U
<allI? no 5160
JOliN DRA'lILiAN
...++
It 1 N'!t() S
~ tl07
I ·
05991.3 ~~},r:-
....
I, Clifford a. Barboor. ~r., TrUstee of ca.opaChe Nominee
~rU.t oldlt dated June I>. ,..7 and noted " noouoent No. '0"7
on certifieat4 of Titl. Woo I>. ,., ,t the Nantucket Roqiatry
District of the L.nd Court, of 2..6 s.rb'. Nill Lan', ~oxville.
~enne.5ee 37.2. for co..ideration p.id in the aW. of six Hundred
sixty Tbouoond ($660,000,OO} Doll<rS grant to 8ydeco In~..~te,
1no., . oo_r.tion orqani.ed and elCie.tin~ puro;ua.t to tbe 1....
BOOK{}Ll1l{)~~c~Jl:ll~
mum
."--'
of the Sto.te of Florid. with its principal .ddr""" at · I<in~
street West, suite. SHOf <.roront.o, ontario, M5H, l.B61 with
quitol.im nov..ants, tho foll~in~ described property lo~ted in
Nantucket county, M.assachuse.tts t "ihich has the address of
Shaw){emo Hills Lane, Nantucket, Ml1SSachUS&tts, OZS54~
Situ.ted in the Town ond county of Nontuokst. commonwealth of
KaSSACh.".to, at Shi=mo (.lao xnown a. Shawkemol Rood, bounded
and describ~~ as follows:
~hose certein paroels of vacant land'situate~ on Shawkemo
road, more particularlY pounded ~nd described as folloWlj:
a.t9~1 1.
NORTaEAS'l'ERLY:~
by Shawkemo ~oad, seven hundred fif~r-
tour and 10/100 (754.10) feet;
by land noW or formerly of Frank H. LoW
and cla~a B. LOW, four hundrad torty-
seven ~nd 49/100 (447.49} feet.
py Lot 4 ~bown on plan recorded in Plan
File 36-C at the Nantucket Registry of
DQQds, nin~ hundred fifty-nine and
27/100 (959.27) faet:
by said lot 4, six hundred (600,00)
1
NORTaEASTERLY~
SOUTtiEAS'l$RUl :
SOUTHERLY:
QIA nf\f\? '),A? Ul\J[
11LlJ1.1/ vy vv n .11J.U.:l.:Uu.l.Lu..L ....."",.IJ. ~"""v","'&J ..~---. ----
~istry of Deeds
l!~\ IMI r~II~II.",*l",,"I~'#i,~~'.\"I'lil~1
_._..mUllill
lif.I,)'II~~,,-',',~',I'
--
4fr611 1%0 57&1l
JOliN BRA.Zlt.l/lN
l\:lNKOS
ijQ 00&
.-=--
O~/12/93 1~:'4
QS991.3
..
!no~(}ll1L()rAGr1l1l~
by land now or fOr1l\erlY of Clifford E.
narbout" # Jr. and DorothY D. Barbour,
~i~ht hundred thirteen and 47/100
(813.-47) feet:
):)y ~and now or foner1y ot saiti Sa:rbour ~
t~o hundred ninety--~ and ~l/lOO
(296.21) feet,
by land no~ or formerly of ~antucket
conserv~tion Foun4ation, two hundr&d
{200.00} feet; and
hy ailltop aoad, t~o thousand seven
hundr~ $&venty-four and 15/100
(2,774.15) teet.
Beinq sho~n as '*Sh.awkeuno Hills I"ane~ and: Lots 5-1.~ I
inclU$ive# on plan ent.itled nSha.wkemo Hi.ll Lane Subdi'il ision1t
propare~ by Hart-Blackwell an~ Associate., dated october 24,
,'90, revi.ed May 10, 1991. a~ Key 29, 19", on~ recorded with
th~ Nantucket Registry of DGed& in Fla~ File No. 40-R.
feet. 1
SOUTHERLY:
SOUTHEASTERLY:
SOOTKW1:STERl-'l:
'N'ORTHWESTERL't:
For title, see deed r.corded in Sock 326, paqe34 at the
NCUltud::e.t R.egistrY of l)G.&as.
That certa.in parcel of land situated in Nantucket, Nant.ucket
County, N.aSl5achuset ts 1 a.dj acent to Shawke1l\O 'Road f bounded and
deSCl:ibed a\$ follows.
~
NORTREASTERtN: by Shawkemo Roadj two hu.ndre.d fortY'
(240.00} feet 1 and
SOUTHI:AST:eRL'l~ four (4.00) feat:
SOUTliWESTERLY ~ one hundred tw-enty .and 68/100 (~20_68}
ff.\et~
WES'1'ERL'l : one hundred twenty and 68/100 (120~6S)
feet.l
NORTHWES'rERLY: four (4.00) feet by Lot 4 on plan
hereinafter mentioned.
said land is Shown as tot 3 on Land CQu~t Plan 3SS19-C.
For title, see certificate of Title No. 14891 at the
NantucKet Regi$try Oistrict.
z
SUA/")()()h ') 'Ah PM
llLLp.I' \'f yy ". ..I.J..u..&.o.;J~.I.u.LJ.~1. ...............L """""'....~........... .&.,A.&__' - ---
~stry of Deeds
[
I~fll~,-'II_I",-'m,~ I~,';~I
.--..
1111
KIN]l;OS tal Ofl9
QS1J9t:l
n~/l2/9a lS:45
'8'617 1~O 5760 JoHN BRAZILlA.N .....-1
..
p,Q<lK0410?p.Gtl20
Said Lot 3 ia $Ubject to an easem$nt reG~rved for the
benefit of the remaining' land of Frank R. and Clara B. Low: shown
as LOt 4 on said plan 35619-C1 to pa$S and repa$sl to const~ctr
maintain, r~pair and replace utility lines, and otherwise to us~
said Lt>t J for all purposes for vhieh streets noW axe or
hereafter may CU$tomarilY be used in $aid Nantucket. Said
easement is registered as Docum~nt No. 53652.
WitnesS lr<-Y ha.nd and seal this [2lE, day of March, 199:3.
B-1;
r.
CANOPACHE NOMiNEE l'
~~
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Karch, 1993
Th.en perlll-Q.t\ally appear-ad tb.e aDove-natL\~c!l clifford s.~_.,~'.;.u. c;>-,
B""hour, Jr. and .eltnOWled</<'d thO for.going · igna t"-'"";~lt:o..,1!ie. ~~>.
tree act ~nd dee-d, ad Trustee, before Jlle. ' ~~l / 1 ~ 1::' ::'..,.~ "',
) , ." ,0.. ." . ~' "
~ .: :i ;;~- _ ,"'. ;'2/5 J ~'"
NotarY' Publ ic: ,,:"~~;::-. ' .,.' /.f ).-
MY c:ooumisslon expires: 1.;~!ih-i\'fr~~>--':'
" . ......:. ~... ,., .
cAMP BELL I $5.
x
i3)OKXJ. ...
IDI'H7 $. i1.13
~
",,-; \. :::. ," .:.;: .:).:
'.:-. ......: . .:
"iriTIs ~~',:,ilj
, ':H~~1~1
,":1: : ....1....
Ib\d"ds\~hlll/li.~.M"
3
~
'\ A:-< 'bU'jt:l L~\\
c&,$H'" " ~\l \t~/.~(1
~/ "';i
.;' ,l,iQl2.A\i ~,~ l,il,; ,~\)
. .',',txt,lSE:11\~:,.
. :...oll..........
..........
-I
Q/Ann(V:' ')'.<1(.', PM
~gistry of Deeds
[
nup:/IWWW.llli:1~~lC1L1U1C...U1U......UllUlu.aUI...VULtVU.... 'WVUUll~'~U~b ~-_..,.
IIII1J IIlIiIHIJ
fIJ;"""',;",'I' tJ',.tfJ",',..,,',',',',.
!f,If;\l\ ,"
~'HfR;"{
j
%Gf.
518 P~ut 91
~
i.D
~
~
~
:;
d
z
~
ro
2
::l
(;}
o
o
J I, ~ J!i~ ! I
i III 2 \iJ\; I ~ li1 ~ r: !
~ ] ~ i i~ i~lf- ~
~ D ~ lj ;il~I!1
o It ..., \ "" ~ <r ~
o
~
~
t'"
r?
r-
-,
-
GCT 2 2 1996
NANTUCKET COUNTY
RE.C'O ENTERED
Crt ~ t11h
SANDRA M CHADV\llCl<
ATIEST REG1SfEfl
'ii/A 1'1(\(\h. "J.A'1 PkJf
11lLp.1 f VV YV Vl' ..lll~"l.U.U.\,.Ll ,",,,",Vi ~.""UU.J.J .l-UU.U' .................... ....,......ow..
~stry of Deeds
BGOf. 518 l'AUt 89
U73761.
OUJ:TCI.I.IM DEED
zydeco Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation whose address is
387 Eagle Drivel Jupiter, FL 33477
for no consideration as a tran$fer i.nto trust
do hereby grant to Erika Greenberg. Kanneth Beaugrana, and Martin
AtkinS, of 4 s~awkemo Hills Lane, Nantucket, MA 02554, as
Trustees of Shawkemo Kills Association Trust date~ July 7, 1991,
and recorded in Book 370, Page 247, as affocted by documents
recorded in Book 424, Pager; 212-220 and in Boole 4:1c., Pages Fr::L
at the. Nantucket Re;igtry of Dee.ds,
with ~U1.TCLAIM COVENANTS the following:
The land with a.ll iJnproveh\ants thereon in the Town and county of
NantuCket, co~monwealth of Massachusetts, situated on Sha~kemo
Road and described as follows:
Parcel~ 1 ~nQ 2..
Lots 11 and 12 on a Plan dated october 24, 1990, revised May 10,
199~r and May 29, 1991; and recorded in Nantucket plans File 40-R
at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds.
For title reference se.e the deed recorded in Book 410, Page 11S
at said Registry.
~~
Lot ~ on a Plan numbered 3S819-C tiled with certificate of Title
No. 6885 at the Registry District of Nantucket county.
For title reference see certificat~ of Title No. 1&,701 at said
Registry-
Said parcels 1-3 are "road lots" that are intended to be use.d to
provid~ right of way for Snawkemo Road.
'the land hereby conveyed is neither all nor sUb-stantially all of
the grantor'S assets situated in Massachusetts.
Q/tl/'1f1f1t:. '1,,1'1 DT\A'
egistry of Deeds
[
I
llLl..p.I J "Y YY ", .UI.u..l.;,U.....J.J.\ooa.l ~""''-''..I. '-&.~. ,-,'-'.1....&1 ...1.1._'-""" .....VLJ-.... V 1.1.....1
1~111~~11~., I~llimj
~---~
\E1JlIJ
finO" 518 PAGE 90 073761.
IN WITNESS wgEREOf, said Zydeco Investments, Inc. has caused ~
thes~ presents to be signed in its name and behalf by Martin
Atkins, its President and its Treasurer this ~ day of
A~u5-r J 1996.
ZYDECO INVESTMENTS, INC_
:NL~
Martin Atkins
President and Treasurer
Nantucket County,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
AlS\1~)r' tJ T
1996
S5.
" ,
Then personally appeared the above-named Martin Atkins and
acknowledged the foreqoinq QUitcl8.lf~~eed1 ~o b~~~h~ f~~er.act"and
deed of Zyde:co Investments, Inc. be=~rr.e;}lf\eA '.::: ; :. t':,.~,
.~ \ ;.: ~ \,::~ :~~;' i i ~' . ..,.
. ' '
(seal)
My 'cOl.llll'ii,~siO!1 eltPi1:e~: ..'
'," "
" ,
, '
~t':'t.;~r~;':,
.~ :.~. :.} ....~ .'
, "
c fllCl-l,l\f\U LOF1l~. NW,ry PublX:
My Comll'lS8;an fbcpi!el Jill'{ ZT. 2llO\
).(
J.l
,?.ige'::/ t.o '....'1..1<."
I" Co { -'/"" j !~
:" . (~~,l~{
Q/A /'){\{\?; ').A"1 Dr..,r
,/
:l-619';r
300 .lHnO~ CI/NI
'~
-~
c
o
ii:
~
....
c::
"
~
~
~-~U
-I
.....
~ ",,--.,
..._5:: 10
I "-c~CII"i
... -~1-
,. ,. 0
;;~~-'
blCi..!
~
ti
;!;
~~'"
~_~Q..6""
I "tJ c....
~c:;~;~5
;;~~~
blCi
~
;'1
-...;
r.:i
Q~~.
\2V -., ~
~ ~~
c:::. ~~
~ II~
l\:l
~
~
.i'
~
~;!
_ ;Ii a.~
....._~Q...a...
~'i?-~~~5
\:1Si-'
r
.-.
f5E5~
o o~ci.~
!?~c:~~0l
C"ot w~;;~E
~~~1C-'
~ll:c:i
ado./>
.. .
ti
;!;
Ii~",
,"': i5~~6o
7"- 0"'-
~c :;~b
_~..J~
0"'''-
U"
f
~ ...
lit....
" ~9;y
....; .....J -.'0....
.i~:iai~.-.t-
,. :.c~.,~o
~:s.....J~
e:UCDCL
C:i
~~ !~ ~ ~
. ~~~ en ~.... Ll)
_~ 59 ~-" L.., co
98~ i!; ~ co
~~~ :E ~ ~ 3:= ~ (Q~
~IVI "'\g 00
~~~ ~~ ~ ~"'~ -'-J 0
oc:~ f 8 \:::l'~ ~ L.., ::r:: cri <:
~~El ~l!j \",) OJ ~ Q.)
~'-' VI ~ ~ <: ~ C5
"" l;; -e :::;, .... "<(...... L>
~5~ ::: l!1 ~ ~ 0:::::S ;;::
~~~ 9~ ~ t::: --, ~ Ll ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ 0
. ' ".., ~ -:-:-- -------,-
--"'-'e. ~
-I
...;
CIj
'"
t::. ~I
)) <..i
~"'l:
"";~
II ~
OJ
~
~
~
i
,~
~ ~
t3 t;;
'::J.~
8
If!
~
;'1
-..;;
CIj
@~~
~-
~"'l:
...., ..... 0,
I::l ~
~ lIas
OJ
~
'<<:
;'1
-..;;
tIS
@~~
~"'l:
~ ~~
~ 'I~
OJ
Cl)
....
'<<:
iI
'"
'"
~~
",0
<:;,
.
..'
.......
j
'"
~
':f
~
",,-,
l:!~15
"': 89'-'-
i~-.I .ai~
+C:k:~g
~~::}
--. ..,
~
cJ
-l
"
0,
0,
ci
.E..
0," - \; ;,;
"';:0. lO
'i:~e~
CL::S;l>-- '" ~
....: g"'~ .~ =<
'" c.,,,, u
",-gc.,~1 en
-..:: tlb::.i~ u
"<I""~ "'-
a ~~:::>~___:r:
to ., ~~!:!~ ~
~.,,,,g~~
_.. h
~~ .~
t.i.t ~
Q.; :j
'Oll:l
u
tn
.
l/)
Z Oui
UJUlWf-
WWWf-
l:D..JOlU
"'~"-~
< 0:1:
:C~lro
:z.~w<
:5:tt;~
n.t:i3<
",3:111~
:r Ir',,-
t-~wo
....z:c:c
<<t-....
:r::ou......J
....150~
>0",3:
lLOZZ
~<g~
W~<~
uoSo
>-wClu
IDa:WLU
W-<:D::t:
Irll. ....
WwO
J::a:Z"-
_11.-<:0
\
\
\
~
"'" .::f
~~~
. 88tl"
~,""~ti 10
:::1;:ti:~3
~~"1.
!;l ....
~
cJ
-l
! :z!
@'D
..
.
r.....
. -11
,-
.
...'
..;
~
,'""
g
~
lL
'--.
-..-
:a
'-'
,~
~-
....
~
~
t:l
!:!
l~
iii
l/)
,W
"-
o
n:
-lL
z;j'"
01
~~
i<:J
F
Of
o'
i~
o.
8~
"'~
~E
0:3
:;ir:t:r;:
gg~~~
0'"
~ ..
:-,;;~i2"
~~~~R r.
IIJZUlti.1t :..
b~Ocn~ ~~.
-'L&..~~u~i
:I:':E>-iiiO ..
5~~'5~~
zzoa::o~~
__a::~o::"'-
::l~lo..[('C1~
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
358 1 9 D
Blackwell and Associates. Inc., Surveyors
April 9, 1997
~
ti
LC Pion No.
IOnA
lXi
<.i
...
c:.
c:.
I()
OJ
IQ
'- ~
:::.
0
1:
0
ll:l
~
0
-=
0
l..j ~
ai
<.i
Oi
~
N
J8'
~
...
~
~
00'
w
iii
<.i
~
ol
'C> "l-
~"l-
B
..,
8
"
~
~
#.
u
-.i
~
\ I
\,
~
OJ
~.
/;;j
II
~~
6'0
-v<"j. l.t 6'..1'
J,?,
j",-
A Jy
!:: -'Vo T
t. -v.,jSO'
q......:?.,pa
Subdivision of Lot 4
Shown on Plan 35819-C
Filed with Cert, of Title No, 6885
Registry District of Nantucket County
N5J'25 '06'W
Franklin E. Smith
L,C. No, 5J88 A
c.rI, No, 2181
Separate certificates of title may be issued for land
:;;:=&;J::~}o:~
OEC, 8, /991 7#r
ABH--{)2E6
Abutters are shown as
on original decree plan,
C<Jp)' of purl of pion
- rkdir-
LAND REGlSTRATlON OmCE
- DEe, 8, /991 -
Sed. of liI;s ploolSO (..,/ to OIl itcli
Lou;s A, Moore, fngin__ (a- Court
~
co
.-.3
d
z
5
u:
~
w
'-"
E
:;;;
Cl
u.'
..,
C
:z:
""
.....
c...
tr,
X
I-
http://www.masslandrecords.com/rnalr/ contro lIer? commandflag=sear...
,egistry of Deeds
t
IIII1RBDI
t3~
DEt . 8 1997 078290
~ f':1113)81~l)l'l 5
lWlIO[DJ,!ll(1 tE:.C~1Of<(Ul'}
Lal......tolootc. t:....-
WE. I'RAt>i1<. R 1.CJW aoo a.A~A 5. LOW, oJ :9 JoaI1 PriYe.. Ch.,,~
N<..... Vorl; 10514. f"n:u...M1~rotio" paW ~ll.t in r..ll~umlil"Hlr NINE
HUNOREDSEVENTi.FIVE THOUSAND and 00/100 l$'J1S.W100) UQU.AllS.
r.~ ~ -<II
1~Ut:uiJiJtPltl~....
lNlOco.;Rt, llOOl~, ~1IfIll
N:fdlt r":.1~'(l'J .... be sIIl__.
_Iri-::?,~r"~ t.:lt,\.~ ll$
w..ntll'
PHILIP G. HEASLE'f and MAUREEN HEA5\.EY d ro1 Sec;ond Av~ South..
MintlL9pa~is, ~Ia 55m All 1Cma1\t& bf the 1!I\timy. with. QUlTCLAIM
<;aVl?NANtS.
~ two c:.artain p.orals of v.ac.o"tll>nd Ihel't:O" ~ituata:d QI\ Sholwke~
Rn;lll in NOllllutlwt T,,,,,,,,;md Cl>unty. C(lmtll(>l\Wt'althof M~l"l'lld,usctu.:more
partkub.dy lx.lInt.k.-.111nd d..~rib<....1 aoI ((I11I1~
P"'1i"JOll!),
That cctUin p;>=1 of VKMlII~od $jtuOlt~ on PoLpi~ RQ.~d, in Nanlud<ct "QWP
alld County. M~li5i>d'll/lleltl-, more patticl1larly d(!!la1hcJ as follow&:
SOIJ'tHEASr'ERLY
by laDd showl\ liS L.Ilts- (, and 701\ the bak'lw-
mentioned plan, five hl1ndred iortyocight and
52/ 100 (5.IK.s2~ tt'<.'t>
soutHWESTEJlk'l:
by s.ii.t 1""1 6. 'w..:ntY""'I';U1d b7/100 (11.61) k..."l;
by Shawll-1.lnlO Rllild;lM l,.ol3- 00 umd Cour~ Plan
3Sa 19.(: on v'll'lOWl coatom. ~Il ... AloWJ\ ll'!l
Ilw bclaw-tl\()rltlo"oo plan.. t'Qtlll1ng fjy~
bondfL..! thirty~vcl\ and 15/tlXl (5.'\7,1511~~
b)' l~".j go..' Of lor~Ey of. Zydl!C:O lnYlll'tmcnts.
l!\Co. Nl>nlUrlu:l Al;sQc;latc TfllSt.. aNi J>;.ta!\Two uoenlx.-i wl~lw, tlx lIu.ndred e:i9ty.five
and OO/lOO{I!e5.00} {L'C:l; and
by 100nJ,l<hoWll .as 1..41t II on the below-mentioned
pl~", llllW hllnctNJ tweL'lt.y-ornr aod 11/100
(lU-tn JK't.
souniERI.. Y
NORffiEASrERLY
NOImtWESrERI..Y
._..._.._...-_.................. __...__ __. ...._......~....._"... .._. ..-.._..-. ...__' .~.. ." ........ .__..._...__....~r-....._-.,,__~
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ controllel
~egistry of Deeds
rBllflD...lID
-lIJ II
t"'..:-".;-I n ""'l
~U<J.J t.u.t~
07S290
s.id IlIIld jalbcMn -= LotS-on. .~n<< 1.ancI in N~ W-. ~ mr
FW\k H.1.ow .""'Clam 6. Low~ date<! Aplil9. 1991. rUed wilh the Land Cowt
411' t..aad O>urt Man 3S8011)..0.
for title. _ Certlfio;ate 01 ti\ll.! No.6.tltl& ;It 1be NOlltllc:l<le!t ~ Pi&trid fot
tl>o: lAr><<1CDutt. Salol ~t isa porlioo crLot 4 01\ l.-iIoo Court 1'1bt135819>C.
r~~
ThAt <<rtain parc:cl..n ~13l: bnd IinutlQ(\ on PntJ'i' RtJad. in Namuc-ket Town
aOO County. M~w.tU. Jl1Dl1! partiallarly dc5cnbed... folktWSo
SOUn-U:A-.rERLY
by l;and dJ!llcribed .. ~,o..:<.~ two
1wn4in:d illl)' IItld 08{100 (200.tIS) ~
N~tH1;RL\'
by land flOW or lamurly 01 Nantud:&!t ~
T ru~t. jOtd f< K;lrcn Fischct ami Zy.lero
ln~tmenIS, Incv ~sbDwn on the bl!low
roerllim\cd plat\ tw(> hunc!n,d forty....ine And.
'JfJ/l 00 (249.20) foot:
SO\.n1-lWem;RL.Y
by 100nd oow gr (armed] of Ffoilni< & Cia", Lllw as
shown on s:ajrl pial\. IIIlC hundred thirly.f1l'LIt
lInU37/100{1~1l1) f,'t!t.
SAil\. land II DllDWl'l >> lPl 11 M "1'IAn 01 La...! in Nllnt\lcl(el. ~ p~tcd for
fmd< H. Law andCl.... B. t.ovr dillW Apn19. 19"17, lO ~ Z'CCOIWld with ftle
NllntuCb!!: Rilglltry<< ~,
Foe title. _ d<<.ood rorordl.....t iA lk>ok :\65. J>..~ 174 ..t in;, Na...tuckcl \'{I:gistty of
Qa.-ds. SAi" ~I i&.. porl~ "f 1.01" lie shown an plan l'li'CllI\lw in Plan File
?t6-C lit thl': NlIntn~\:;l!t R~Mry gf 0............
$aiJ r~lIWl5 ()no Bod T ,,",0 aR't..,'1'!by (lln..cy<.od $llbjuct t.. tlw follOVl'ing I'\.'ttril;licna
whidl ~ ill\~ tot !he b<mdit of the Grantor.;. ~h....r ml'L su~r,; ..nd
assigna. as Qwm-r& of hmJ OM hl\~tJl.llO- u l:.Dt II on Land Callli t'Ian
No. ~9-D',
----.--......... ..
.....~_____.._____..._--'"".-...A_... . - .
. .-~. ..~....... ........ ... ...
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ contro He]
Registry of Deeds
l
II~ 1~~;,111~~1 rf'II_I'.~.J'I.1 rrl~!ll
~tf!!!!lBHlBg-~
r~,',:t~II~""I,'
_m
...-._.~_.-.' ..........-.--...
----......
~MGlJLJ 7~~tl5<tJ
078290
1. 1,0)1$ Sand t1.~ilIl bL! t"".,,,,..! 01$ OlW 1l1llklin!; lot "n.1 m;>y Ill" ~ ~uWivi.:k>d
inl(> mtlf'C thanuncbuilJing IDt in the- future,
:z. UJe n>ol>liltlllll1 !In>uN.! "'".".. (as .Minl)d in the NI'l\tackL~ Z-oni~ B)'.l~""} olI\
l-llt S/U s.h.~li IIl'll).OO(I~uat" (.'ct.
~ Any 4;l>if'Iln~Y (>llll$lrudell"n the l'ror~rly sh."lU \><.' ~'lf [liIlurnl roll>>' !>rid"
.t. No nlO! ...;\11..... moo)' ~ ("(lllslruCll.,! (>0 AOr. 5Irtl~I~lfe huil t upo" llu: prn.>r.!UY,
S. 'flw mlI"jl11l.lm ri,I". ""it.ht .~lllIlY MnlctUTl! con~truclox\ OIl the properly ~~1I
~ l...enry~" (2h~ (''lll "l1(Wll AVc1"'S" MClUl CraJe. ~ Ihat term ill Llclltv:d in
tba Nantuck1l17..aning ~,l.lW.
6, I r;) ltnfli$ (CJurll.~ ~onBltllClOO, lU) lightil1& $bAtl t><! permitted of INI court.
1. If..", l!l(l(!tiot :J.witnl1'ling pool is a:m$trUl:l(ld, llfll' lighting 01 th3t poot mil$! bt!
four (4) f'-'l!t or Icss ia hcillhlomd d.".;~t $C' a~ to direct in., I~lil'g ~W't'l!:
.oward lnC' &,ouS\lL
8. All ~)l~tior constRICtion Muat occur ootwCfln 9c~mbcr t!> and MliY 15.
~ tt1,trldiros llhall nm wilh lhe land hct-cby comr<:yed lor the mamr.u~
period pc.nnlnl.'ll by bow, includill& all)' c:xIl!f1$ians thcN.'<li dilly dai.nv!d.
WITNESSmtr hiln.ii alld Je'itls thi;. Ie dJy ol~, ~991.
r;(('l'5 KEG it,
iI~l;,Uo:t t
~.~ ({. 'iw-
FtaRk H. Law
.. ......--. .
....::".. "-....:...I..&.:.. :
".-' .... !
~
((II ~M....
'tft~1 .o\4'I>.~
~~ "---.I
Cl~iI 'Il.1.ow
~~, " 1'f1~G'(7.t>o ~
:1" .0 :
: .' . .
:.IH5i... ,~"ll 'If 'ii i
:, '. . '::: c:!/t,?,~
144~(.n" Nt~;l
[XCl:>1:. tlWi
~1'^:TEOfNEW VORl<.
Q~ J/j yr..
DI.=mber J.L 1 rm
~ pcn;onalty .PP<";\I'\.'<.t tll" ;l.lxJV<H>llmed fr~nk H. Low and
ackn:JWblgN the fo"'gqint; iO'INmcnt Ii> be! his; f~ ow:t lJ;nl.l Jco.J, bo..-kJtc ~
r'.k... J 11 .
so""'~ $~tletJu;t, . :" N~I')' ~t~ ..t-lIr~
Mt1WfJ 1'lJel;lC.SlI1.util....".... ·
,. ....~~' ~ C_1 . . My Commi:NiDrl &pUel:
o..::-:=..:~' ,:
.. .... .'
-!'
... .. - . '.
:.,. ~.". -'.~. .-.-.....
/P ,... ~ ",l,
." . 11'"/1 . .,4.... "
. . " ~~!i:. ~.. ". .," ~ -'".,"
.............,' .- -' .-....-.',
tegistry of Deeds
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ controlleJ
If
lfi II rlHflB
If~,','",',',?jllf~',~,':,;,',','ij:'j
m~
I:)
~
S
&-
::::=.:
....'
m
<:;
~
o
C)
rl
~
~ 1
ffi
:li;
~
o
8
\
I
I
\
t*U\AjirJH~
:"11 (
...
I ~J~JI~~ t~ 1
" ~ J ~~ f' I I
e.... m ~ ~fil
!! ~ 1 \ g~ - r
-- ~ ~ 1. ~ .~.~~ ~ i~
;l:l" 0 tI~~"'isi.~
~ ~g il!",~&",~
~ ~ 1 ~ r., ~~ I ~ !i 'J
lifo 0 "'l;'! 8~
~ ~.. ~i
nEt 1 US
WltmJCl<n CCl;ttrl
R!::C1I e!':!C~D
~:$'~P/'1}
~CRi; ~J \.r=~'~1tr.K
J(ltE5-'f FOt(;I$1P\
E.nd {If
____.._.~ 'tl-~~ruu,,6nt__
http://www.maSSlandrecords.com/malr/contro II er'!commananag=s~l1l...
;try of Deeds
[
l:!J Ltl~ L!J ~
~\31
103936
BDOK b 4 ~ PAGE009 4
QUITCLAIM DEED
WE, PHlllP G. HEA.Sl~EY aDd MAUREEN HEASLEY ("'Grantor'') of3271
Green DolpbinLane. Naples, Florida, 34l{):2 ("Gnmtor") for non-monetary consideration
and in consideration of a transfer to a limited LiabUi ty Company at the time: of its
formation in exchange for membership and ownenhlp of said Limited Liability Company
grant to VBDCt LLC {"'Grantee"}, a duly organized Delaware Limitee Liability
Company qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a mailing
address cia 3'),71 Green Dolphin Lane, Naples. Florida, 34102 wiOl QIDTCLAJM
COVENANTSl
REGISTERED ~b-ND.i
The vacanllanrl situated at 59 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket Town and County.
Commonwealth oCMassachuset.ts, and shown as Lot 5 all Land Court Plan No. 35819-
D propared by Blackwell and Associates. ine.. Surveyors. dated April 9, 1997, and filed
with Certificate oftit1e No. 6885 at the Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court
(the "Registry District").
Lot S is subject to, and has the benefit of:
(I) A certain View Easement dated December 15. 1997. filed as Document
No. 7&291 and noted on Certificate ofTitle No. 6885 at the Regilltry District;
(2) A certain Declaration of Restriction dated May 21,1991. filed as Document
No. 53653 and noted on Certificate of Title No. 6885 at the Rebrlstry District;
and
(3) An Easement reserved in a certain deed from the Grantor to Robert S.
Westbrook et al., Trustees, dated May 25, 1991, filcdas Docwnent
No. 53651 and noted on Certificate of Title No. 6885 at the Registry District.
So much of Lot 5 as lies within the limits of tho Way known as
Shawkerno Road as shown on Land Court Plan No. 35819-D'fiJed with
Certificate of Title No, 6885 at the Registry District is subjoct to the rightl'i of
all those lawfully entitled thereto, in and over the same.
For title, see Certificate of Title No.1 &,1 n at the Registry District.
---_..-...-~_.
http://www.masslanarecaras.cam/ma Ir/ contro Iler
stry of Deeds
[
WWbJl!J~~l!!J
l3Jl3J
BDOK 8.1-6 PAG[ 0 095
103936
!)NREGlSTERED LAND:
The vacant land situated offPolpis Road in the Town and County of Nantucket.
Commonwealth of Massachusett! and shown lIS Lot 11 on a plan filed as Plan File 51-J
at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds.
This UNREGISTERED LAND is conveyed subject to, and with the benefit of:
(I) A certain ConSt:mluon Restriction dated December 24, 1986 and
recorded in Book 266, Page 19 at the RegiSttj'~ and
(1) A certain Declaration of Restrictions for Conservation purposes dated
May 29, 1991and recorded in Book 365. Page 167 at the 'Registry.
For Grantor's title. see deed dated December 15. 1997 and recorded in Book 551.
Page 3-41 at the Nantucket. Registry of Deeds.
The REGISTERED LAND and UNREGISTERED LAND conveyed herein are
subject to any liens for real estate tax assessm~ts and municipal charges that are not yet
due and payable.
---.-....-....................-..-.
istry of Deeds
[
nllp:/' WWW.llIa:;::; I,ll lure\,;u rus. \,;unu lIll:llr, comro lIer
~Wb:JL!J~~~
l3J~
103936
BOOK 8 4 b Pfl5E 0 096
WITNESS the ~ecution hereof under seat this
, / "f!,--
~ day ofSeptembcr 2003.
Nantucket.. S&.
Ph' P G. asley
A, I)
-JIU:tL{)J~, f,...
Maureen Heasley
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
September / t J 2003
Then personally appeared the abovo--named Phili
ack.nowledged the foregoing insuument to be his free
N.IMUCICET 1NC> IWI<
camF'JCA.TE
~Paldl
~z:
~
q ItJ
-....-....
~./ ;f r. t.~,..,= .
. .;3 "" ',"~'
.'.,.
Public : ~'~~ ,::.... ( .:- f
ommission Ex~~~~ ' : ::,' ....' ,- ,
KIYIN r;. vALl? '., '~~'- . ::.:: .
NOTAriPU8ttc~.. . .,.,:'--',:'.,':
t>--l-'- ~ M..2fi,.-~'<~'{,~: '~ ~ -~,
..r" '," ",::;}I"'~ r.
-I
..... .--,..,..,,. -- .--........ .
itry of Deeds
nrrp:llwww.maSSlanarecoraS.COffilmalr/comroller
li:JL!Jb:J~~
l3Jl3J
BOOK 84 b PAGE0097
103936
':lJ
M
""
M
o
~
..
o
%
1
i ~ ~~ i~ ~~-
\.1 ~ g c;~ ,,-~.dii
t.l1 III N L\J \ .... e
,.1 ';; co c:; ~5
S \J.1 f':! ~ a: :<: ci ?t~
.&- P tJtl-;. 0.. ~ g ~ ;!;~~ c
u.J ~ <S ~w '" ~
.... V") fa b ~ ~~i g ~
~~ ~ J ~ ~ i ~ i
~11 Ii i i I
6::~mCl~~~~E~s ~M
Att&5t: '1---'1., WI; RegisWr or, [).Hds
l:~nd o[
I -~~l.r'; ment ~"-----
-----~' '
...l!tI L
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
ri
'.}\
l::."
"',.
r,1
::':1:;
...,.;
'_n
',-:;'
.;~
Minutes for che Meeting of
Monday, January 10, 2005 7:00 PM
Middle School Cafeteria
!'-J
Pcesent: Chairman Donald T. Visco, Vice-Chairman Fmncis T. Spriggs, Barry Rector, John McLaughlin and
Sylvia Ho'ward.
Alternates: Aaron Marca~.jtch
Staff: John Pagini, Andrew Vorce, Leslie Woodson and Catherine Aneero
1. Call to order:
Chairman Donald T. 'Vi.sco called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.l{
II. Appto\'al of the agenda.:
A motion '\\."as Ill2de to approve me agenda, duly seconded :ll1d voted 5-0 in fa'\:or,
III. Minutes:
. December 13, 2004 continued lOJa.nuary 24,2005
IV. ANR Plans:
. #6817(.6.) Town of Nantucket, 7 Miacomet Road (Map 67 P:arce1679)
Representing: t-;one. Mr, McLaughlin abstained, Staff recommended endorsement. A motion 'Was
made to approve in accordance with the mff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 2-1 (1v1s,
Howard :abstained) in fa'l..or.
. #6817(B) To\\-'ll of Nantucket, 7 1-fucomet Road (1:1ap 67 Parcel 679)
Representing: ~one. Mr. McLaughlin abstained. Staff recommended endorsement. A motion was
made to approve in accordance '\With the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 2-1 (Ms.
Howard abstained) in favor.
. #6818 Robert L, Coffin, :Milestone Road (tvup 73 Parcel 55)
Representing: None. St:lff recommended endorsement. A motion was made to approve in accordance
with the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #6819 Lee A. Pap:tle Kalman, 28 1:fizzenmast Road Ext, (Map 66 Parcel 66)
Representing: Armur Reade. i\ motion was made to continue on January 24, 200S, duly seconded md
voted 5-0 in favor.
. #6820 Hampton S. Lynch, Tr., 9 Milk Street (1vfap 42,3. Parce!130)
Representing: Staff recommended endorsement. A motion WlIS made to approve in accordance 'with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #6821 H. Gordon Kennedy & Ellen _,\, Mackenzie, 8 BeAver Street (1vb.p 55.1.4
P arce! 79)
Representing: Staff recommended endorsement. A motion was made to approve in accordance with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #6822 Lewis Lubar, Trustee of Eel Point Trust, 197 & 199 Eel Point Road (Map 38 Parcel 33,34)
Representing: Staff recommended endorsement. "1. motion was made to approye in accordance with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in farO[,
. #6823 Octavia Bredin etal, 75 Hulbert Avenue (1vfap 29 Parcel 4)
Representing: Stllff recommended endorsement, A motion was made to approve in accordance \\~(h
the staff recommendation, dtuy seconded and voted 5-0 in fa\'or.
1 Easl Chestnul Street + Nantucket, MA 02554 . (SOB) 228.7233 + fax (508) 22B-7236
email: nanplan@nantuckel.nel
......T....J
,..."'...." ,....-,""""]1 nn"""
~ '"I r-. T or yo T - ....... ...... . . ... --.
-, -.- ~ - -
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
. #6824 VBDe, lLC, 116 Polpis Road & 59 Shawkemo Road (lv1:tp 44 Parcel 4 & 130)
Representing: Su.ff recommended endorsement, j\ motion was made to approve in accordance with
the staff reconunendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in f,wor,
V. Secondary Dwelling:
. Reginald W. Ray, 89 Vestlll Street (Map 56 Parcel 251)
Reprcsenting: Nonc. _1\ motion was made to :approve in :accordance with the staff recommendation,
duly seconded and votcd 5-0 in favor.
. Petcr \Vise, 110 Baxter Road (Map 48 Parcel 37)
Representing: None, i\ motion \Vl1S made to approve in accordance \>.ith the staff rccommendation,
duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. 1largaret Gilroy, 32 Madaket Road (l\.{ap 41 JJarcel316)
Representing: None. A motion was made to appro~e in accordance wid\ the staff recommendation,
duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
lvir, McLaughlin stated that since April of 1997, the Nantucket Phoning Board has approved 824
secondary dwellings.
VI. Previous Plans:
. Cliff Acquisitions LLC, Nobadeer Farm Road & Sun lsland Road, Form J
(Lors 2.3 and 2.5)
Representing: None....\ motion was made to release and endorse the Form J, duly seconded and v~tc
5-0 in Cayor.
VII. Public Hearings:
. Policy reg-;u:ding the continuance of public hearing continued to January 24,2005
. #1665 Modification of Esher's Landing Subdirision, Ridge Lane, North Point, Fisher's Landing &
The Gro,'e (1rlap 38 Parcel 7, 42, & 59- 157) WITHDRA ir.N
. #6323 Modification ofBack:us Family Subdivision, Bacl..-us Lane, aedon deadline
02-16-05 continued to JaDu3.F}' 24, 2005
. #6784 Donald C. Allen, Jr, and Jean 11 Allen, 13 Hooper Farm Road (1-1ap 55
Parcels 222, 223 & 224), action deadline 01-31-05 eondnued to January 24, 2005
. #6815 Eli Place, 7 Brinda Lane (Map 67 Pared 313) aedon deadline 03-31-05
Representing: Christine Mann, Gretchen Eigenbrod and Arthur Reade.
:\pplicant submitted an Appro....21 Required Subdivision Plan for a nc\>.' roadway to be known as Eli
Place. This subdivision \l'ould create two lots, one lot 'Ilrill be buildable and the othcr lot would be a
roadway. :Mr. Reade stated that the applicant has been meeting with the neighbors to discuss the
paving ofBrinda Lane. The applicant and other residents who utilize Brinda Lane discussed sh:u:ing
the costs of improving :md,maint:a.ining Brinda Lane, Ivu. Reade stated that there was a brief
discussion about creating a Homeowners Association and that anyone who joined the Homeowners
Association would contribute to the costs of any maintenance ofBrinda Lane, Mr. Visco opened thc
floor to the public. Wendy Watts stated that ten of the fifteen neighbors h:lve conversed with the
applicant and had a productive and very posirive meeting, She further stated that the neighbors have
no objective to the subdivision, Ms. Watts asked the Board to waive any requirements for roadway
improvements for Eli Place in exchmge for the applicant's participation of the proper engineering
and paving ofBcinda Lane. Mrs, Watts stated that the abutters 1fe in support of the proposal as long
as the Phmning Board would endorse the agreement they requested. ]:vir. Reade st:lted chat he would
contact Mrs, \'Vatts to have another meeting with her and any abutters who have concerns in reference
to Brinda Lane, Bruce Watts stated there are tWO carch basins at eh intersection of Althea Lane :Iod
Brinda. Lane, Joanne Kelley asked who would be in charge of the escrow account once contributions
to have been ma.de? l\-1r. Reade sta.ted that he would conta.ct \X!endy \'Vatrs 10 discuss further regarding
the escrow account and Homeowners Association. Roberr Bates expressed concerns as to why
construction is sta..rting right now, There was a brief discussion and e."<planation that a secondary
dwelling is allowed on the lot now bec.lUse the subdivision has not yet taken place, therefore it is on
an existing lor. A motion was made ro continue on February 14,2005, duly seconded and voted 5-0
in fa.vor,
#6816 Sevent>-ille Lane, off Milestone Road (Map 72 Parcel 3),
action deadline 03-07-05
Representing: Leo Asadoorian and Greg Nichols, Trustee of Ryden Nominee Trust. jyfr. Asadoorian
sl:lted clu.t the Board approved a. preliminary plan for the proposed subdivision February of 2004-, The
~ II' 0 T T T T"" 1::1 n I I T -,
,Jr",--"-'Y
~,.." ,....,.--.
--- --.....
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
applicants are applying for an Approval Required Subdicision known as Seven I'vWe Lane. The
"ppliC:lllt is proposing three buildable lots, lVlr, Asadoori= stated that each of the proposed lots
would be limited to ooe dwelling wtit to preserve the existing vegetation, Ivlr, Visco opened the floor
to the public, Leedaca Zola requested that a no-disrocb buffer zone be implemented, l\-ir. Asadoonan
suggested mat a ten-foot ,'eget:ltion buffer would be reasonable. l\Ir. Visco asked what the time fr:lme
would be, Mr. ASlIdoorian stated that there would be a few revisions that need to be mllde, A motion
\1'llS made to continue to January 24, 2005, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #14-04 t-Ioclification \'\:estmOOr Club LLC, Cliff Road & Westmoor Lane,
action desdline 02-10-05
Representing: .Arthur Reade. Ivir. Visco opened the floor 10 the public, There was no public
comment. .\ motion was lnade to close the public hearing, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in f:lvor. A
motion was made endorse the decision as dnfted, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #26"()4- Goodrich Nantucket II, LL.C., 36 Shav;kemo Road,
action deadline 04-10-05
Representing: Melissa Philbrick and W, Sterling WalL The applicant seeks for a second drivew;l.Y
access, There was II brief discussion of the second dwelling that was approved on March of 2002 jLod
how the secondary dwelling shows a shared driveway between the row house lInd the second
dwelling, }.ok. Wall stated that the appro~'ed second dwelling drivewa}' does not allow for adequate
emergency access from che common driveway. 1\ motion was nude to close the public hearing, duly
seconded and 'I"'Oted 5-0 in fa""'OI. A motion U'llS made to instruct staff to draft a decision based on
staff recommendation to approve, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in fllvor.
. #27.04 Chris & LUbet Full~, 6 'Iz D:.ffodil Lane, action deadline 04-10-05 WITHDRA \fN
. #2B-04 Peter \'Oise, 110 Ba..-.;:ter Road, action deadline 04-10-05 WITHDRA WN
VIII. Decision:
. #09-04 Cartet l"utchell, 2 Tellsdale Circle, action de:J(lline 01-21-05
Representing: J olm Shugrue and Carter l"fitchell, A motion was mllde to endorse the decision, dul)'
seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. #24-041vlodification ClifEside Belich Club (Cort:lges), 46 ]eEfecson-'\.venue,
action deadline 02-01-05
Representing: .-\rthur Reade. .t." motion ',,\'lIS made to endorse the decision, dull' seconded and voted 5-
o in favor. '
. #25-04111e Galley Restaurant (h-1oclification of Cliffside 'Beach), 54 Jefferson Avenue,
action deadline 02-13-05
Representing. A motion was made to endorse the decision, duly seconded lI1ld voted SpO in fa\'or,
. (Draft Decision) #14-04 Modification of West moor Club LLC, Cliff Road & WeSlmoor L:me,
action deadline 02-10-05
See under Public HellOng #14-04 Modification ofWestmOor Club LLC.
. #6803 Shawkemo Ridge Road Subdivision, ac/ion deadline 02-28-05 continued to January 24, 2005
IX.. Pre-Plan:
. Kenneth C. Coffin Inc., }u:rou'head Drive (1up 69 parcd 10)
Representing:] oha Shugrue and Kenneth C. Coffin. Mr. Shugroe briefly discussed that he is
pwposing a subdivision containing a sixty-four buildable lots on }urowhead Drive, Mr, Shugrue
agreed with the maximum requirements of the Rules :md Regulations Go~erning the Subdivision of
Land, There was a brief discussion of infrastructure irnpro\rements, The Board members agreed that a
definitive plan be submitted and thaI lot 117 needed to be revised for it to be more 0 f II functional lot.
The Board instructed staff to draft a decision for appro~'al with conditions given, duly seconded and
vo ted 5-0 in favor.
X. Sketch Plan:
. .-\lan & Cynthia Hall, 30 Crooked Lane
Representing: Alan Hall, lvfr. Vorce stated th:lI:Mr. Hall has come to the office numerous time.s to
review the plan and suggested to him that he bring it to the Board :.IS a sketch plan,1v1r. Hall would
like to propose .to a division of the pro pert)' into three lots and would like to have aCcess from
Crooked Lane, '!'vir. Vorce stated that on this propert)' there seems to be an issue regarding
subdividing dui: to the property having twenty-nine feet of frontage on Crooked Lane and with that it
would require a waiver in the road right of wa)' ,vidth in order for l\fr, Hall to proceed or Mr. Hall
would need to seek additional property from abutters, Mr. Vorce 'Jsked Mr. Hill ifhe has thoughr of
pursuing a Major Residential Development special pennit. Mr. H:lll said yes, but he has some
_.....,....., nnr""
swetTTtM epu~'l
dSS:21 90 82 Inr
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
concerns, There was a brief discussion of the subdivision being restricted to one dwelling per lot due
to it being serviced by sepac, 1\lso :-',[r, Hall stated dlat he road surface would be kept as n:lcunl as
possible wd that mere will be no asphalt. The Board briefly discussed that the road surface be crush
shel15 or gnvel.
. Angdascro Investment Trust, 25 Pilgrim Road
Representing: Arthur Reade. :Y1r. Reade briefly discussed the sketch plan that was being presented to
them and said diat it would be proposing to divide the property into three lots, lvU. Visco asked if the
Board or staff had any questions or concerns, Mr, Varce stated that he did view the properlJ' with
J\,fichael Angebscro and pointed out where clearing would need to take place. The to"dway surface
would need to meet the minimal grading requirements, Mr. Vorce stated thaI lot three would be
problematic due to the erosion of the roadway, which would need to be filled, raised, and cto~;ned so
that runoff did not furdler destroy the roadway. r-.-1r. Visco asked Mr. Reade if me property would be
limited to one dwelling per lot. Mt, Reade stated that he 'Was unsure.
Xl. ZBA: (Note: ZBA Hearing is scheduled for Friday, January 7, 2005)
. #86-04 Bruce Cohen & Mary Louise Cohen, 7 Bank Street (Map 73.1.3
Parcel 27)
. #89-04 Don l\llen Auto Service Inc., 24 Polpis Road (1.[ap 54 Pucel17TJ
. #01-05 Suzanne Taylor, Trustee of 33 Pine Street Reaby Trost, 33 Pine Street (Map 55,4.1 Parcel 66)
. #02-05 Lawrence D, McAtee, Trustee, l....lC1\tee Nominee Trust, 2 -ocrmdy \\'ay (Map 67 Parccl11 8.5)
. #03-05 16 Wa.shington Pond Road l\:ominee Trust, Richard J. Glidden, Trustee & Samuel & Susan
Lehrma.n, 16 & 18 Washing Pond Road, (1vlap 31 Parcel 18 & 18.1)
. #04-05 Harold A. O'Callagh:1n, Jr, Trustee for Gorham's Court Nominef: Trust, 1 Gorham's Court
(Map 42.3.2 Parcel 205)
. #05-05 Denice K.ronau For HerseU as Owner & for ~rmond p, Conlon & Susan E. Conlon,
Contractor Purchasers
. #06-05 Peter Jannelle & Wendy J. Clinton-Jannelle, Trustees of 56 Union Street Realty Trust; &
Virginia Andrews
. #07-05 Island Buggies j\llto-Renra~ UC, 41 Old South Road, ~,lap 68 ParcelS)
. #08-05 Restontion :\ck, UC. 43 Center Street (}viap 42,4.2 Parcel4D)
A marion was made that the ZB.t\ applications were not ofPI:mning Board concern, duly seconded
and voted 5.0 in [ayor.
XII. Other Business:
. Town Administrator's recommendarion on FY 2006 Planning BO:l.rd Operating Budget and i\'laster
Plan funding,
1k Pagini stated that me funding for the MGL Chapter 41, Section BID Master Plan and zoning
bylaw supplemental funding had been reduced from $100,000.00 to $20,000.00, The Board
unanimously voted to requesr consultant funding for a 1-faster Plan (lvlGL Chapter 41, Section 81D)
and a comprehensive re'\\'lite of the Zoning Bylaw,
. Francis T. Spriggs was nominated for Chairman in absence of Donald T. Visco, there were no other
Dominations, and a unanimous vote was raken, Barry Rector was nominated for Vice-Chairman pro-
temp, there were no other nominations, and 3 unanimous votf: "''as uken. '
. 1-fr. McLaughlin asked \.Vha t the status was on the property of 25 ..\ppleton Road, !'vir, Vorce stated
that a memo was sent out to Zoning Enforcement Officer Marcus Silveotein and a response from
him had not been received at this time,
XIII. Public Comment:
None.
IVX. Adjournment:
Chairm= Visco adjourned the meeting at 9:15 P,M,
??.d
S02L-822-80S
swe~TT~l'l epu~1
dEE:21 90 82 lnr
NANTUCKET PLANNIN
1 EASi CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET. MASSACH S
(508) 228.7233
Date:
2
--t~%
.-..".,., sa
~ ~ (..:-
To !IIo PlaJUdDg Boord ofN'o"'ckeU ~ ~;. .!. :""
1"'" ",'
. f'T1 ~', "' .
The und<Olgncd. being the appU_" dofinod undor ChoplC<41, Section 81-I., fur ~ ~~
. . .' . Shs."kemo Ridge Road d'~.J b :Blackwell lli!llSce'tlces
..,bdMslOD shown on a pl>n cntrtled _ 8..div~'. - y..,. r.,,11 i ..... "'r' ~..<i D8
dated August 11. 2004, "and described as follows: located on Shawkemo Road and fobia'Road
, number of lots proposed 1
1oIOl_ ofu.et . I!. 64' . , h....,oy submit> ..m p\all" a cJdbdfhe pl>n in ..,.,..danoo wlth !IIo
1M~ and kguIations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Nantucket pWwing Board and makes
application to 'the Board for approval of said plan.
~.
t~
File 01l~ completed for with the PLanning Board and one copy with the Town CLerk..
AUgust 26, 2004
.",r'
Tho undo<signtd's titIo.,..Jd land il; dtrlved Don> Fronk ". Low · Cbr a B. Low I>y deed
datedI2-8-97. 9-16-03 and =_ in tho N-- ~ ofDoeds aook 557-334 aNi 848-98
Page , [Ogist=d in the Nantu- Rogisny DiMct of tho Lan!! Court, ~ ofTil\e #18172. 20884
and ..own on Nantu- A=r's Map # _ 44 , p=l 4,130,131 , and IOid i>nd il; tme of
encumbrances except for the following:
Said plan 0 has Q) has not evolved from 11. preliminary plan submi~ to the Board on
(date) and 0 approved 0 disapproved on
(d~).
the undersigned hereby applies fot the approval of said definitive plan by the Board. in belief that the plan
conforms to the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Name(S) and addressees) of the Applicant(s):
(to include all the n8rrtcS and addresses of the principals of the owner entity such. as principal officers ofthl:> cotpoxat1oll,
~~ofattWrtorp~ernofapartne~h~)
Phili~ G. and Maureen Heasley
~ 3271 Green Dolohin Lane
~Na?les. FL 34~02 ,
VBDC, LLC
c/o Philip ~, . Manr..n a...loy -
3271 Green Dolphin Lane
Naples. FL 34102
pltmnittg Board. FNm e. fX18S 2
. ~ ~I'?
. ' ~. .
, .Name of owner(s): .
Address of owneI(s):
I hereby certify that the applicant(s) listed above have been authorized by me to file a. subdivision plan with the
Planning Board on property that I own.
, same as applicants
Received by Town Clerk
Daw:
Time:
Received by Board of Health:
Date:
titne:
PlannIng Board File #
., "
CEC No. 20430041
August 11, 2004
SHAWKEMO RIDGE ROAD
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION
Waiver Requests
Itemized list of improvements requasted to be waived or modified:
The land on the accompanying plans, Definitive Subdivision Plans ShaWkemo Ridge Roact. shall comply
with the nJles and regulations of the Nantucket Planning Board RuleS and Regulations Goveming the
Subdivision of Land as emended through December 20, 1999. except for the following enumonJted
regulations which the applicant requests the planning Board waive or alter in the manner specified:
SECTION 2.06a(11) - SITE ANALYSIS REPORT & MAP
Request that the Board waive the requirement for the submission of a complete
site analysis report and map. A brief project narratIVe will be submitted to the
Board describing existing and proposed condItions. The supplied subdivision
plans will contain adequate information to represent 8 site analySis map. This
waiver is requested for economic reasons as this is only a 1-Iot subdivision.
SECTION 2.06b(14) - CONTENTS OF THE DEFINITIVE PLAN
ReQuest that the Board waive the requirement for on-site disposal areas for brush
and trees. existing' brush and trees will be shredded and chipped thereby
eliminating the need for disposal.
SECTION 2.06b{18} - CONTENTS OF THE DEFINITIVE PLAN
Request that the Board waive the requirement for a landscape plan. ~ting and
proposed tree lines will be indicated withIn the subdivision plan set. No
landscaping is proposed due to the sMail size of the project.,
SECTION 4.03a(1) - STREETS
Request that the Board waIve the requirement of 20-foot minimum roadway width
and allow a 16-foot roadway width with 2-foot shoulders. The subdivi$ion is
located in a rural area and will service only ~ne lot.
SECTION 4.03e - STREETS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of 20-foot minimum roadWay width
and allOW a 16-1oot roadway width with 2-foot shoulders, The subdiVIsion Is
located in a rural area and will service only one lel
SECTION 4.04b - DEAD-END STREETS
Request that the Board waive the requirement for granite curbing around the cul-
de-sac island. The proposed drainage system relies on grass lined swsles that
Bre only possible with the removal of the berm. Placement of granite curbing
would also not be in keeping with the surrounding area.
SECTION 4.06b - STORM DRAINS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of .storm drain system," The
proposed drainage system would consist of a grassed lined swate, catch basin,
ce
\lCad11\g--cnd 11Iproject\l\2Q4:;0041-1 0-1 OO\Dac\Exhibil A,doc
Page 2 of 2
CEe No. 20430041
August 11. 2004
and underground infiltration system. The proposed fIItorm drain system will be
daslgned for a 25-year storm as an open drainage .ystem In compliance with
section 4.060 - Open Drainage SystemS.
SE.CTION 4.09 - SHOULDERS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of 4--foot shoulders as requited
WIthin this section. The proposed roadway vJill contain 2-foot shoulders.
SECTION 4.12 _ WATER PIPES & RELATED EQUIPMENT
Request that the Board waiVe the requirements of this sectiM in Its entirety.
There are no public water lines near the site. Proposed dwellings wHI be servloed
by on~site domestic wells.
SECTION 4.13 - DRY SEWER LINES
Request that the Board waive the requirements of this $ElCtiOI'I In Its entirety.
There are no publiC sewer lines near the site. PropOsed dwellings will be serviced
by on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems.
SECTION 4.16 - LANDSCAPING
Request that the Board waive the requirement for a landl'5cspe plan. existing end
proposed tree lines will be Indicated within the subdIVIsion plan set. No
landscaping is propos~ due to the small sIZe of the project.
SECTION 4.18 - SIDEWALKS
Requast that the Board waive the requirements for sidewalks. The volume of
pedestrian traffic generated from e. 1-1ot residential subdivision does not Justify
the need for sidewalks. Also. there are no sidewalks located within Shawkemo
Road that could be connected to this site.
SECTION 4.19 - BICYCLE: PATHS
Request that the Board waive the requirements for bicycle paths. The volume of
bicycle traffic generated from a 1-lot residential subdivision does not }ustlfy the
need for a bicycle path. Also. there are no bicycle paths located within
Shawkerno Road that could be connected to this site.
SECTION 4.20 - STREET LIGHTS
Request that the Board waive the requirement for street lights. The site Is rural In
nature and street lights would attract undue attention to the development. Also.
there will not be large amounts of traffiC on the road to justify the need for street
lights.
SECTION 4.22 - CURBING AND BERMS
Request that the Board waive the requirement for curbing and berms for the
proposed road. The proposed roadway drainage system relies on natural
drainage ways to handle stormwater runoff. The proposed drainage system wUl
not function properlY if curbing and berms are constructed..
ce
\lCild 11\g-cad11 IProl6Ct$\20430041.10.100\ooclEOxnlblt f\..doc
I"~' p" ~ p ." · r
!II IlIll~; I~ e: r u~ ,;1 i.~I!ll' :1
Illig I~S 5!! g' ;l'll'! Ib,~~!! !
I ~_'i"~ ~'ilijiii\~1
l 19 16 II !H~\ ;'Ii M j~ i:!lii~il !~
.~ ~i PI &. t ~i! I'" ~I ~1~'1 i~
1'1 ~ I fi Ipli iii .\ nIl ~
. 'I l. I 1 ~ ll"~ 1,1 ~ii~ .~~
~ IL I br
!~ .1 .
, & I
,. ,
'"
i
.1!!." ~
~.I "*
I "
I ....
u ~"
I 1"1'
: 1111'
: I II:
I> I
I
1,
;, .Ii~
i !l: ~I
i I: \ ~!
I I
! ~tl~t
, , i IlIl I lli~'
, . n~~. m, I n \1, I !ill~
~ Ill' ,~.~ ~ Ii Ii
I ~M i~!!~ i ~'~I'
..v~. ii ~ \ ill'_l
~ ~ fi i S ~~~I~
~ ~!I.
, DEFINI11VE SUBDIVISION pLAN
!.., ~~* SH,I.\\KPJD 1ltPOf: RO~ StIBDMSlOH
I, . . ~::.,._, /{ANlUCKE;!';j'~~GHUllETTS
...... . ....- HfAILU
....$\,-,.. ..-..
......
'dl= .
-Iii'
I
I
I
t
#t r; .
I.~' .
.1
~~Ik%
'.. lil'
.
i 1m: 11111!l1l Ilil I
'(m- ! atll! 11\ I
! iiiU ~ill I ~i' i
~jllll i bi,l I
'h'l +,- t
. " K;l~ N _ i l, S
~Mm'll
I ~;t;t;t~
lil-
i1i1
~i..
~,I;
1,1
i~E I!
a I !
I
l'
..
,.
~ -
Ii II
I! ~II
i ail
~ J
i .1
i il.
i I
~~
~
~ .
.!!I"t.~
k.. t
l~
...
\ ;-
\ \
\ ,
\ \
I \
I
''11
'..-
;1;
! B
~
d
~ II II 'I a!i~i
i H I! ~ Ii;~
II ~ i! i~
I ~I~i!
~ I hl!1
~ ~ '~!i'
~~ ~
ice~.'~'.'~~
i~~
i
OVERALL LA your PLAN
SHAVII<f),lO RtOClE ftOAO $I.Ii'OII-lSlON
NANlVCKET. IoIASSACHUSETTS
_/\lit '
~~
""
r-
D.A.TE. :
APPuCAN1':
OWNER:
LOCA..1'ION;
LEGAL
DESOUP'I'ION:
SIZE:
LOTS:
ZONlNG:
GENERAL
Pl!SOUPTION:
PROPOSAL:
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
September 27, 2004
REVISED September 28, 2004
philip and Ma.\U'eW Htasley
Samt;
Along tbt west side of S1u.wkemo Road
11.64 !v;reB
1 1:ruil.ding lot
Limited Use <;enetal j (LUG-3)
The ~ ". ~ for on iIppn>V'1 of .P.limtWe ~n- (Alljlorpmp.rtploog
the ~ side of Sba-\vlm.mo Road. 1be site is 11.64 acres square feet in area and is loclted in the
LtJG.3 "'''"''' d;sui<t. All.bualng P"'P""'" ". oho Jo<;,..l in ilit LtX>-3 ~ d;sui<t. The...
"" ~,,\y cight_cight (88) f... of tto=g< .Jong Sbo- Rt..d. The oppli=< l. P"'I""ing
to ~te one: (1) new building lOt and a new road'Mo/, Shawkemo Ridge Road. from which the lot ~
gain access and fronm.ge.
The existi.og veseta.tive cover of the site is primur scrub o~ Development of the site will teSult in
remaval of elcisting vegetation within the area. of the proposed ..of-VIllY and the am. ~
the proposed dwelling location on Lot 11., lIS shown on the proposed plan.
Although the subdivision contains 11.&4- aCteS, oo1yone (1) builciing lot, Lot 11, will be aemd.
Sever;! existing lotS are shown on the proposed plan:
. Lot 9 (approximately 120,000 sqWZ feet) with existing frontage along SMwkemo Road
which was created on an ANR plan (# 6760) llpprovcd by the PWming Boord on May 24,
2004;
. Lot 13 (8.44 acres) which bas frontage along Polp~ ~
. Lot 12 (8,822 squafe feet) whic.h is an unbuildable lot that -will be combined with Lot 11;
Lot 11 on Plan Pile 51- J (OlpproxiIm.tely 16,208) which will be combined. -with Lot 11
shown on the pkn.
Lot 11 iI5 shown on the proposed plan is the new lot which will be created. Lot 12 as shown on this
plan and. Lot 11 on plan File 51-J will be combined withLOt l1lM shown on the proposed pLm. to
create one buildllble lot. Lot 13 is only sho"1Jll on the proposed plan and is only included in this
subdivision application for the purposes of conveying Lot 12 to Lot 11, 0lS shown on the propO$ed
plan. Lot 13 will not have access from Sha~mo Ridge Road, AI;he~ Lot 9 WI1,1; created throuth
1 East Chestnut street. Nantucket, MA 02554. (508) 228-7233. tax (508) 228-7298
amail: nanplan@town.nantucket.nat
Ar'RpW>.1611!J'" . ~- :: ""'" .,;,mnum 1m""",, ~ oIoog S~ l\oId......
..;II.....,... ..;,' w.. .. (._ .. (..,~_ (".. ~ .."~, .,...... ..4111or,u" F4'. F...
'11>< "","",;' proPO"d to be Wd <Nt wid> . fo<<y (<10) foot rigb>0I.".ywid> "'" (:l) dIitt (IIj foot
.,.vd'- wid> '"'" (:!) foot &"" .bou1d<n on...,h.J.k 01 ""'.-. '11><~. ~
,.j1\ be ~ 01 b;onnDu>'" "'..- ... ,.j1\ be 'l'P~'50 f<et;",,,2,b wid>. cul-de-
sac llt the terminus.
No .~ '" mlot pod>s "" P"'P"""! l"'thO",bdiv..... Due to ... "'" 01 the ~... oM
... doo, ~ 01. bio<path oIoog Poit>>s 1<ood. sulf ."llll"" tbot... ~ be........
~
s_,,,..,ff,.j1\ be...-l thtough "'" use 01 """"""" ~-~
_. -p" pmp<>se<l_ .,-.,.Jes;pd to <to.....;.llhnle _Dum' ".,.".
live (2l) __Iou< (24) ~ """"...... '11><.........,-.;.cludos' p' .. o\ong
.......,;de 01 S",,",,"'" Rid&< Rood.' do<p __ hoodedCa<ch buin,.,.!' - on<!
lnfIlttmion"'- ~ in d>t.-' 01 the .,,!-de-.... '11>< - ,..Ie,.j1\ _.....,If
_ <br raod_.,.-.... "".,w,! "..,ff ,.=ing d>t.,...... '11><.....a';....o;....d to ...
iPfiltration system, is the low point of the entire site.
QJm Spi'<<
No proteeted open spliCe has been proposed for this appfu:a.tion.
~Lp ,
'11>< 'l'P"""'!... ont P"'"""," "1 ."",lighting. I';'''' opm;oo 01 pIaooini auff tba< "'" requr<t
for a waiver is appropriate due tD the small $cale of this residCPrialsubdivisioc.
~~
'The oppli=t bas not ___ WJ' !aod<"l'~" ,.quUed by "'""" ~.16 01 "'" S~JOia..m
~. on the ~....... 'The.ppU=t!... ~ tbot raOtint- tm....m be
~ and they are ~uesting a. ~er from the landscape plan.
~
'1be p'"P"',d bulldiDr; lot ,,;ll be ....,;,xd thtough ."'... ...n ... ""'"'" All othe< ...... ,,;II be
installed in accordance with the prospective utility company.
~
'I'be applicant is l.'eques~ the follo-wing waivers. These waivers shall nOt apply to Lot 13.
2.06;(11)
2.060(14)
2.06b(18)
3.02
3.06
4.03:a.(1)
4.03e
Site Analysis ~port aud Map
Waive, Recommended - a namtiYe lw been submined -which is adeq1,l4te
for the scale of the proposed subdivision;
an-site Brush Disposal. '
Wirier Recommended - existing brush will be shredded ;md chipped
tnerebye\.itninAting the need for dispoS~i
Landscape plan
Waiver &commended _ eDsting tree \ines ~ ~ mainu1ned and ne will
be indicated on the definitive plllI1;
Public Open Sp:a.ce
Waiver Recommendec1- due to the sca1e and location of this subdivision;
One Dwelling Per Lot
Waiver Recommended;
Streets - Width
Waiver &commended ~ l\ sixteen (16) foot roadway is suffICient to
provide accesS to two (2) lots;
Streets. width
2of4
Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision
Waiver Recommended - a sisleen (16) foot roadwayis sufficient \0
provide access to twO (2) loti;
Dead-End Street
Waiver &commended - pite curbing around the cu1-w,..sac -would
prevent the drainage system from working propcrlyj
Storm-Drains .
Waiver :Reconuntnded. propos~ utilizes an Open D~ System;
Shoulders
Waiver Recommended. propos:al is for ~foot grass shoulders;
Guard Rail& and. PoStS
Waiver Reconunended' not applicable to lire;
Wl1:er Pipes and Related Equipment . .
Waiver Recommended - on-S1te -wdls will be uti\iud.;
Dry Sewer Lines
Waiver RecOmmended - on-site septic Ij'SteIDS wil1. be utilized;
Landscape plan _ ,---...A.od ~L_ ':_A~' L~. . , ~,-~.1 _1.._. ., I:__B
Waiver J:\eC01l~ . tw: app~t D>> ~.tIJlU,. exlStIDg t:ree ~
will be ~ and jndjcated on the defmiti.ve plus;
Fire Alum Systems ami Bmergency Water Suptlly
Waiver Reconunended
s~
Waiver Reco1l1IDCn.ded - due to the ~ and l~n of the lire and tht
la.ck of connet:tivity to other sidewalks/bike paths;
Bicycle Paths
Waiver Recommended-bic)cle p~ths nOt D:ceuaryfor the interior
roadway and. there is an existing bi1tepath along Polpis Road;
Street Lights
WiNer Reco~d. the small scale of the $Ubdivision does DOt
necessi~te su-eet lighcin~
Bridges
Waiver Recommended - oot applicable to the site
Curbing and Bcnns
Waiver :RtcotnflllIDd.cd ~ wollld DOt be in hafmoIlfwith the proposed
ci.raimge system.
The tnffic generated by the two (2) loti -which will utilize Shawkemo Ridge Ro$d -will. nOt create t,.
significant impact to either shawkemo Road. or polpis Road..
4.Mb
4.06b
4.09
4.10
4.12
4.13
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4,21
412
TRAFFIC:
ENGINEERING REVIEW:
See anached report from Horsley WIttett Group dated September 17, 2004.
REOOMMENDAtlON:
The proposal for the Sbawkemo Ridge Subdivision meetS the ~ner:U intent of the N:un:ucktt Zonin~
Bylaw as set forth in section 139-7. Suff recommends apprcml of the 'PPIic:l1ion with the following
conditions, which are not apptiCllble to Lot 13, and are subjeCt to change based on input froP1- tM
public and tM Pl...nning Board:
1. That the applicam be granu:d tht: -mi:vW ~ described in the "WirYersB section of this report;
2. Tha.t reco~ed copies of allleg:a documents (Homeowners .Ass~n documentS, Statement of
Conditioos, G.rant of Right of Enforcement, Grant of Easements for tJtiliw. D!'ainagel and
Covenant) shall be presented to the Plmning'Board prior to the relf:ase of any lot from the
Covenant rod within nine')' (90)days from the date of the decision.
3. 'nut a Homeowners Association (exx:luding Lot 13) be enablished bytbe lPP1icant, .long with lI.
Rod Maintenwce Endowment Fund for the maintenance of all reqUired. improvements to the
printe way induding ~ dnUnage bciliti.es, and utilities. The As$OCiation shlill be initWly
Shawkeroo Ridge Subdivision
3of4
endowed at $500 per buildable lot ($100 total). 'Ibis fur1d shill be adtninistered by the
HomeowneI'$ ,Association -.vith the Planning Board named as a third partY enforcing agent;
4. That Lot 14 to be tmuferred to the :Homeowners &sociation. Evident:e of the comreyance shall
be preseoted to the }limning Board prior to the relt.ue of any lot and within ninety (90) days
from the d.u;e of the decision;
5. That all required infrastrUcture improvements be completed within twO (2)-}OO'S from the date of
definitive pl~ endorsement;
6. That ~cess to Lot 9 is limited to Shawilllmo Ridge Road only. kcess shall be prohibited from
ShawkEmo Road;
7. 1bat the applicant provide documentation of the drainage and utility eMemeut -MUch ill sboWII.
along the east sidcof Sha:wkrlmo Ridge Road. Said CQSemmt sball be leco.rded with the Registry
of Deeds and a coPy shall be provided to the planning Board within nina:ty (90) days from the
date of the decision; and
8. ~ a pre-COnstnlCcion meeting take place poor to any clearing for roadway col'&$\J'l,lCtion. 'The
following agenciesl at a minimum; shall be rt:presented lit the meetins: tlx applicant or their
representative, the lead contraCtor for the project, the Depa.rtment of Public Works, the
engineering consultants forme P1ann1ng Boatd, and planning Board staff.
4of4
Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision
DRAfT
APPROVAL O. A DIlPINITIVIl SUIlDIVISION PLAN (AR]
Sha*tnO Ridge Road Subdivision (planning Boare!. File 116803)
()woets: philip and Maureen ~ey and WDe LLC
p;w:els 4, 130, and 1.)1 of Tat-AssessorS ~ 44-
NantUCket Registry of Deeds Book 557 and 848, Pages 334 and 98, respective1r
NQOtUC~ Registry District of the Land Court, Cert:ifiate of Tttie 18172 and 20884
December 13, 2004
Th< ~~Boud ".. October 14. _ ~"""" 3-110 APPROVE tho - (2) lot (0.. buiI<Jabl<
lot) ~ 11<....,0 (AB) Dcf..,;n,. 5~- fo, P_1o<=I on'" - ,;de of 51..""""" Rood. Th<
... ;. io=d ;0 tb< IJ,.;,.I Us. Genonl3 (UlG-3) ",ning ,""",,..,d ;. oompri<od of. """ of 11M ...... It ohoukI
be -"""'.!tboogh m. """ <=' of1o.nd f=n wbkI> tb< ~;. domed;' 11M ""'" tho .".! actO'&" of tbo
""" b\ildabl< lot aod tho rool""-Y;' ~331 -. The...,..;.do< of tbo oil<;..ludod;o thio ~
(L<< 13 ...moh;. 8S3 _) 1m> _ alOOf< PoIpio Rood..,d ,,;n - bavo &<>mag< on 0<""'" from tho ....ly
.,..,wl mol_ (Sha- Ridgo Road) ond ,,;n - be iocludod m... - "''''''''''"'"
1be follcrwint lots are shoWn on page 2. of 6 of the Definitive Subdivision Plans:
. Lot 9 (2.75 -l },., _ fro..... alollg s- Roo<L n.;.1ot "" """"" dwug1un lIpproV>l
Not ~ plan C! 67f1S) ondonod bytb< ...".,. Ilnard on May 24. 2004. Although thio Ind, -
Ududod ;0 m;, ...Iioorlon jn<' suhQivio;"", tb< oppU=t lw vo\unU>Dly~...... 10 m;, ...
from tb< P"'I""od .,.o..y (Shawl=><> R;dge Road) only..,d lw .,,!wttariIy;ocludal thio lot in tbo
Horneownen> As5~cioa;
. Lot 13 (8.44 acres) which h.as front;1.ge along Polpis R/:Jad- 'I'b.is lot will not have frontage on or aeces5
from. the proposed roadway (Shawkemo Ridge Road) and -wil11'1Dt be included in the Bomcown.en
Assod:mQ1'1j
. un 12 (8~21 ,q""" full wbkI> ;, on unm.;1dablo Io,"",,,;n b. ",mbWO<i wkh un 11 ,.\,own on "'"
Definitive subdivision Plan;
. un 11 on Piau File 51- J (",~ly 16,2(8) ",b;cl.;, on unbWldablo 10, m.. ,,;n be combiood ,om Lot
11 shown on the Definitive Subdiv"ision Pl2n;
luhould,;.o bo =tod lb.' " tb< """"", 14. 2004 ""ecing, tb<>< "" ,",,,,,,ion -OS tho P!.nniog Iloard ",..,.bo~
.....,.... tho po""""' roc m;, _on"' be _mpli>h<d tIuo.."h "'" Appro..! No' Iloqui.<<l (JINBl P""""
r.<ha' dun tIuough App....,! lJ<qWred (AR). Tho ,",,,,,,..n re.olv<rl.round 0 P'~ of "",pen]' - " Po=I4~
on r", .."'''''' Mop 44. S,1d p"'" "" ;ocludod in "'" D.riom" Sob<!iv;,;.,n - fo< sbawl=o Bilb Subdivkion
"'" "" dodiWod [oc roodway pwpo." portainin< "' sbawl<=o RDod. 1\mrefure, .0"" """""~ of tbo J'bnning
Board "">< of tho oplolon "'" tb< ,ub<!iv;,ion oouId b. _ropli>bed tIuough ANR ond f...- """'f!n& Bo'''''''''.
based on further disCUSSIOn, the Planning Board approved the subdiviSiOn lwied on the foUowing documents:
DRAFT
. An application dated Septe,nber 01, 2004;
. !'Iom....,;,kd 'D<fuUtiv< S~l'W>s fac sb<o>l<<mo Ridgo Rood Subdio".... ~
_~prep=l byc.n;..nB~ CD, lac ,.d~8<~Iac.,_I-6,
dated.Anpt 11, 2004" and a$ amended by this decision;
. ^" ~ Not ~ phn d..,d M.r 17,2004 en<ia.... by the ~J.moU>g Baotd ao M.r 2', 2lX>l,
listed as plan,tting Boam fi1t If 6760;
. ~A~' Jl<rO"'Sha.,kemoRidgoRood sub<IiviO<m. ~~, ~ byOlllinon
Bn~ CD., ~. ~ Balckwell & MSoWtc$, Jnc., dated August 11, 2004;
'e}~"'i\~::~~:.-;lOf! ""'"'"" SbaW.=>OR<!&< Rood S"bdlvWoo, ~~, ~
byo.llinolt ~ Co., 10<. ",d Bolcl<wd18<""""",", 1..... d..,d ^""'" 11, 2l)O-I:
. . od n..i_ """"" """"""hi!> '" u.;..~- ~Im. ~ byo.tlOom
Engineering, Inc., dated November 30, 2004;
. Astaff repon dated September 27, 2004, revised on September 28.2004;
. ~ .no! te<clman1,..".iv.d ;. """""""' ,mh the puhIi< """"" b<id Od<>b<o' U, 2llO>f.
MinuteS from. this meeting are on file with the planoing Board;
. Arepa~ by~W_ Group, the ~Baotd" ~ ~ d..,d s.poonbec 17,200-1,
and.
. Other assorted ~ th:1t are on file with the Planning BoarcL
App""'!o1 th< ~;. gwowl__..uyupan do< .t....",.,.....d~, ",otp1W>:c,mh the P\oImino
Baotd., lUh""I~ ~lks_<fL4nl (" .-.d.d dorour;hn-nb<r2ll. 1999),,.d "" the
following addici.onal requirements and agreeIiltnts:
1. 'That"'" oppll=< boo gwowl th< loUowiog......... w\W:h ohoIl ot1t oppIy'" Lot ll," 8bo= ""
sheet 2 of 6 of the Definitive Plans:
4-.09
Site ,Analysis Beport and Map
Wi!ver Granted _ :l. namtive has been submitted wbichis adequate for
the scale of the proposed suhdivilion;
Contents of Definitive Plan (Landscape plan)
Wi1ver NOT Granted - It landscape plan jndk:ating the maintenance of
existing tree ~ as -well as additio!:1ll1landsca~ along the north'Weit
side of the proposed. roadw;.y. The proposed 1al:Idscaping shall be very
denl;e as to provide an adequate buffer betvml1l the site ~ abutting
properties;
On-site Brosh Disposal
waiver Grwted _ existing brush will be shrtd.ded md chipped thereby
~ting the need for disposal;
Public Open Sp;u:e
Waiver Granted. - due to the sca1e and location of this subdivision;
One Dwelling per Lot
WiNer Granted.;
Streets. Width
Wai.~r Recommended - :l. sixteen (l6) foot ro;dW'olY is sufficient to
provide a.ccess to twO (2) lots (Lots 11 and U)i
Streets - Width
Waiver G~ted. _ a sixteen (16) feet wide: rol\dwayis sufficient to provide
~cce$s to twO (2) lots (Lots Hand 12);
Dead-End Street
Waiver. Granted ~ granite curb~ around the cul-de-sac would prevent
rl:e dninage s)l5teJn frot'll working properly,
Storm Dmns
Waiver Granted. proposal utilizes an Open D~ S~
Shoulden
WiNer Granted. proposal includes twO-foot grass shoulders;
2.06a(1l)
2.06b(14)
2.0bb(18)
3.02
3.06
4.03a(1)
4.Q3e
4.04b
4.06b
Sb.;twkemo Ridge Road Subdivis~Ot1 Decision
Guml}Uili; aJ,'lLi PoStS
Wis.ver Granted. not applicable to sire:
Water Pipc5 and ReJAred EqWPn:w:pt . .
Wi1ver Granted - on-Site 'W!:Us will be utilized;
Dry Sewer Lines . .
Vlirter Gnnted _ Otl-Site septic systemS will be utilized;
Landscape Plan '..1:_..:".. ., ~L
Waiver Nor Granted - a land.s~ ~ ~~ WI'
ro,aintena.OCf of' ~ting tree lines lIS well lIS additiona11andscapiog w.nt
the northwest side of the proposed. roadway:. 'Ihe proposed 1ands~Pmt
shall be very dense as to provide an adequate buffer between the SIte and
abutting properties;
Fire Alanu Systc~ and Emergency Wa1/:f Supply
WMver Granted;
Sidewalks Waiver Granted. _ due to the scale and lo~tion of the site and the lack of
coJjtlectivitytO other sidewalks/bike paths;
:Bicycle p~ths . .
waiver Grmted _ bicycle patw not nec.essaryfor the ~tloOr roathw-yand
there is an existing biltepath along PolplS Road;
Street Lights .
Waiver Granted _ the sma11 scale of the subdivision does not neccSSltsm
street lighting
Bri~d .'
Waiver Granted - not applicable to the s1te
Curbing and Benns
Waiver Granted _ wOuld not be in hmnony with the proposed ~
system.
2. Tb>t . fin,\ '" of <W;m,;,e pJ... b, oubmitt<<l'" the - Bo=! ,.ithin ....." (90) doy< frnm the
d= of""' ~ (D""mbe<' G, 2004). 'J:'hoo.Jd;oitlv, plm> shoIl;,dmk. de<il<d!.ndoc"l'" pWl.
~ cl< ,.;,,;,,g _Imi ,.d ......uo. wlilioh ,,;U be ~" ..dl" · dens< J.nd,cope bull",
along the noJ:thwest side of the proposed ro$!lway;
----.'
-'
4.10
4.12
4.13
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4..21
4.21'
DRAFT
). '!bat ",md,' oop;" of.n kg>! ~ ~'""" -"'>. ~ s_ of
~ Go," of Rigln of B>f-. Gmnt of e..,,,,,"" fo'~' ~",d Q,vooW)
sb.!l be p""""'d '" the pWmh>g so=! pOo' '" u.. ,das, of "'" 1m frnm cl< ~",d ,.ithin
ninety (90)days from the date of the decision (December 13,2004);
4. That a. Homeowners Association (adudlng Lot 13 and. including Lot 9 (as shown on the endorsed
~ Not Il<quUed _ dad May 17, 2004, PJ.nnin. so=! fiI< # 6760) ",d 1.<< 11 (" .hovm on me
Definitive Plan)) be established by the ~pplicant, along with a Road Maintenance Endowment Puod for
the maintenance of all required improvements to tht priV;l.te way (Shawkemo Ridge Road) including
gnding, drmu,ge facilities. and utilities. The Mocil\cion shall be initially endowed at $500 per buildable
lot ($1000 tOW) for lots served by Sba.wilemo Ridge Road. 'Ibis fund sluUl be adtninistered by the
Bomeowners Association with the Plancing Board rwned as a third party enforcing agent. If permitted,
Lots 9 and 11 will :Jso join the S~wkemo Homeowners Association;
5. 'That Lot 14 (road.-w:aY) be tranSferred to the Bomeowncrs Assoei:l.tion. Evidence of the conveywce slull
be pteSeored to the p1a.nning Board prior w the release of the bui1~1e lot :and within ninety (90) days
from the date of the decision (December 13, 2004);
6. 'Ihtt llll required infrastrUCture improvements be completed within twO (2)-years from the date of
definitive plAn endorsement;
Sbawkt:mo Ridge Road Subdivision Decision
"
DRAFT
7. Tbot "C'" '" Lot 9 ;, iiw<cd to S~"'" Rid!!' Rood onlyond ,b.ll be prohibo.d I.... Sba..l.=o
Rood A_'" thO ,{f""bolI be ~ with tho Nomucla< ~ofo..do. ''''l'1of_h
sball be presented to the Planning Board. within ninety (90) days from the date of this decision;
8. That tho oppliao< p..,.;de ~o of tho ~ ond utility"'''''''''..mch ;. ,bo_ olmIo me
east side of Sh;l.wkc~ Ridge Road and around the cul-de-sac. S.;d cllSement s~ be recorded -with the
~ of n,.d. ond "opysboll he proWk<I to <he l'WuUng B..ro - """'" (90) d.,. !.om "'"
date of the decision (December 13,2004); and
9. That Lot 11 be prohibit<d lrom fmtbe< ~ A covcno01 to thO cffu< ,boll bo ..".,.,w ..M "'"
Nomucla< B<,..." of Do:do, . copra! ..mch ,boll be p"""..d", ... PIaonh>g B..ro ...ohin '""'" (90)
d~}'$ froD!- the dale of this decision;
00 (lotob<< H, 2004... ~ Bo"o vo<c<I3-1 '" APPROVE thO su\xlMsron",d 00 ~ n, 2004 me
Planning Board voted 3-1 to ENPORSE tWs decision.
Donald T. VISCO
APPROVED
Ban)" Rector
APPROVED
APPROVED
Francis T. Spriggs
DISAPPROVED
John McLWgblin
COMMONWEALTH OF MASsACHUSETIS
Nantueket, S5
,2004
Then person:illy "-P~=d. f tbt:
~s~U$etts :md acknowledged IDe fo~-~':~ ins=:~:,:d ~freTS r;rf ~!~1.at1ning Board of NantUClP:t.
net e act ;u;lI;l deed bd'ore .me.
Notary Public
Dll.re my OllIlIIlission Exp~5
Shawkerno Ridge Road Subdivision Decision
000251
~
o
o
~
~
~
-~
.-.
.....
c:
Q)
E
:::s
(.)
o
o
. , I~
~~ 6:1 I
#1= :;:)
.,. fn
!e
0 4tIJi"8 ~ ~~ ~
0
Ep e>>~ !!~ ~O I ~
..... e 111 ~
.!9 00 w
-w ~ 0 It
~ 1J1 .; ~ ~,~ d
z:
..-. <C u. SJ g i~a:: 0
w.... ><: lZ:
5SP \~ ~ ~ UQ g ~
Za::Z II> ~
~ If! I
E ~.'I 5
g ~ I
i ;r I!
C - ....
- ... - - - ... .... - ..-. -.. ....--.
11'1004
..J~T'~T ~_ ._ _
000252
111004
9UlTCLAIM DEED
VBDC, LLC,s duly fonned Delaware Limited Liability Company c/o 18805 Breezy
Point Road. Woodland, Minnesota, 55391, for consideration paid and in full consideration of
THREE MILLION and 00/100 ($3,000,000.00) DOLLARS GRANTS TO: ACKQUIRE
GROUP, LLC. a duly formed Massachusetts Limited Liability Company, c/o 37 Old South
Road, Suite 6, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 02554, with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS, the vacant
land located at 59 Shawkerno Road, Nantucket Town and County, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and shown as Lot 10 and Lot 12 on Land Court PJan No. 35819-E filed with
Certificate afTitle No. 20884 at the Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court.
The Grantor hereby reserves for itseif, its successors and assigns. a permanent, non-
exclusive view easement prohibiting con&truction and placement of any structures, or portions
thereof, or any hedges or other plantings, exceeding the height of sixteen (16') feet within that
portion of said Lot 10 shown as "View Easement" on the Easement Plan annexed hereto as
Exhibit HAJJ, The Grantor, its successors and assigns, reserves the right to enforce the-provisions
of this view easement in its sole discretion and shall exercise such right in a reasonable manner
at its sole risk. The Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and hold harmless the
Grantor, its successors and assigns, from and against any costs or expenses the Grantor may
incur in exercising the rights reserved hereby. This view easement shall be appurtenant to the
remaining land owned by the Grantor shown as Lot 1 I on Land Court Plan No. 35819-E at the
Nantucket Registry District and shall run with the land in perpetuity or for the maximum period
allowed by the laws of the Conunonwealth of Massachusetts and extensions thereof if duly
claimed and registered in accordance with such laws.
Said Lot 10 and Lot 12 are subject to, and have the benefit of, the provisions of a certain
Declaration of Restrictions recorded herewith and registered as Document No./11 001 at the
Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court.
Said Lot 10 and Lot 12 are subject to. and have the benefit of, the reduction of frontage
provisions set forth in Section 139-16B(3) of the Nantucket Zoning By-Law, as amended.
For title, see Certificate of Title No. 20884 at said Registry District.
r-'"0T T T Tin Dn'IT,
,-JJ..T~?T an I~ Tnr-
000253
111004
Executed. and sealed this ?,3 day of February 2005.
VBDC. LLC
~~,~
-'::;tz- LLc.. U;;.RT 1) AT"ED ? (2..1 (t..c:cr!:
S€:.6 : L:bG llocr / I
STATE OF OliO
Coomy .~ , SS. Febrwuy g..{A. ,2005
On thi~ I ^ day of February 2ooS, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Philip easley p. ved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification. which were . I) to be the person whose name is signed on
the preceding or attached document, and ac owledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its
smted PWPO", lIB Manager.eVBDe, LLC. , () ~ .
~YPUBUCl:j-
My Commission Expires:
... OCMD'..JIQSTON. ..... ....
NNkI..... ihJ be sbOIMl III
IUr .", IO\I'ed plan to folkIw IS
MAR 0 2 2(E
t
1Itn35BI'1 lots 10 +11-
~ AS DBeRlPncllCIIIU)
~T;~~.-. _
:r ft'l If
~~~w.~...
/~.o ". )...~\ PAlRICIAA,K8.l.OGG.
; , " } NoIa!y PubIlc. stBte of Olio
\ . :.. ! My conmssIon expUllS 10/20n1009
.,.d',o: ~/
-"'.':f~Of-O~~
'.-...~
:::.N.TUCKE:::C..
w~ ',' EOS 1:6
pEG ,'Or.: , , '
NANTUCKET :,
'~
'~'l.'lt:.", Q1
~- ';1<O(,,,c; .'1- rn
I..J.")!UO u...
GlJOGQG \\6144
$ 13680. QC;
,-_^~l' -{:,1. 3680 n 00
1__H.......n
FEE
.-- ..r r-o. 'r ..,. T T"", 0 n I I T -,
...JLT""7T nn J-, T__
AJ^"'J1
&.oJ.., _
PlAN of LAND
..
Nantucket Mass.
p,..,..,.,J /i;y
1'BlJC. W;
~, J'. e' JJJlWn f. _
.M.l.~e;r::u~1'N..
. b 'f'U-..u .-ar
"""=l"~ .....
ca.,..,. ......
~S. T
.......,
,...... ..
I
I
I.
~ .
I
i
!
I I
.:~
. """.
""....
..
-
.....
.. ,,-7-.,.
_1-..1:1'.'.
... . WI ...... ,a,NM
............ , .....
~~~.,..~l.~
~ .......':........ ,~
~~...v.._
-- - ~~~
-~
__\IW~~
1K~""'~""""
tl...~ !.!;W:.e::.-==;::.':,.-
:''1.~~~_~::W-:~
:.:..~....:.:r;:o::"'~" ---
__ .....1:1..--._ _.
....-.r ____.... .tIIIIlo
,.......,
_'","1- .
uti """
UA~r""
=..~-==r~
-- .
0ttIl!l!l' IIFalllA1OI'
"'" ~ . . c.u. D1""
ala. ., ~ _I
N4Il11111bl PIAJIlIint Ilodl'd
_'Ill_"'"
__13
....-
C:::-~~
=Je=.""::.~
s::'S q,...
IJ:rlQt11
- I ___................... ~
.... -v- _.-.
. .....,.w:tt__ ':"
.ft
Ull MIl_
-mr
.......
~""t~'''_-
EXHIBIT "A"
C" III 0 T T T T m p n I J T -,
~
BGI6(
...J... T . J T
111004
VIEW
EASEMENT
AREA
.1
1\
')
\.
\
1
///
nn
o
m
:xl
-l
;;
o
~
m
o
'T\
o
o
o
C
"0
)>
z
Q
z
o
-I
:I:
-
en
(")
)>
:II
C
~
c:
en
-I
OJ
m
c
-
en
-c
.-
~
m
c
-
z
)>
o
o
z
en
-c
-
o
c:
o
c
en
-c
.-
)>
o
m
o
z
-I
:::c
m
-c
:D
m
~
-
en
m
en
.
OJ
c
r
o
z
G)
z
U>
"0
m
o
-{
o
:xl
.,,"'C-t
)>m~
::C::D(f)
)>~"
(f)::Im
::Dm:D
mc~
~:1:~
O>en
zen:x:
)>Z)>
0l0r-
!:(-tr-
,,00]
::cOm
>:S:O
0:S:0
-Im~
OZm
>0_
Olmz
r-O<
mO>
. r-
::tJ_
-0
en
ZOl
O~
-to
"'Cz
::tJ-I
O:x:
oen
m."
m::tJ
go
z~
G)
0-1
0:X:
zm
-te
z~
5m
Co
en."
!:(-
-I en
o~
om
0-
~."
"-I
r-:x:
mm
-I
5~
zo
)>::0
CJ)^
::tJ)>
mo
Om
C::tJ
--4
::tJ_
m."
00
z~
enm
"0
~-n
-10
00
zo
mc
:x:~
~z
mO
-<
~:E
m-
zF
enm
G5m
z-
mCfJ
o~
)>m
zc
Oe
O"'C
~~
m::tJ
Om
OJ-t
-<e
-I::tJ
:X:z
mo
)>-n
"-t
"'C:x:
::0-
0(J)
"'C"
::om
-::tJ
~~
m-4
-0
mz
"'C~
m
(1)>
-i."
O-t
:em
'::0
)>
r
r
"
.....
':::-I
zo:!!~ ~~ g OJ
-4 :c r- m :0 (f)
:x:Qm" ~ ~"
mZzm (f) m
-4 )> :0 en oN
OZ-4en ~ 0 ~ c:
:Eo:x:o z =i
zmmz ~ 0
oCfJO])>' -t m
-n:Ceo O::c
z~r=o ~::1
>......om ." r-
Z:=i-" _
-4-Z-I m
cZC>z ~en .
o G) oc> -I
~ ..... m -I :x: C
~ O"'C :x: 'i ~
... .....)> Cii
~ ffi ::tJ -c ~,
~o~~ ~ ~
:X:O~~! ~Z
m~-4-t r-
ES: ..... en 0 '
~ ::tJ ~:x: 0 "'
CfJ~oF= ~ ~ G)
f;-4-4r- m
:1:000 0
e~-400}:~
(J) :1: Z Z
~~mCS '-
CfJz"'C:O
cn.....::tJ~
~mO-t ~
~z<o ~
m)>w-I
mZo:X:
cOmzm ~
- -I ~
· )> (J) m ()
gzo:o
~O."S:~, :IJ
--ten ~
o m :x: 0 ",-. \1
o"m." .
~~Ul;! t
--.../-t-4m
00_"""",
oo::i)>
(') Z c "tJ :II
~o-t"'C 0
:D."mc <
. en(")-
OJ ~ 0
c)>~ m
-z- 0
.00 -I
Q-Iz :x:
~ :r: 0 ~
enmZ
z
o
.
o
ER
n
~
~
g.
~
Cd
'~
t=.:
e:
~
aq
~
~
~
t'tj
~
g
o
t-t
-a
m
IC
:>>z
<:0
mm-o
:>>Glm
oUi:o
.....Orri~
Ol~:oZ
Ommen
O-jOo
;[:000
~-joz
OlIZ-j
;[:m-1JJ
~Gl~~
OCO-j
....:>>-1z
;t~OGl
:>>Z~::E
::;!O=i
"'Tlo:r:
Cz
zo
0-1
OJ
c:
l-t
CO
~
Z Zg
~
G) Oi
C "g
Z~
m )>~
-- Z~
:a> -t ~
.,., c: S
"IJ 0 en
'-I "
m'
3:-t
m
z
-I
s::
~
-u
III
Cl
~
11' "v_
f'~~ "
~ f ill
--",.', ~,,,,,#
Lf/tb-()~
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
-<
APPLICATION FOR
BUILDING PERMIT
IMPORTANT _ Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, anCt-S
!. tC-
1.
LOCATION
OF
BUILDING
OWNERS NAME (print):
~~r
No. Street
Assessor's Map No,
Iflf
Assessor's Parcel No.
l30 .
2. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING - All applicants complete Parts A-E
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
~ew Building
o Addition
o Alteration
o Repair, replacement
o Demolition
o Moving
B. OWNERSHIP
~rivate
o Public
D. DIMENSIONS
C.COST
TOTAJpOST OF IMPROVEMENT
~ t.fq~ arJo
,
Dimensions of Structure
First Floor Area: 6 SO
Second Floor Area: s-fS"=1-
Third Floor Area:
Total Floor Area:
Full Cellar Area:
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential
Detail scope of wor\< by floor & provide the
square footage.
~~7~~f !~ &5br/ WOaJ .Fram
~ s(~ tam, 'r (S'!('Q~d dwe4~)
,; ttf'1, l/J~p--r {weJ j' d ('OJ C-
I ~ +-ho.!t 6 9:J :5 P :f;- J=: z ~ +-ko ('
_~r:SF 1-
o One Family
o Studio
o Two or more family -Enter
number of units
o Hotel, Motel, Dormitory
eriter number of units
~yecond Dwelling
,&t Garage
o Pool
o Other - Specify
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
For new buildings and additions. complete Parts D-N
for Demolition. com lete ani Part 1., for all others ski to 4,
G, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING
,Ji Gas 0 Electricity
o Oil 0 Heat Pump
o Other - Specify
I. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
o Public
;a Private (well)
K. ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE
No. of fireplaces I (6~...--k; "de ')
No. of Wood Stoves
Other: :y,,~ I'y, SeA'+
F. PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME
~Wood frame
o Other - Specify
H. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
o Public
~rivate (septic tank, etc.)
J. SMOKE DETECTORS
No, of Detectors :?
See Plan for Location
L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
-z..
3
Number of Bedrooms
Number of Bathrooms
Full -z.-- Partial
I
~
<, "-- .f
3. Continued
,
M. ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness R Value
P71~51~~ "Z-~ ~ lF7 - /2, 10
Foundation or Floor insulation ---z.-
~~ // P7-11
Wall Insulation ~ r:-; - -r:r
Ceiling or Roof Insulation ~ - 64 If ~x, // Pi -70
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass ~, Double Glass Storm
Doors: Insulated Yes ,x: No Weatherstripped: Yes ;>( No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: /f), S--%
N. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
AppHcant i, '"Guired to ,ubm" complete ,wcturat framing plan' wOh application due 10 the complexity of the structure, n the
following information is insufficient for proper plan review. 5 l).fe.rJ 0 f' lA"~ //2>
Foundation X '.fr .3
Footing size: /0 I{ Footing reinforcing:
~ ~/I~
Wall material: 5t2fX2 ;f ~ all thickness: /6 Ii{
Wall height: 1, Wall reinforcing: d:tL/
Pier or column size: ? ~.r/ I(J/~ Pier or column spacing: / i / /~ ...........
Pier or column footing size: t~~l/6 ' Pier or column reinforcing: *V
No. of crawl space vents: n /-4- Crawl space: JitFulI o Partial
/ L.tIL-
"3 Ik; X!(I}q-1 i, i.! AC-f~tft - J} I /O~
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: Support Spacing:
First Floor Framing Joist size: '2-- .I( l"Z- Maximum Span: ' b..y Maximum Spacing: 16N O.C
J2- -
Joist size: t, x: 11- Ihr' ,/ ...'l ..
Second Floor Framing Maximum Span: . -0 Maximum Spacing: 16 o. L-_
1 )'I-'9( .6..... r /6.....'0,1:
Ceiling Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: / -0"'" Maximum Spacing:
-Z- x{n ' ,/ ~
Roof Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: 1- -0 Maximum Spacing: /& () c
1
Roof Truss Applicant must submit design calculations for all wood trusses stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer.
SKETCH OF PROPOSED WORK (minor projects)
,
NOTES AND DATE (For Department Use) FEE CALCULATIONS
/'r'T7 5/"
II 7'{J;Y dEc/b
- -
-:]o{,5 ~
.,VI ."-
. ' ~
~~
.. 1.(
4. ZONING COMPLIANCE To be completed by all applicants
.
Applicant is required to submit a registered plot plan with application. showing location of all structures, 6r .:J:-
Zoolng DI,triet L "':::> ? T ota' Laod Am" I Z ':1-) rtJ z
~ . // ..j- )t) ~
Frontage on Street: s-o 6..- Lot No.: I -Z-
P'ao Book No. and Page: Land Court P'an No.: ?, F 151 '1 - G'-
Date Lot purchased: ? /'$ / t?:;- Certificate No.: ~ 0 rJ/") ~ .
I / Name of Previous Owner: VI? L- LL';- P'J,('{ )ktis'r
' I
SUBDIVISION INFORMATION
Name of Owner:
Date of Plan Approval: TIME SHARING
Type of Approval: ANR AR INFORMATION
Planning Board File No.: Is there a declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions of
Is the Subdivision subject to a Covenant: YES NO Interval, Ownership noted on
Is a Release required: YES NO your Title or Deed?
Has Plan been filed with the RegistrY of Deeds? YES NO
If YES: Plan Book and Page No.: Date Yes'_ No -
DIMENSIONS . 'I g/ -c// ::- ' / /'--- 30~#+
8/ -"/" 'II S- :!:-
Distance from Property Lines: FRONTZ5" -0 ~ REAR LEFT RIGHT CJ .-
Distance between Principal and Secondary Dwelling: 41/-S-~ (12ft. minimum) -Z i .5-'''--
Height of structure above finish grade: N '-1.. 4 I' (;/" E -Zl-l'/5';- S 'ZL(/3' w
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed -:J- On-site L/
GROUND COVER
Principal Dwelling: ~ 91's-
Secondary Dwelling: bS"f2 38C:O
Addition: Total: SF.
Garage: Allowable: :? 133 g' SF.
AccessOry Building: 'Z. l' ~
swimming Pool:
Other:
MISCELLANEOUS
W", a mque,t to "Dete<mioe App'",bmty ot the Pcotectioo Act" med with the Naotud<et Con,eNatioo Committee? YES NO ;;<
- -
If answered YES, include "Order of Conditions" with application.
What date was the "Order of Conditions" with application,
What date was the "Order of Conditions" filed with the Registry of Deeds? )(
Is the property located within a Flood Hazard district? YES NO
Was a Variance or Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals? YES NO ~
If answered YES, what date was the decision filed with the Town Clerk?
FOR ZONING OFFICER
Minimum Lot Size: Ground Cover Ratio:
Frontage on Street: Side and Rear Setback:
Front Yard: Secondary Dwelling approval
Additional Comments: - Board of Appeals
- Lot Release Form
- APPROVED 1
Date: 'A1\'1
Zoning Officer
l _.5. I.)ENTlFICATION - To be completed by all applicants
Name
Mailing address - Number, street, city and state
Zip Code
Telephone No,
3.
Contact Person
nsurance Certificate or Affidavit must be submitted with this application.
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make
this application as his authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
ensS,!
.sz::e- ff;?S--
~
1.
Owner or
Lessee
Builder's License C'o;,- ()'f~96
//
2.
Contractor
Address Telephone #
? 'fOP5bu# ~ d/:i' 5"C''S -1$~ s-- S >rZ~
~~lucj.M: Ad tJz,5"s-tI
Print name
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Plans Review Required ..-t~ ./.. -/
HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION r,;-':' J-"? I -:7~ Vo.s.-/
7- //..~/~ L ~ d -4 ~~ . ~~...I /:..#ktiRY'" -g - (/"e IZA j
SEPTIC ""7 .A,.:1 r.. c ~. ..1-
7 , / /'
SEWER
WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FIRE CHIEF
OVER-THE-ROAD (Board of Selectmen)
ROAD OPENING PERMIT (DPW)
PLUMBING
ELECTRI CAL
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
7. VALIDATION
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Building (Iv{ ~+ --1 ~ \ - Use Group
Permit Issued 0- '\:) 10 <. 'I
\.
Occupancy Load
:.7 6 -0 Census No, /0/
Building ;;;2 <; /~
Permit Fee
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of --?J:~a~ ~ ~~-5---
Certificate of Occupancy
Building Commissioner
I'
o
m
::0
::!
:!!
o
~
m
o
-n
o
o
o
C
-0
l>
Z
o
-<
z
o
OJ
c
r
o
Z
G)
Z
en
"'tl
m
o
-I
o
::0
-t
::I:
-
en
("')
)>
:D
C
~
c:
en
-I
OJ
m
c
-
en
"'0
r-
~
m
c
-
z
)>
(")
o
z
en
"'0
-
(")
c
o
c
en
"tJ
r-
)>
(")
m
o
z
'""""
:I:
m
"tJ
JJ
m
$:
-
en
m
en
"11-c-f
)>m:I:
:D:JJ(j)
)>~-c
en~m
:Dm:JJ
mos:
)> -
en:I:-f
0)> en
zen:I:
)>z)>
mOl
!:(-II
"'CO 00
::DOm
)>~O
O~o
::!ms:
OZm
)>0_
mmz
r-o<
mo)>
:oc:
-0
en
zO'>
Os:
-10
-OZ
:0-1
0:1:
oen
m."
m:o
20
Zs:
G>
o-f
0:1:
zm
::10
z~
gm
Co
en."
~-
-I en
o~
om
0-
S:."
-0-1
IX
mm
-I
5~
Zo
)>:0
en 7\
:0)>
mo
Om
C:o
--f
:o_
m."
on
z~
enm
~o
0'"
::10
00
zo
enc
x~
~z
mO
OJ-<
m:E
m-
zF
en 00
G5m
z-
men
o~
)>m
zo
Oc
0-0
~~.
m:o
om
OJ-f
-<c
-1:0
::I:Z
mo
)>."
-O-f
-O::I:
:0-
oen
"'C-o
:om
-:0
~s:
m=i
-0
t7jz
~~
0)>
-4"11
0-1
:om
. :0
)>
r-
r
~
0-..
:'-::t-o-l
-o.,,-f X
:z :0 r= :I: m-01
-Iomm :D en
:I: - -c S:-o
mz- - m
-f )> z m cnen:o
OZ-l~
:Eoxo ~o ~-I C
zmmz z
oenoo)> ~-I 0
",:Oco 10m
Zm-o :0
II r\ -I
)> ~ 0 m '- :...) =n
z~--o ~ - r-
-IzZ::l m
~G'>G>z ~;\ en '
"-foG'> ~-I
,~om~ ~ ~C
'i> -f ~ en 'i ~
affi~ril ~
-I 0 ~':o
:I:oms:
i~~~ Z.
cn:Oz:1:
wco)>
)>0 I C)
0-1-11
:I:OOO 0 ~
m~-1~o r
m s: :I:." Z ~
~)>mo
cnZ-o:o
W-I:OS: -a
~mo-l
~z<o
m)>w-I
OJ50x m
S;mzm
I)>en-l
Qzo~
zo,,~ :IJ
"- en
OZ-l
o cn:I: 0
o-om"
mmen-f """ s:
-....I 0-1 -I ::I: 'I ,
(Xl )> m )..)
00-1)> -0 c
Ozc...... ~ ~
:5:0-1-0 ~" ~
;:C"rnC ::: ~
OJ 0 0 ~
~~~ ~~ ---I ~ ~~
o 0 ~ -I ~ :I: ...., e,
Z-I ::c~)>
G) :r: 0)>-1 en
enmZ
z
o
.
o
EB
n
n
o
~
~
n
~
=
=:.:
p..
.......
l:1
(1q
H
l:1
r.n
roo
n
g
o
I-t
......
"
m
m
,. .(;h
--
IC
)>z
<:::0
mm-u
)>Glm
ou;:O
--J~rri~
~cn:oz
()cnmUJ
:€::--lO{)
~ooo
cn--lO~
:€::I~:o
Glm:Ol>
rGll>O
~~~:::!
-l>-JlOZ
~)>:o(;)
ZUJ~
--lo~
~o:r:
Cz
zo
0...;
OJ
c::
1-1
CO
~
Z Zg
G) 01
.,,~
C!:i
. . Z~
m )>~
.... Z (I)
l> -Ii
, cs
:D 0 en
--t~
s~
m
z
-I
s
~
'1J
n:>
o
~
" Ht=.r'r-~..
"
. ~"- -Vl:: I \IE 0 RECEIVED L{r y-(') :J---
.' MA y 0 6 2
' (?n5 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
..\.0....,
" NANTU t APR
BUILDINGCKET 2 620.
05 APPLICATION FOR
DEPT. NANru
ZONING ~KEr BUILDING PERMIT
cPT ,
IMPORTANT _ Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
1. OWNERS NAME (print): ;1z)-{j-otfe 9rotU.. P il- Lt. C
LOCATION 5Y ~aw La~";;~ Middle/ili.';
OF _ _____- __ ,Ie _ I?z get
BUILDING No. Street '1'1
Assessor's Map No. Assessor's Parcel No. 13()
2. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING - All applicants complete Parts A-E
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT B. OWNERSHIP D. DIMENSIONS
Ji,.New Building ~rivate Dimensions of Structure
o Addition o Public First Floor Area: "Z ~=l5 5- r
o Alteration Second Floor Area: ~61if 5~
o Repair, replacement C.COST Third Floor Area:
o Demolition TOTr.OST OF IMPROVEMENT Total Floor Area: 5" S- /if sF
o Moving Full Cellar Area: ~ ~-=J5 :s r::
'. / Y'l~ CJ(!)()
) ,
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential Detail scope of work by floor & provide the
~ne Family square footage.
f:;;/'t't!: I ~ -:;htt/ lA/Me:! frtJl1le-
o Studio
o Two or more family - Enter
number of units 51;':4 +Id:~~ z~~t/;/;:tP -;tff/~_r
o Hotel. Motel, Dormitory
eriter number of units : Z6~ .c,F _:;1'; t-/1/<hd ks~!''+-
o Second Dwelling
o Garage
o Pool
o Other - Specify
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING For new buildings and additions. complete Parts D-N
for Demolition, comolete onlv Part 1" for all others skiO to 4,
F. PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME H. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL K. ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE
~ood frame o Public No. of fireplaces '=1-
o Other - Specify J1(frivate (septic tank, etc.) No. of Wood Stoves
Other:
I. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
G, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING o Public
~as o Electricity ;(private (well) L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
i Number of Bedrooms 6.
DOil o Heat Pump
J, SMOKE DETECTORS ;t-
O Other - Specify if Number of Bathrooms
No, of Detectors 6 I
Full Partial -~
See Plan for Location
3. Continued
.
'. . M. ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness R Value
1tt~~~/c~ z. )--.z:- '....... PJ - 1""2. -4,
Foundation or Floor insulation
Wall Insulation 5'" ~ // PJ -/1
Ceiling or Roof Insulation ~f,' b - 13a-H- 8 ~ ?"/ o -- 7LJ
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass X Double Glass Storm
~
Doors: Insulated Yes X No Weatherstripped: Yes X No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: n~3 0.0
N. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
Applicant;s required to submit ",mplete structural framing plaos with applicat;on due to the ",mplexity of the structure, If the
following information is insufficient for proper plan review. 5 lit f t- t"" fo 11 W A L-t:s
Foundation ' / r *3
Footing size: /0 kt _ Footing reinforcing:
Wall material: ~ f$:f UN.C Wall thicknesS: /01, -r
--- ~'I
Wall height: ' /0" Wall reinforcing:
Pier or column size: ;. ii-t/ jolfy Pier or column spacing: Bio.fl~ldCt IJ?
Pier or column footing size: L 1;'" X t '6// Pier or column reinforcing: $t.{
No. of crawl space vents: S- Crawl space: XFull o Partial
3 ./ J{ ~ I g // AI<e-tO 14m LV L Support Spacing: /1{ , 4"
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: ...()
"1... ~ 1'1- S",. // ~ . /;'
First Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: / " 0 Maximum Spacing: {6' t1 c
1- X \1- J6 ;' 1"'1" t/ '
Second Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: - tJ Maximum Spacing: I~ O. {..
"1-X~ 1. ... (J/" JI/''-
Ceiling Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: 1"" Maximum Spacing: o,c..
7- X 10 / q' 16'" o. C.
Roof Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: If{ - (J Maximum Spacing:
Roof Truss Applicant must submit design calculations for all wood trusses stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer.
SKETCH OF PROPOSED WORK (minor projects)
NOTES AND DATE (For Deoartment Use) FEE CALCULATIONS
/~n. 0 _CLQ_D S - /e -\.),~ ~Y-I 5r
~ <61.5' G r nw oEI-Nt'^'"
t7.Jf .dE c/<O
'}.-, 7
~
~
,'J' ~
,11b 'b~tx)-
4. ZONING COMPLIANCE To be completed by all applicants
Applicant is required to submit a registered plot plan with application, showing location 01 all structures, -t
Zoo;og Diffinct L Us, -~ Tota; Laod A,e<< 11- -=f-) 'liJ 1. sF -
Frontage on Street: ~ /' b // ;:!::. Lot No.: 10 ',.J / z-
Plan Book No. aod Pag" Land Court Plan No.' 3Se / "(- E:-
Date Lot pu<cha"d, ;7 j'it / 0 ~ Cert"cate No.., 2-0 $:?'L _ _ . .
Name of PrevIOUS Owner: Yl3 ~ LL C / 1%(/ ~
SUBDIVISION INFORMATION
Name of Owner:
Date of Plan Approval:
Type of Approval: ANR AR
Planning Board File No,:
Is the Subdivision subject to a Covenant: YES
Is a Release required: YES NO
Has Plan been filed with the Registry of Deeds? YES
If YES: Plan Book and Page No.: Date
NO
TIME SHARING
INFORMATION
Is there a declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions of
Interval Ownership noted on
your Title or Deed?
NO
Yes _ No
DIMENSIONS ' / ~ /r / ,"f'
Distance from Property Lines: FRONT ,.1<6 -S1 REAR jOO -t)
Dislaoce between P,incipa' and Seconda,\, DWell~ng" 7_ r~~
Height of structure above finish grade: N -z..q -~ E '2.5' .
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed:2- On-site
/ //
LEFT :;-;--2
(12ft. minimum)
S J-q/5
if
1'#
RIGHT It().-CJ
.
W
'295
GROUND COVER
Principal Dwelling:
Secondary Dwelling:
Addition:
Garage:
Accessory Building:
Swimming Pool:
Other: _
'1- ~ -:r~
650
Totat 3S00
Allowable: ?; <g :? 7{
SF.
SF.
'1- -:rZ;-
MISCELLANEOUS
Wao a <eque'tlo "Det,rmioe Applioabilily 01 the Pmteclioo Ad flied with the Nantucket co",",,,atioo Committee? YES - NOX
If answered YES, include "Order of Conditions" with application.
What date was the "Order of Conditions" with application.
What date was the "Order of Conditions" filed with the Registry of Deeds?
Is the property located within a Flood Hazard district? YES NO :><-.
Wao a Vaelaoce 0< Spedal Permit gnmted by the Baaed 01 Appea',? YES NO ;L-
It answered YES, what date was the decision filed with the Town Clerk?
FOR ZONING OFFICER
Minimum Lot Size:
Frontage on Street:
Front Yard:
Additional Comments:
Date:
'5\~\S'
\ \
Ground Cover Ratio:
Side and Rear Setback:
Secondary Dwelling approval
Board of Appeals
Lot Release Form
APPROVED~
Zoning Officer
5. IDENTIFICATION - To be completed by all applicants
Name
Mailing address - Number. street, city and state
? '=;t-- CJ {d 50", 'th f;d *6'
4/a 11 -h?~d; If,;!
? '::f cP!# ~w M /77c1.J!;---6
AtAbckt /fA O"Z5~-r
Zip Code Telephone No,
1,
Owner or
Lessee
oz:.S-$~ SZJ$> -~Z S-
'f5~2S-
Builder's License c> D=f'l5bCf6
/"
Date /1J}z.jo6 5Og-&;Z~-S
oS- tZJB-6~?-5~
2.
Contractor
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make
this application as his authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
Signature of applicant
~
Print name -::;;;;/?1i
Address ,/- // - Telephone #
?=? c;/tt7 >ouf1/; 15&1'*6
:ar/~cfel; ~/ C)c5-S-Y
Jz;:?g'- $2$"- &'2Z.r
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Plans Review Required
HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION
SEPTIC
SEWER
WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FIRE CHIEF
OVER-THE-ROAD (Board of Selectmen)
ROAD OPENING PERMIT (DPW)
PLUMBING
ELECTRICAL
./
7. VALIDATION
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Building (M~ ....---- Use Group
Permit Issued \ \ ") i:'\ \.\ .....)
~ Occupancy Load
-f~2ft 0 ~ Census No. /01
Building
Permit Fee
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of /l /f~;F ,9> yO!J-----
Certificate of Occupancy
Building Commissioner
(')
m
:Il
-I
:n
n
~
m
o
"
o
(')
(')
c:
"'C
~
Z
(')
-<
z
o
-I
::I:
-
en
(")
)>
:D
C
:s:
c
en
-t
m
m
c
'-
en
"'tJ
.-
~
m
c
-
z
)>
()
o
z
en
"'tJ
-
()
c
o
c
en
"'tJ
.-
)>
(")
m
o
z
-I
::I:
m
"'0
:0
m
S
-
en
m
en
.
"T1"'C0000I
:r>m:I:
:D:D(j)
:r>~"'C
(J)::tm
:Dm:D
mo~
:r> _
(J)::r:ooooI
0:r>(J)
Z(J)::r:
:r>Z:r>
mOl
!:(0000I1
"'C(")m
:oOm
:r>~(")
n~O
::!m~
nZm
.....1(")
rl'jm-
m Z
10<
mo:r>
:DC
-0
(J)
zO')
O~
000oi0
"'CZ
:D0000I
o::r:
(")(J)
m-n
m:D
go
z,~
G)
(")000oi
o::r:
zm
::10
z~
em
,0
Co
(J)-n
!<-
-iCf)
o~
am
0-
~-n
"'C0000I
I:I:
mm
000oi
o~
zo
):>:D
(J)~
~5!m
:Doo
~"'C
-m
~~c:
0-
Zooool
000oi(")
om
:D
000oi
'\ jj r-
m'
en
-4
~c
:D)>
m(")
Om
C:JJ
--4
:D_
m-n
00
z~
(J)m
~o
(")-n
::10
0(")
z(")
ene
::r:"'C
:r>
~z
m(")
m-<
m=E
m-
zF
enD]
5m
z-
mOO
o~
:r>m
zo
Oe
0"'0
~~
m:c
Om
m-t
-<e
0000I:JJ
::r:z
mo
:r>-n
"'C-t
"'C:I:
:D-
O(/)
"'C"'tJ
:Dm
-:D
~~
m=i
-0
ffiz
~!:(
0):>
-4-n
0-1
:um
. :D
)>
r-
I
-0,,-4
Z:Dr=::r:
-tomm
:I:_ ....
mz-u
ooooI)>zm
OZ-4:D
~("):I:~
zmmz
oenm)>
-n:Dc(")
zm-(")
)>llm
z~Q-c
ooooI-Zooool
CZG)-
(")G) Z
"-loG)
~om5!
~ -I -c _
)>::r::r>en
Zm:D-c
C(")~m
~om~
mzz-
~enooool-l
:r>-I:r>en
en:Dz::r:
enCo>
:r>(") I
(")000oi-11
::r: 0 0 (") 0 r,
~~ -I ~ 0
m ~ ::r: -n Z
::t :r> m 0 r ...
en Z "'tJ:IJ ., ,
enooool:IJ~
:;:!moooool
~z<o
m)>oo-I
m~o::r:
~mzm
I)> en 000oi
gzo~
zO-n~
~Zoooolen
oen:I:O
o"'Cm-n
mm en 000oi
......aooool:l:
c:oooool~m
o 0 -I)> -c
a z C"'tJ :IJ
~o-l"'C 0
;n -n ill C :::
m a 0
C):>~ m
-z- 0
500 -I
z-tZ :I:
G):I:O ~
enmZ .,
Z
Q
-a
m
:7J
s:
r II
~--I
en
m
c:
1-1
oc~
~ Z Zg
i G) o~
~ .,,~
~ C Z~
=: m :t>i
s- -c Z~
~ ........ -I ~
= ~ cen
~..... ~
g ,.A,I 0 en
g-l"
3: !!I
m
Z
-I
z
o
.
G,
~ -n
tm
fTlm
*
~ ~~
~\ ~
IC
;pz
<:0
mm'll
;pG'>m
nu;:D
"~iT1~
~UJ:oz
nUJmUl
$:-lDO
:Dona
--lOZ
O>IZ-l
$:m-l:D
~G'>~l1
~~~::!
-I>:oOZ
~;p:oGl
ZUl='E
~D:::j
"TIOI
Cz
ZO
D-l
s:
~
"U
OJ
n
CD
~
/r-
'.,.......- ~ ~ -.7'7.-
;-nUI- (' 1= I V
" ~ ",-, ,,,,,,if;,. ED ~ ~ S9 F;>- OS
~ ~
JUN I. 3 2005 ~~-VA ~ c; <0 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
~vo ~
NANT ur. Q()~ 0'
BUIL01NG,,-,KET ~r APPLICATION FOR
:;>- /
OEPT / BUILDING PERMIT
-----"",'
IMPORTANT _ Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
1. OWNERS NAME (print): k'~l~:F ~'-.J~
LOCATION Last First Middle Initial
OF 59 -s~AW~M(j
BUILDING No, Street CYJl,hO'1
Assessor's Map No. lIi{ Assessor's Parcel No. r30
t
2. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING - All applicants complete Parts A-E
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT B. OWNERSHIP D. DIMENSIONS
~New Building ~Private Dimensions of Structure
o Addition o Public Fi~st F.loor Area: 2..CA "5F
o Alteration Second Floor Area:
o Repair, replacement C.COST Third Floor Area:
o Demolition ~OTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT Total Floor Area:
o Moving 3co _ tYX'J i Full Cellar An'la: ~ SF"
,
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential Detail scope of work by floor & provide the
square footage.
o One Family
o Studio CP~~~\ '(...IT \ 'S.\,oe Y Wt.>t'D t=~ ~L-
o Two or more family - Enter
number of units Ho~ Wl\H "2l.:,1-:;F
o Hotel, Motel, Dormitory
eriter number of units
o Second Dwelling
o Garage
~ool
...s Other - Specify ~ L- HO\J~
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING For new buildings and additions, complete Parts D-N
for Demolition. complete onlv Part 1.. for all others skiD to 4,
F, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME H. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL K. ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE
)!I Wood frame o Public No. of fireplaces ~/~
o Other - Specify )2CPrivate (septic tank. etc.) No. of Wood Stoves
Other:
\. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
G. PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING o Public
o Gas o Electricity 'bl(Private (well) L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
)!SOil o Heal Pump Number of Bedrooms tJ/~
J. SMOKE DETECTORS ,
o Other - Specify No. of Detectors \ Number of Bathrooms
Full Partial
See Plan for Location
3. Oontinued
r
M, ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness R Value
Foundation or Floor insulation r\,t). M1T \0" ~~38
Wall Insulation r\~' ~1T S~ Lli
Ceiling or Roof Insulation "f~~ < i2.A 11 ~ \2. . 50
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass ~ Double Glass Storm
.
Doors: Insulated Yes X'" No Weatherstripped: Yes X No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: ~ e,- s 06
N. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
Applicant is required to submit complete structural framing plans with application due to the complexity of the structure, if the
following information is insufficient for proper plan review.
Foundation lb" ~ ?..O .' ~
Footing size: Footing reinforcing:
Wall material: ..8" 6Hl) Wall thickness: /3"
Wall height: .lq Wall reinforcing: ~
Pier or column size: ~c:t Pier or column spacing: ~"':t...
Pier ~r col~mn footing size: :3:0 1.-:1.L} )l..l'2.. Pier or column reinforcing: ~
No. of crawl space vents: \ Cray!1 space: j)f Full o Partial
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: ("3>') "34 )(. It ~ ~9t HI{'~UAt1 LY.v Support Spacing: 8 t~ \' "t.
First Floor Framing Joist size: "'2'lC-f2.. Maximum Span: \(j,lo " Maximum Spacing: \ v
lL, 1J)~-6
Second Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: . Maximum Spacing:
~)<.B \ \: 0" L&, II Or-V
Ceiling Fra,m.ing Joist size: Maximum Span: b~ Maximum Spacing:
Roof Framing Joist size: -z..lC- lD Maximum Span: 1'2.-\_0'" Maximum Spacing: l\-''-'- tJ.. (..,.
RoofTruss Applicant must submit design calculations for all wood trusses stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer.
SKETCH OF PROPOSED WORK (minor projects)
NOTES AND DATE (For Department Use) FEE CALCULATIONS
&/c9 ~/ 05 r
;t 6 ys f ~<j.. #o./:-$.
;I.fLf j r /!'j-t-idjJ.4
J 61 .f r /bn,.dI/2i;r?
..-----::::--
'7 b 1/ ,
Ulri~
" ' 4. ZONING COMPLIANCE To be completed by all applicants
Applicant is required to submit a registered plot plan with application. showing location of all structures,
Zoning District: vU~-3 Total Land Area: l ~71 qOz.. S-F
.+
Frontage on Street: (4(P' ~-:S'- Lot No.:
Plan Book No, and Page: Land Court Plan No.:
Date Lot Purchased: Certificate No.:
Name of Previous Owner:
SUBDIVISION INFORMATION
Name of Owner:
Date of Plan Approval: TIME SHARING
Type of Approval: ANR AR INFORMATION
Planning Board File No.: Is there a declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions of
Is the Subdivision subject to a Covenant: YES NO Interval Ownership noted on
Is a Release required: YES NO your Title or Deed?
Has Plan been filed with the Registry of Deeds? YES NO
If YES: Plan Book and Page No.: Date Yes - No -
DIMENSIONS
Distance from Property Lines: FRONT ~8 L to REAR ~5~S LEFT i20 1.-0 t. RIGHT l2S t4
Distance between Principal and Secondary DWellin\ ~~ l~1; (12ft. minimum) \S~c(~:t
Height of structure above finish grade: N \s Lc;. E 5\-9 ~ s r; l7J(.i w
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed, ~J.~ On-site
GROUND COVER
Principal Dwelling: "Z. 51 S Sf'"
Secondary Dwelling: CD 50 SF
Addition: Total: 3789 SF.
Garage: Allowable: 3E>~ SF.
AccessOry Building: 2-&4SV
Swimming Pool: "
Other:
MISCELLANEOUS
Was a request to "Determine Applicability of the Protection Act" filed with the Nantucket Conservation Committee? YES - NO__
If answered YES, include "Order of Conditions" with application.
What date was the "Order of Conditions" with application.
What date was the "Order of Conditions" filed with the Registry of Deeds?
Is the property located within a Flood Hazard district? YES NO
Was a Variance or Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals? YES NO
If answered YES, what date was the decision filed with the Town Clerk?
FOR ZONING OFFICER
Minimum Lot Size: Ground Cover Ratio:
Frontage on Street: Side and Rear Setback:
Front Yard: Secondary Dwelling approval
Additional Comments: Board of Appeals
Lot Release Form
= APPROVED BY~
Date: lu\ 1- ')\ <;
\ \ Zoning Officer
:5. II:>ENTIFICATION - To be completed by all applicants
Name
Mailing address - Number. street, city and state
Zip Code
Telephone No,
3.
Contact Person
/r
.JC8-~--
OZ Y.>'-( 8&,?J;-
Builder's License ~<lb it
1.
Owner or
Lessee
//
Date
2.
Contractor
Works Compen ation Insurance Certificate or Affidavit must be submitted with this a pli ation.
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make
this pplication as his authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction,
Address
3~ s.y(,,\(~ FAi-~ ~
'STc;'I-l'F- I \IT G?$ Co 72-
Telephone # ~"2. - '2...~ 3 -4"'3>14
Print name
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Plans Review Required
HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION -~ 60-9 'ff ~7h..r'
I' ~
SEPTIC
SEWER
WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
FIRE CHIEF
OVER-THE-ROAD (Board of Selectmen)
ROAD OPENING PERMIT (DPW)
PLUMBING
ELECTRICAL
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
7. VALIDATION
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Building to la t3 /6-:J- Use Group
Permit Issued
/ '
Occupancy Load
Building $ y Census No, 'J~
Permit Fee S? 7 ;x:x
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of 75d~0~f/
Certificate of Occupancy ., /
Building Commissioner
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Cert. No. 20884
Docu, Nos, 103936 & 103937
From TRANSFER Certificate Nos, 18172 and 6885 Originally Registered
December 19, 1997, and June 22,1973 in Registration Book 35 Page 85 respectively
for the Registry District ,of Nantucket County,
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that VBDC, LLC. a Delaware Limited Liability Company, c/o 3271 Green Dolphin
Lane, Naples in the State of Florida 34102
is the owner in fee simple
of that land situated in NANTUCKET
in the County of Nantucket and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, bounded and described as follows:
Lots 5 and 8 on plan numbered 35819-0, drawn by Blackwell and Associates. Inc"
Surveyors, dated April 9, 1997, filed with Certificate of Title No. 6885 at the Registry District of Nantucket
County,
So much of said land as lies within the limits of the Way, shown on plan numbered
35819-A filed with Certificate of Title ,No. 6165, is subject to the rights of all those lawfully entitled
thereto, in and over the same.
And,it is further certified that said land is under the operation and provisions of Chapter 18,5 of the
General Laws.:and that the title of said VB DC, LLC ' .'
~
to said land is registered under said chapter, subject, however, to any of the encumbrances mentioned in
section forty-six of said chapter, which may be subsisting and subject as aforesaid; andle the
memoranda of encumbrances for this certificate.
WITNESS, KARYN F, SCHEIER. Esquire, Chief Justice of the Land Court, at Nantucket"in said County
of Nantucket. "
The sixteenth day of September in the .year two thousand and three at 3 o'clock and 15 minutes in the
afternoon,' ,-
.. '
Attest. with the seal of said court,
Case # 35819
Purported Address of Property:
59 SHAWKEMO'ROAD
116 POLPIS ROAD
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO, 20884
larS 5-li;' ON PLAN No,Nlq-P ALED
WITH CERTIFICATE No, 19 ~'5' HAS
BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND PLAN No,~E:
SHOWING SUCH CHANGES IS FILED WrTIi
CERTIFICATE NO, :J. 0'1.fl,,\
FURTHER CERTIFICATES FOR SAID LOT~
5+ 'tr ON SAID EARLIER PLAN WILL
NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY
THE CQURT, (NOW lOTS 9,10, II t-- 12..)
;~'.
" ,
;.!.
'.
~-.':
Cert No:
20884
Men1.01'anda Of Encumbrances
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Document Number:
53652
Kind: DEED FOR EASEMENT
In Favor Of: WESTBROOK, ROBERT S-TR
RODEWALD, WILLIAM Y-TR
CANOPACHE NOMINEE TRUST
Date of Instr: May 25, 1991
Date of Reg: May 29. 1991 Time of Reg: 03:10 PM
Terms: RIGHT TO USE LOT 3 AS SHOWN ON PL. 35819-C FOR ALL PURPOSES Fe
Signature: ~_...-...-. -;;:!. ~
53653
Kind: RESTRICTION
In Favor Of: BARBOUR, CLIFFORD E-JR
BARBOUR, DOROTHY GRACE
LOW, FRANK H
Date of Instr: May 21,1991
Date of Reg: May 29, 1991 Time of Reg: 03:10 PM
Tenns: RESTRICTIONS ON LOT 1 PL 35819-B AND LOT 87 PL 5388-Q FOR THE Ba
Signature: ~_ ...-...-. -;;:!. ~~~,
7
& OTHERS
53656
Kind: RESTRICTION
In Favor Of: WESTBROOK, ROBERT'S-TR
Date of Instr: May 29, 1991
Date of Reg: May 29, 1991 Time of Reg: 03:10 PM
Tenns: RESTRICTIONS ON UNREGISTERED PARCELS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT
Signature: ~ -;;:!. /::::ir~~-,
'"/
78290
Kind: DEED
In Favor Of: HEASLEY, PHILIP G
HEASLEY, MAUREEN
FOR RESTRICTION
Date of Instr: December 15, 1997
Date of Reg: December 19, 1997 Time of Reg: 02:50 PM
Tenns: BUILDING RESTRICTIONS ON LOT 5 PL 35819-0 TO BENEFIT LOT 8 PL 358
Signature: <::::L..~. -;;:!. ~€<e-,
~, f
78291
Kind: EASEMENT
In Favor Of: LOW, FRANK H
LOW, CLARA B
Date of Instr: December 15, 1997
Date of Reg: December 19, 1997 Time of Reg: 02:50 PM
Terms: VIEW EASEMENT ON LOT 5 PL 35819-0 TO BENEFIT LOT 8 PL 35819-0
Signature: ~ -;;:!. ~
103937
Kind: DEED
In Favor Of: VBDC LLC
Date of Instr: September 08, 2003
Date of Reg: September 16, 2003 Time of Reg: 03:15 PM
Terms: noted on 6885 to create 20884
Signature: ~ --:;;1. ~
Page 1 of 3
Cert No;
20884
Memoranda of Encumbrances
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Document Number:
103938
Kind: CERT OF MUN LIEN
In Favor Of: NANTUCKET TOWN
Date of Instr: September 03, 2003
Date of Reg: September 16, 2003 Time of Reg: 03:15 PM
Terms:
Signature: ~- ____ -;;!'. J=:;r~~
103939
Kind: MORTGAGE
In Favor Of: WILMINGTON TRUST FSB
Date of Instr: September 16, 2003
Date of Reg: September 16,2003 Time of Reg: 03:15 PM
Terms: $5,525,000.00
Signature: "'jo-................... -;;!'. l::::i,<<~
'7
110911
Kind: RELEASE
In Favor Of: vaDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 23, 2005
Date of Reg; February 28, 2005 Time of Reg: 02:30 PM
Terms: RELEASE, TERMINATE, RESCIND & ANNUL THE TERMS & PROVISIONS OF
Signature: ~- - , ---r J=:;r~
~<<. ~'7
111001
Kind: RESTRICTION
In Favor Of: VBDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 23, 2005
Date of Reg: March 08, 2005 Time of Reg: 01:15 PM
Terms: RESTRICTIONS ON LOTS 9,10 & 12 PL 35819-E
Signature: ~ -;;!'.~,
111002
Kind: PARTIAL RELEASE
In Favor Of: vaDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 28, 2005
Date of Reg: March 08, 2005 Time of Reg: 01 :15 PM
Terms: RELEASE OF LOTS 10 & 12 PL 35819-E FROM DOC 103939
Signature: ~_ ... ---r ~,_
~<<. --~
111003
Kind: CERT OF MUN LIEN
In Favor Of: NANTUCKET TOWN
Date of Instr: December 17, 2004
Date of Reg: March 08, 2005 Time of Reg: 01:15 PM
Terms:
Signature: ~ -:;;{. ~
Page 2 of 3
'0 \
Cert No:
20884
Me111,Ora11.da Of E11.CU111bl'ances
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Document Number:
111004
Kind: DEED
In Favor Of: ACKQUIRE GROUP LLC
Date of Instr: February 23, 2005
Date of R~g: March 08, 2005 . Time of Reg: 01:15 PM
Terms: LOTS 10 & 12 ON PLAN 35819-E AND THIS CERTIFICATE CANCELLED AS T
Signature: ~- -....-. -;;1. f=::irtfA!ot.7
114869
Kind: RELEASE
In Favor Of: SOUeAl, SOLOMON TR
SIXTY-ONE SHAWKEMO ROAD NOMINEE TRUST
Date of Instr: November 29, 2005
Date of Reg: January 12, 2006 Time of Reg: 10:09 AM
Terms: release of Lot 6 PI 35819-0 from restriction #4 in Doc 79359
Signature: ~- - , -;;1. ~*'~
~. ,7
End of Document_End of Document_End of Document
j
~ ~/~7ed
Page 3 of 3
Not Reported in N.E.2d
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1997 WL 100876 (Mass. Super.)
(Cite as: 1997 WL 100876 (Mass.Super.))
C
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Superior Court of Massachusetts.
Raymond A. VALCOURT, et al.
v,
Crawford N. KIRKPATRICK, III, et al.
Phillip R. MARTELL Y, et al.
v.
Crawford N. KIRKPATRICK, III, et al.
No. CA95-01801.
Feb. 28, 1997.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HELY.
I, INTRODUCTION
*1 This case presents the novel issue of whether a town
by-law's minimum street frontage requirement for a
building lot can be satisfied by two separated frontage
pieces along the same street. The court concludes that
split frontage does not satisfy the by-law.
In the Valcourt action (95-01801), a group of abutters
have appealed from a decision of the Swansea Zoning
Board of Appeals approving the issuance of a building
permit for a lot owned by Gale Martelly as Trustee of
the Martelly Land Trust. In the Martelly action
(95-01759), Gale and Phillip Martelly seek declaratory
relief regarding the same building permit issue. The
plaintiffs in the Valcourt action (the "abutters") have
moved for summary judgment in the consolidated
cases. There is no dispute on any of the material facts
on the application of the Swansea by-law's frontage
requirement to Gale Martelly's lot.
II. UNDISPUTED FACTS
Gale Martelly's parcel that is the focus of this case
consists of lots lA and 3L, including Parcel "A," all as
shown on the plan of July 7, 1994. The parcel consists
of 5.9 acres with a shape resembling a lower case "h."
The feet of the "h" rest on Wilbur Avenue, giving it its
only frontage on a public way. One of the pieces of
frontage is 111.91 feet along Wilbur Avenue. The
other frontage piece is 38.09 feet on the same street.
The total frontage is 150 feet.
Mrs. Martelly's two frontage lines are separated along
Wilbur A venue by the lot owned by Linda Carrvolo,
Page 6
Lot 2 according to the plan. The Carrvolo lot has 200
feet of continuous frontage along Wilbur A venue.
Mrs. Martelly's separate frontage portions are
connected behind the Carrvolo lot by a forty-foot-wide
L-shaped strip running back from Wilbur A venue and
then behind the Carrvolo lot. The Gale Martelly parcel
thus surrounds the Carrvolo lot on the east, west, and
north borders of the Carrvolo lot. The south sides of
both the Gale Martelly lot and the Carrvolo lot form
their frontage along Wilbur A venue.
Phillip Martelly, Gale's husband, is a developer by
trade. He applied for a building permit to construct a
single-family house on Gale's Wilbur Avenue parcel.
In a letter to Richard Andrade, the building inspector,
the Zoning Board of Appeals stated its opinion that
frontage does not have to be contiguous under the
Swansea zoning by-law. The Board wrote that there
have been many situations in the town where frontage
that is not contiguous has been deemed sufficient.
Based on this interpretation, the building inspector
issued Mr. Martelly a building permit on May 8, 1995.
The abutters made a written request to the building
inspector to enforce the frontage requirement. The
building inspector denied the enforcement request. The
abutters then appealed the enforcement denial to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board denied the
abutters' appeal. The Board stood by its interpretation
that the bylaw's frontage requirement does not require
contiguous frontage.
III. THE CLAIMED CONSTRUCTIVE GRANT
*2 The abutters first claim that the Zoning Board of
Appeals failed to act on their appeal within one
hundred days of filing. They contend that this entitles
them to a constructive grant of their appeal under G.L.
c,40A, 15, par. 5.
At the hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
abutters' attorney asked the Board to "hold the record
open" until September 28 in order to submit a brief.
Although Section 15 refers to a written agreement to
stop the clock, the court would be hesitant to allow the
abutters to obtain a constructive grant of their appeal by
exploiting a time extension that they themselves
requested. No final ruling is necessary on this
argument, however, because the abutters are. entitled to
relief as a matter of law on the merits of the Board's
written decision.
IV. THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROV AL-NOT-
(Q 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Not Reported in N.E.2d
(Cite as: 1997 WL 100876, *2 (Mass.Super.))
REQUIRED ENDORSEMENT
Gale Martelly's divided frontage lot is shown on the
July 7, 1994, plan. The Swansea Planning Board on
July 11, 1994, endorsed the plan "approval under
subdivision control law not required." The Zoning
Board of Appeals' memorandum in this court contends
that this endorsement amounts to an approval of using
divided frontage to satisfy the zoning requirement.
A planning board must give the approval-not-required
endorsement under G.L. c. 41, S 81P, unless the plan
shows a subdivision. An approval-not-required
endorsement necessarily implies a determination by the
planning board that the frontage of the lots shown are
"of at least such distance as is then required" by the
zoning by-law. G.L. c.41, S 81L.
A planning board's approval-not-required endorsement,
however, is not a fmal detennination of compliance
with the zoning by-law. "The finality of such an
endorsement for purposes of the Subdivision Control
Law... has no bearing on compliance with zoning
requirements." Gattozzi v, Director of Inspection
Services of Melrose, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 889, 890, 376
N.E.2d 1266 (1978). "'An endorsement under S 81P
does not mean that the lots within the endorsed plan are
buildable lots.''' Cricones v, Planning Board of
Dracut, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 264, 268, 654 N.E.2d 1204
(1995).
A planning board's approval-not-required endorsement
thus does not relieve the building inspector or the board
of appeals from the responsibility to determine whether
a lot satisfies the zoning bylaw. [FN1]
FNI. The Zoning Board of Appeals properly
recognized this principle in its February 25,
1994, decision regarding an earlier lot
configuration.
V, SPLIT FRONTAGE
This brings us to the abutters' main argument. On the
split frontage issue, the court's task is not to rewrite the
Swansea by-law. The court must interpret the by-law
according to its own tenns and consistently with the
purposes of frontage requirements. Section VlIl F of
the by-law states: "Lot frontage shall be as required for
the particular district or not less than one hundred-fifty
(150) feet and shall be measured along the street lot
line between the side lot lines...." Additionally, Section
I B(1)(a) prohibits the erection of a principal building
on a lot "having a frontage of less than one hundred
fifty (I50) feet." The by-law does not contain a
Page 7
defmition of frontage.
*3 The term frontage in zoning by-laws is commonly
understood to mean a single, continuing property line of
a lot running along a public way, an approved way, or a
street that conforms to the by-law. The dearth of any
reported decisions on divided frontage suggests that
this is how landowners, developers, and zoning
enforcement authorities commonly understand the term.
Leading treatises in Massachusetts and nationally do
not mention divided frontage as an issue in interpreting
the frontage requirements of zoning by-laws. M.R.
Healy, Massachusetts Zoning Manual, SS 17.13--12.18
(1995); A.L. Eno & W.V. Hovey, Real Estate Law, S
23,1. et seq. (1995); D.A. Randall & D.E. Franklin,
Municipal Law and Practice, S 616 (1993); R.M.
Anderson, American Law of Zoning, S 9.65 (3d
ed.1986 and Supp.1992); Annot. 96 A.L.R. 1367
(1964 and Supp.1993, 1996). [FN2]
FN2, A Connecticut case has held that a
frontage regulation could not be satisfied by
using a parcel's frontage on more than one
street. Lawrence and Memorial Hospital. lnc,
v. Zoning Board of Appeals of New London,
22 Conn.App, 291, 577 A.2d 740
(Ct.App, 1990). The present case does not
present any issues of comer lots or frontage on
more than one street.
The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that a principal
purpose of frontage requirements is "to ensure efficient
vehicular access to each lot in a subdivision, for safety,
convenience, and welfare." Gifford v, Planning Board
of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 807, 383 N.E.2d 1123
(1978). In a more complete statement, the court has
said that permissible objectives for frontage
requirements "include lessening congestion in the
streets, conservation of health, securing safety from fire
and other dangers, provision of adequate light and air,
prevention of overcrowding of land, and avoidance of
undue concentration of population." MacNeil v. Avon,
386 Mass. 339, 341-342,435 N.E.2d 1043 (1982),
In Gifford, the court set aside the planning board's
approval-not-required endorsement on a plan where the
required frontage was obtained by using twisting,
narrow necks of land to connect the main rear portions
of the lots with the public way. The Gifford lots were
an "attempted evasion" of frontage requirements. 376
Mass. 808,
The MacNeil case is important both because of its
emphasis on the variety of legitimate purposes for
frontage requirements and because of its holding that a
@ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Not Reported in N.E.2d
(Cite as: 1997 WL 100876, *3 (Mass.Super.))
200-foot frontage requirement for a multi-unit building
was valid. See also Corcoran v, Planning Board of
Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248, 547 N.E.2d 911 (1989)
(wetlands did not make the access from the frontage
illusory).
Considering the purposes for frontage requirements
enumerated in the case law and the absence of any
specific language in the Swansea by-law permitting
divided frontage, the court concludes that the by-law's
frontage requirement can only be interpreted as
requiring a minimum of 150 feet of frontage running
continuously along a public way or an approved way or
street within the by-law's terms. The frontage line does
not have to be a straight line, but it does have to be
continuous. A combination of frontage from two or
more divided portions cannot satisfy the minimum
frontage requirement in the Swansea by-law.
*4 This conclusion is further supported by the lot
width requirement that follows the frontage provision in
the same sentence of Section VIII F. The width clause
requires a minimum lot width of 120 feet for at least the
first fifty feet back from the street. The apparent
purpose is to prevent an hourglass in the first fifty feet.
The 120-foot width requirement reinforces the 150-foot
frontage requirement. The width requirement would
Page 8
make little sense if the frontage could be divided into
separate legs.
A split frontage interpretation would invite the extreme
lot configurations that were condemned in Gifford as
undermining the purposes for frontage requirements.
The Board's interpretation in the present case does not
limit the number of separate frontage segments that can
be relied on. Today's case involves a two-legged "h,"
but tomorrow's may present a three-fingered "E." The
Swansea town meeting has legislated a minimum
frontage of 150 feet along a street. In the absence of
contrary language in the by-law, the town meeting's
enactment cannot reasonably be construed as permitting
two or more noncontinuous segments to satisfy the
frontage requirement.
ORDER
A judgment will enter annulling the Swansea Zoning
Board of Appeals written decision of November 8,
1995, and declaring invalid the building permit issued
to Phillip R. Martelly on May 8, 1995.
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1997 WL 100876
(Mass. Super.)
END OF DOCUMENT
<<;) 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
718 N.E.2d 389
48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, 718 N.E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, 718 N.E.2d 389)
H
Appeals Court of Massachusetts,
Bristol.
Raymond A. VALCOURT & others [FNI]
FN 1. Deborah Valcourt, Paul A. Pelletier,
Wilhelmina T. Pelletier, and Joseph Paul
Pelletier,
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF SW ANSEA &
others [FN2] (and a companion
case [FN3]).
FN2, The building inspector of Swansea;
Roland J, Martelly and Helen Martelly; Philip
R, Martelly; and Gale Martelly, individually
and as trustee of the Martelly Land Trust.
FN3, Philip R, Martelly and Gale Martelly,
individually and as trustee of the Martelly
Land Trust vs, Zoning Board of Appeals of
Swansea, Raymond A, Valcourt, Deborah
Valcourt, Paul A, Pelletier, Wilhelmina T,
Pelletier, and Joseph Paul Pelletier.
No. 97-P-2313.
Argued May 7, 1999.
Decided Oct. 2 I, 1999.
Further Appellate Review Denied Jan. 7,2000.
Landowners filed complaint for declaratory relief,
seeking declaration that decision of town zoning board
of appeals denying abutters' appeal from the issuance of
building permit was timely and valid. Abutters filed
action for judicial review of board's decision. Cases
were consolidated, The Superior Court Department,
Charles J. Hely, J., granted summary judgment in favor
of abutters. Landowners, board and building inspector
appealed. The Appeals Court, Spina, J., held that: (I)
landowners failed to rebut presumption that abutters
had standing to appeal board's decision; (2) parcel of
land at issue did not satisfY zoning by-law's minimum
lot width requirement; and (3) there was no
unconstitutional taking.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Zoning and Planning ~436.1
414k436.1
Planning board endorsement of a plan, under statute
governing approval of plans not subject to subdivision
Page 1
control law, does not constitute approval under the
zoning by-law. M.G.L.A. c. 41, ~ 81P.
[2] Zoning and Planning ~571
414k571
Landowners failed to rebut presumption that abutters
had standing as "persons aggrieved" to appeal decision
of town zoning board of appeals upholding issuance of
building permit, where landowners merely challenged
abutters' standing in their answer to the complaint and
in their memoranda of law opposing abutters' motions
for summary judgment, and record was devoid of any
evidence supporting landowners' challenge. M.G.L.A.
c. 40A, ~ 17.
[3] Zoning and Planning ~571
414k571
A decision of a zoning board may be challenged only
by a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of statute,
and a person is "aggrieved" if she suffers some
infringement of her legal rights. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, ~ 17
[4] Zoning and Planning ~571
414k571
To have standing as "person aggrieved" to challenge
decision of zoning board, the injury must be personal to
the plaintiff and supported by specific facts. M.G.L.A.
c. 40A, ~ 17.
[5] Zoning and Planning ~571
414k571
Abutters, as "parties in interest" who receive notice of
the public hearing, are presumed to be aggrieved by
decision of zoning board, for purposes of standing to
seek judicial review of board's decision; however, the
presumption is rebuttable and recedes if standing is
challenged and the challenge is supported by evidence,
and the issue of standing will then be determined on all
the evidence with no benefit to the abutter from the
presumption. M.G.L.A.
c. 40A, ~ 17.
[6] Zoning and Planning ~571
414k571
It is not enough simply to raise the issue of standing in
a proceeding to review decision of zoning board of
appeals; rather, the challenge must be supported by
evidence. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, ~ 17.
[7] Zoning and Planning ~254
414k254
Even if town's zoning by-law permitted split frontage to
~ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
718 N.E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, 718 N.E.2d 389)
satisfy minimum frontage requirement of 150 feet, by-
law's minimum lot width requirement of 120 feet to
depth of 50 feet from street would require one segment
of frontage to be at least 120 feet, and thus parcel of
land with frontage segments of 111.91 feet and 38.09
feet failed to meet minimum lot width requirement of
by-law.
[8] Zoning and Planning ~233
414k233
In the absence of an express definition, the meaning of
a word or phrase used in a local zoning enactment is a
question oflaw, and is to be determined by the ordinary
principles of statutory construction.
[9] Zoning and Planning ~231
414k231
[9] Zoning and Planning ~233
414k233
Specific provisions of a zoning enactment are to be
read in the context of the law as a whole, giving the
language its common and approved meaning without
regard to the court's own conceptions of expediency.
[10] Zoning and Planning ~231
414k231
A zoning by-law should be construed sensibly, with
regard to its underlying purposes and, if possible, as a
harmonious whole.
[11] Appeal and Error ~856(1)
30k856( I)
A correct ruling of the trial court will be upheld even
though the Appeals Court relies upon a different ground
than that relied upon by the judge deciding the motions
for summary judgment.
[12] Eminent Domain ~2.1O(6)
148k2.10(6)
(Formerly 148k2(1.2))
[12] Zoning and Planning ~63
414k63
Application of facially-valid minimum frontage
requirement of town's zoning by-law to landowners'
property did not effect an unconstitutional taking,
where there was no showing that landowners could not
create building lot on parcel by utilizing procedures
under subdivision control law, and difficulty in which
landowners found themselves was largely self-inflicted.
M.G.L.A. c. 41, S 81 K et seq.
[13] Appeal and Error ~169
30kl69
Page 2
The general rule is that an issue not raised in the trial
court cannot be argued for the first time on appeal.
**390 *125 Richard E. Burke, Jr., New Bedford, for
Philip R. Martelly & others.
Alan A. Amaral, Somerset, for Raymond A. Valcourt
& others.
Present: PERRETT A, DREBEN, & SPINA, J1. [FN4]
FN4, Justice Spina participated in the
deliberation on this case and authored the
opinion while an Associate Justice of this
court, prior to his appointment as an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court.
**391 SPINA, J.
A Superior Court judge, in a pair of consolidated
cases, ordered summary judgment for the plaintiffs,
Raymond and Deborah Valcourt and Paul,
Wilhelmina, and Joseph Pelletier, abutters to a parcel of
land owned by Gale Martelly, trustee of the Martelly
Land Trust, in the town of Swansea, the result of which
was to annul a decision of the Swansea Zoning Board
of Appeals (board) and to declare invalid a building
permit issued to Philip R. Martelly, husband of Gale
(Martellys). The Martellys, Philip Martelly's parents,
the board, and the building inspector (collectively, the
appellants) appeal, claiming that the abutters lack
standing and that the judge erred in concluding that the
term "frontage" means an uninterrupted line. The
Martellys also claim on appeal, for the first time, that
the interpretation of the zoning by-law advanced by the
abutters deprives them of all economically viable uses
of their land, and as such constitutes a taking. We
affirm.
The material facts are not in dispute. Philip's parents
acquired approximately 19,5 acres in Swansea on
December 15, 1961. The tract had frontage of
approximately 260 feet on Pearse Road and frontage in
two noncontinuous sections of262 feet and 122 feet on
Wilbur Avenue, both public ways. Over the years,
they conveyed smaller parcels from the tract and, by
1994, were left with approximately 16.2 acres having
frontage of 20 feet on Pearse Road and frontage in two
noncontinuous sections of 111.91 feet and 50 feet on
Wilbur Avenue. The 16,2 acres is depicted roughly on
the sketch appended to this opinion, shown thereon as
two shaded areas labeled A and B.
[1] Philip Martelly filed a plan with the Swansea
planning board showing a division of his parents' 16.2
acre tract into the parcels A and B, as shown on the
(Q 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
718 N.E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, *125, 718 N.E.2d 389, **391)
sketch. Parcel A is shaped like a lower case letter "h."
It contains 5.9 acres and has frontage on Wilbur
Avenue in noncontinuous segments of 111.91 feet and
38.09 feet, respectively, for a total of ISO feet, the
minimum frontage required under the zoning by-law.
[FN5] Parcel B contains about 10.3 acres and has
frontage of 11.91 feet on Wilbur Avenue and 20 feet on
Pearse Road. The division would create a violation of
the zoning by-law because parcel B, a building *126 lot
on which Philip Martelly's parents maintain their home,
would be left without sufficient frontage on a public
way. [FN6], [FN7] Presumably to cure this problem,
the registered land surveyor who created the plan
inserted a notation that Philip's brother and sister-in-
law, owners of parcels X and Y on the appended
sketch, would convey parcel X, which abuts the parents'
tract on Pearse Road, to the parents. Such a transfer
would increase the frontage of parcel B on Pearse Road
from 20 feet to 170 feet, an amount in compliance with
the frontage requirements of the zoning by-law. On
July II, 1994, the planning board endorsed the plan as
not requiring approval under the subdivision control
law, pursuant to G.L. c, 41, ~ 81P. [FN8] On October
12, 1994, the parents conveyed parcel A to Gale
Martelly, trustee of the Martelly **392 Land Trust. To
date, parcel X has not been conveyed to the parents.
FN5, The Swansea zoning by-law, * III
B( I )(a), prohibits the erection of a principal
structure on a lot "having a frontage of less
than one hundred fifty (150) feet",
FN6, The zoning by-law, * l\1 B(I)(b),
prohibits reducing a parcel to the point where
it does not comply with frontage requirements,
Compare Sorenti v, Board of Appeals of
Wellesley. 345 Mass, 348, 187 N.E.2d 499
(1963); DiCicco v, Berwick. 27 Mass,App,Ct.
312,314,537 N,E,2d 1267 (1989), See G.L.
c, 41, * 81L (definition of "Subdivision"),
FN7, A previous board decision concluded
that two noncontinuous segments of 112 feet
and 50 feet provided sufficient frontage for the
undivided lot. That decision does not appear
to have been appealed,
FN8, Planning board endorsement of a plan
under G,L. c, 41, * 81P, does not constitute
approval under the zoning by-law, See
Cricones v, Planning Bd. of Dracut. 39
Mass,App,Ct, 264, 268, 654 N,E,2d 1204
( 1995).
Armed with the plan, Philip applied for a building
permit to construct a house on parcel A. The building
Page 3
inspector issued the permit on May 8, 1995. On June
IS, the abutters made demand on the building inspector,
pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, ~ 7, to enforce the by-law and
rescind the permit on the ground that parcel A did not
have ISO feet of frontage, measured as a continuous
line, and that the proposed division would reduce the
frontage of parcel B below the minimum requirements
of the by-law. See note 6, supra. The building
inspector responded on June 27, declining to rescind
the permit. The abutters filed an appeal with the
zoning board on July 18, [FN9] accompanied by notice
to the town clerk and the building inspector, in
conformity with G.L. c. 40A, ~ IS. The board held a
hearing on September 7, at the conclusion of which
counsel for the abutters requested three weeks in which
to file a brief. The *127 board approved the request.
The chair commented that there was no time limit
within which the board was required to file its decision,
but Deborah Valcourt declared that the board only had
until October 26. On October 30, counsel for the
abutters notified the board and the parties in interest, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in G.L. c. 40A,
~ IS, fifth par., that the abutters' appeal had been
granted constructively on October 26 for failure of the
board to act within 100 days of the filing of the appeal.
The board filed its decision on November 8 denying the
abutters' appeal. As reason for its decision, the board
stated that the by-law did not require that frontage be a
continuous line.
FN9. There is no dispute as to the timeliness
of that appeal, filed within thirty days of the
response to their * 7 request for enforcement.
See Vokes v, Avery W. Lovell. Inc, , 18
Mass,App.Ct. 471, 479, 468 N,E.2d 271
(1984).
The Martellys filed a complaint for declaratory relief
on November 17 seeking a declaration that there had
been no constructive grant and that board's decision
was timely and valid. [FNIO] The abutters filed a
complaint on November 27, 1995, seeking judicial
review of the board's decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A,
~ 17.
FNI0. On appeal, neither party has addressed
these issues; they are, therefore, waived. See
Mass.RAP, (l6)(a)(4), as amended, 367
Mass. 921 (1975),
[2] I. Standing. The appellants argue that the abutters
lack standing to appeal the board's decision because
they failed to establish their status as persons aggrieved
within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A, ~ 17. The abutters
contend that, as abutters, they are presumed to have
<<J 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
718 N.E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, *127, 718 N.E.2d 389, **392)
standing, and, absent a proper challenge to their status
as persons aggrieved, the presumption is sufficient to
confer standing to maintain their appeal.
[3][4][5] A decision of a zoning board may be
challenged only by a "person aggrieved" within the
meaning of S 17. See Marashlian v, Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721, 660
N.E.2d 369 (1996). A person is "aggrieved" if she
suffers some infringement of her legal rights. See Circle
Lounge & Grille, lnc, v. Board of Appeal of Boston,
324 Mass. 427, 430,86 N.E.2d 920 (1949); Waltham
Motor Inn, Inc. v, LaCava. 3 Mass.App,Ct. 210,
213-215,326 N,E.2d 348 (1975). The injury must be
personal to the plaintiff and supported by specific facts.
See Barvenik v, Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass.App.Ct.
129, 132-133, 597 N.E.2d 48 (1992), Abutters, as
"parties in interest" who receive notice of the public
hearing, are presumed to be aggrieved. See Marotta v,
Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199, 204, 143
N.E.2d 270 (1957); Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental
Health & Retardation Assn., 421 Mass. 106, 110-111,
653 N.E.2d 589 (1995). The presumption is
rebuttable, and recedes if standing is * 128 challenged
and the challenge is supported by evidence. The issue
of standing "will be determined on all the **393
evidence with no benefit to the [abutter] from the
presumption." Marotta v, Board of Appeals of Revere.
supra at 204, 143 N.E.2d 270. See Watros v. Greater
Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn" supra at Ill,
653 N.E.2d 589; Waltham Motor Inn, Inc, v, LaCava,
supra at 215, 326 N.E.2d 348; Barvenik v, Aldermen
of Newton, supra at 131-132, 597 N.E.2d 48.
[6] The appellants do not dispute that the abutters were
entitled to the presumption of standing. Rather, they
contend that the presumption disappeared when that
status was challenged by the Martellys' answer to the
abutters' complaint and by the appellants' memoranda
of law opposing the abutters' motions for summary
judgment. It is not enough simply to raise the issue of
standing in a proceeding under S 17. The challenge
must be supported by evidence. See Watros v. Greater
Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn., 421 Mass. at
Ill, 653 N.E.2d 589; Marashlian v, Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of Newbury port, 421 Mass. at 721, 660 N.E.2d
369; Bell v, Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 429
Mass. 551, 553-554, 709 N.E,2d 815 (1999); Barvenik
v, Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass.App.Ct. at 131 n. 7,
597 N.E.2d 48. The record before us is devoid of any
such evidence, While the appellants correctly argue
that standing is a jurisdictional matter under S 17 that
may be raised at any time, Marotta v, Board of Appeals
of Revere, 336 Mass. at 202-203, 143 N.E.2d 270, their
burden of producing some evidence to rebut the
Page 4
presumption of standing remains unchanged, and here
was unmet. Consequently, the presumption remains
operative and the abutters are "persons aggrieved"
within the meaning of S 17. See Watros v, Greater
Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn., supra;
Murray v, Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 22
Mass.App.Ct. 473, 476, 494 N.E.2d 1364 (1986).
[7] 2. Frontage, The appellants argue that the judge
erroneously concluded that frontage must be a
continuous line. They urge us to overturn the
judgment of the Superior Court because zoning is "a
local matter," Burnham v, Board of Appeals of
Gloucester, 333 Mass. 114, 117, 128 N.E.2d 772
(1955), and the construction placed on a local by-law
by the board charged with its administration is entitled
to substantial deference, Manning v. Boston Redev.
A uthy. , 400 Mass. 444, 453, 509 N.E.2d 1173 (1987).
See Duteau v, Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Webster, 47
Mass.App.Ct. 664, 669-670, 715 N.E.2d 470 (1999).
[8][9][10] The by-law does not define the term
"frontage," and the board based its decision on the
absence of any requirement in the by-law that frontage
be continuous. "In the absence of an *129 express
definition, the meaning of a word or phrase used in a
local zoning enactment is a question of law, .., and is to
be determined by the ordinary principles of statutory
construction, Specific provisions of a zoning
enactment are to be read in the context of the law as a
whole, giving the language its common and approved
meaning 'without regard to ... [the court's] own
conceptions of expediency.''' Framingham Clinic, Inc,
v, Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 382 Mass.
283,290,415 N.E.2d 840 (1981), quoting from Kurz v,
Board of Appeals of N. Reading, 341 Mass. 110, 112,
167 N.E.2d 627 (1960). A zoning by-law should be
construed sensibly, with regard to its underlying
purposes, Murray v, Board of Appeals of Barnstable.
22 Mass.App.Ct. at 478- 479,494 N.E.2d 1364, and, if
possible, as a harmonious whole, Foxborough v, Bay
State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Assn.. 5
Mass,App.Ct, 613, 618, 366 N.E.2d 773 (1977).
The motion judge concluded that from the "dearth of
any reported decisions on divided frontage ..,
landowners, developers, and zoning enforcement
authorities commonly understood the term" "frontage ...
to mean a single, continuing property line of a lot
running along a public way, an approved way, or a
street that conforms to **394 the by-law." [FN 11] We
do not reach the broader issue because the language of
the by-law is dispositive of the issue,
FN 11, Leading treatises do not discuss divided
~ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
718 N.E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, *129, 718 N.E.2d 389, **394)
frontage as an issue that arises in the
interpretation of frontage requirements of
zoning by-laws, and the appel1ants have cited
no authority which has considered the issue,
See Bobrowski, Massachusetts Land Use and
Planning Law S 12,7.2 (1993); Healy,
Massachusetts Zoning Manual SS 17,13-17.20
(1995); Eno & Hovey, Real Estate SS 23,1 et
seq. (1995); Randall & Franklin, Municipal
Law and Practice S 616 (1993); Anderson,
American Law of Zoning S 9.65 (3d ed, 1986
& Supp,1992); Annot., Validity and
Construction of Zoning Regulations
Prescribing a Minimum Width or Frontage
for Residence Lots, 96 A.L.R,2d 1367,
1367-1392 (1964 & Supp, 1993 & 1999),
[11] Section VIlI F of the Swansea zoning by-law
states:
"Lot frontage shall be as required for the particular
district or not less than one hundred fifty (150) feet
and shall be measured along the street lot line
between the side lot lines, provided that the width
of the lot shall not be less than one hundred twenty
(120) feet for that part of the lot between the street
and the straight line connecting the points of the
side lot lines distance fifty (50) feet from the street,
measured at right angles thereto."
*130 Even were we to conclude that the by-law
permits split frontage, the minimum lot width
requirement of 120 feet to a depth of 50 feet from the
street would require one segment of frontage to be at
least 120 feet. The frontage segments of parcel A are
111.91 feet and 38.09 feet. Parcel A fails to meet the
minimum lot width requirement of the by-law;
therefore, it was wrong to issue a building permit. A
correct ruling of the trial court will be upheld even
though we rely upon a different ground than that relied
upon by the judge deciding the motions for summary
judgment. See Kelly v, Avon Tape, lnc, , 417 Mass.
587,590,631 N.E.2d 1013 (1994).
[12][13] 3. The claim of a taking. The Martellys
Page 5
argue that the interpretation advanced by the abutters
and adopted by the motion judge constitutes an
unconstitutional taking. This issue was never raised in
the Superior Court. "The general rule is that an issue
not raised in the trial court cannot be argued for the first
time on appea1." MH. Gordon & Son, Inc. v, Alcoholic
Bevs. Control Commn., 386 Mass. 64, 67, 434 N.E.2d
986 (1982). The court has on occasion expressed its
views on a constitutional issue or an issue of public
importance, though not properly preserved for review,
where, unlike here, the condition of the record was such
that the issue could be resolved intelligently. See
Wellesley College v, Attorney Gen., 313 Mass, 722,
731, 49 N.E.2d 220 (1943); Edgar v, Edgar, 403
Mass. 616, 618 n. I, 531 N .E.2d 590 (1988). Compare
E.H.S. v. K.E.s., 424 Mass. 1011, 676 N.E.2d 449
( 1997),
There has been no showing here that the Martellys
could not create a building lot on parcel A by utilizing
the procedures under G.1. c. 41, S S 81 K et seq., the
subdivision control law. Nor has there been a showing
how the facially valid 150 foot frontage requirement is
unconstitutional as to parcel A. Compare MacNeil v,
Avon, 386 Mass. 339, 343, 435 N.E.2d 1043 (1982).
The difficulty in which the Martellys find themselves is
largely self-inflicted. It arises from the division of
Philip's parents' tract into two lots which fail to conform
to the requirements of a zoning by-law that was in
existence before parcel A was conveyed. See Leonard
v, Brimfield, 423 Mass. 152, 156, 666 N.E.2d 1300,
cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1028, 117 S.Ct. 582, 136
L.Ed,2d 513 (1996).
The judgments were not in error and must be affirmed,
So ordered.
**395 *131
Image 1 (6i~ X 5.25~1) Available for Offline Print
END OF DOCUMENT
~ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.