HomeMy WebLinkAbout081-06
TOWN 'OF NANTUCKET
~)~t-.~-~> "::0
BOARD OF APPEALS
06 110'! c. P 3 :4 4
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS' '02554-0
Date: )Jdtreun ~c?v(p , 200Ct
To: Parties in Interest and others concerned with the
-DecTslon of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following:
...
Application No.: O~ -0&
Owner/Applicant: .V (212e,; L-L- C 1 ~m{ l2u XP)
.Sk1..a..w:J<-emo 1:hJJ Ie; ,4.('\Q(ljQct1'ch Trv;~
~We( (l1ryr-
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk.
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws.
..Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
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.
~1J/~H4~ ~ ~Un4U-
GlI(lc.;;j, t) lI>>/ Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
~uilding Commis~ioner
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 dilly given as
required by Nantucket Zoning By-law 9139-31 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.DOCINP1CKERING
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
(9139-16B(3)d)" and therefore Lot 1 0 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, 915 and Nantucket Zoning By-law 9139-31, 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 9139-16 (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, VB DC 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.DOC/NP1CKERING
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 9139-31D, 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 U2082748_ 4.DOC/NPICKERING
had represented VBDC before the Planning Board when Lots 9 and lOon 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 cou1d 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 ofthe 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 -
BOSlll_BOSll U2082748_ 4.DOCINPICKERING
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 9139-2A, Lots 9 and 10 do not
have sufficient frontage along a single street line.
10. The frontage averaging provisions of Zoning By-law 9139-16B(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 9139-2A, 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 ofCanopache
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 -
BOSIIl_BOSII 1_12082748JDOC/NPICKERING
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 Ju1y 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 resu1ted 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 of Shawkemo 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 defines
"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 -
BOSlll_BOSlll_12082748JDOCfNPICKERING
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 Definitive 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 9139-16B(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 Ju1y 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
9139-16B(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 9139-16B(3)(d) was contained in the deed by which Lot
10 was conveyed by VB DC 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 9139-16B(3)(d) was recorded on October 2, 2006,
- 7 -
BOSlll_BOSll 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 ofthe 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 VB DC 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 9139-16B(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 du1y moved and seconded:
To overturn the decision ofthe 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 du1y moved and seconded:
- 8 -
BOSlll_BOSll U2082748 JDOCINPICKERING
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 9139-16B(3) and all other requirements of a buildable lot
under the Nantucket Zoning By-law.
/
..~-
AJ 0 v-0fY\ h-u- & ( R ()-() ()
-----------
Kerim Koseatac
d
~
-.,,1
C z
:E C)
::;;~. <::::
c I
~
r~-
n.'
I -0
:::'r w
.j:,;.
V1
- 9 -
BOS 111_ BOS II U2082748 _ 4.DOC/NPICKERING
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
PHONE 508-228-7215
FAX 508-228-7205
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS will be held at
1:00 P.M.. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 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 BUILDI~,
Nantucket, Massachusetts, on the Application of the following: -:
::-) C/.l
rn
-0
N
N
VBDC, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; SHA WKEMO IllLLS TRUST
ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT
B
,::.:::>
(:;
o
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 Ju1y 13, 2006 in which he refused to declare the Locus
unbuildable due to insufficient frontage and issue a cease and desist order. 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
10 at 59 Shawkemo Road. Applicant is asking that the Zoning Board of Appeals find that
the lot has insufficient frontage, with a minimum frontage of 200 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 9 be
rescinded; that any pending building permits for Lot 9 be ordered not to issue; and that
Lot 9 is not a separately marketable and buildable lot from the immediately adjacent Lot
10. See the Application in BOA File No. 082-06.
BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 081-06
The Premises is located at 57 SHA WKEMO ROAD, Assessor's Map 44, Parcel
132, Land Court Plan35819-E, Lot 9. The roperty is zoned Limited-Use-General-3.
'A '
THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT OR OTHER
ALTERNATIVE FORMATS. PLEASE CALL 508-228-7215 FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION.
~ " --.-.
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
CASENO.()~/-()~
FEE: $300.00
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s): VBDC, LLC
Mailing address: 3271 Green Dolphin Lane, Naples, FL 34102
Applicant's name(s): Shawkemo Hills Trust Association
Mailing address: In c.are of Tani P. Mauer. 2 Bl'lmboO Lane. Far MUiR. New Jers~y 07931
Locus address: 57 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket. MA 02554
Assessor's MaplParcel:Map 44, pac.el 132
Land Court PlanlPlan Book & PagelPlan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 9
Date lot acquired:~Yl.~-'..21.. Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 20884 Zoning District: LUG-3
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None-1L Yes (describe)
Residential: Number of dwellings_ Duplex_ Apartments_Rental Rooms
Building Date(s): All pre-date 7/72? or C ofO(s)?
Building Permit Nos: Uncertain if any permits yet have issued.
Previous Zoning Board Application Nos.: None
State below or on a separate addefltdum specific relief sought (Special Permit, Variance, Appeal), Section of
the Zoning By-law, and supporting details, grounds for grant of relief, listing any existing nonconformities:
Please see attached Addendum and exhibits thereto.
g ;0
--\ 7:
OJ;
'2E .::
;z:. ,,,.~
("')
r'
rr
r'r~
e;
c::l
-
-
......-.
_i'
-0
VJ
N
-
I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the best of my
knowledge, under the pains and penalties of perjury.
1'.
(
Applicant
, please enclose proo of agency to bring this m
" FO 0 FICE USE
Appliea r~'O'~ ?!.':'i[J fljjj}By: Complete: Need copies?:
Filed with ~~aerTc V'JL.L.f19rlanning Board::U~ lJept.:-' I BYi?~
Fee deposited with Town Treasurer~$By:~)liVer requested?:_Granted:-"-"-
Hearing notice posted with Town clerk:~Mailed:~~&M:1flf4& fC1::!JQ!o
Hearing(s) held on:.--1.--1_ Opened on:.--1.--1_ Continued to:_/_/_ Withdrawn?:-"-"_
__~Tru,r"."'T ..,.Tm DV. I Made: / / Filed wffown Clerk: / / Mailed: / /
--- --- ---
Attorney/Agent V
r before the Board)
Linda Williams
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RGbertDaut {bfd@hoveytaw,netl
Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11 :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 pres~mts 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 01 NanllicKet weD vl:S - t'nntaOle Map
Prop ID
Address
Owner
Sale Date
Sale Price
Book/Page
Lot Size
Town of Nantucket Web GIS
44 130
59 SHAWKEMO RD
ACKQUIRE GROUP LLC
37 OLD SOUTH RD STE 6
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
03/08/2005
$3,000,000
C0021687
2.93 acres
NOT A LEGAL
For general reference only:
caveats which must be considered when
using this data are available from
Nantucket GIS Coordinator.
Town of Nantucket, Mass
Map Composec
http://host.appgeo.comlnantucketmalPrintableMap.aspx?Preserve= Width&Map Width=345... 9/21/2006
1 own 01 r"anLUCK~l w ~o U1~ - rUUUlUIC IVll1!,
- -0- - -- -
Town of Nantucket Web GIS
Prop ID
Address
Owner
Sale Date
Sale Price
Book/Page
Lot Size
44 130
59 SHAWKEMO RD
ACKQUIRE GROUP UC
37 OLD SOUTH RD STE 6
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
03/08/2005
$3,000,000
C0021687
2.93 acres
NOTA lEGAL DOCUMENT
Town of Nantucket, Mass
Map Composed
http://host.appgeo.com/nantucketma/PrintableMap.aspx?Preserve= Width&Map Width=864.,. 9/2112006
reference
caveats which must be considered when
uSing this data are available from the
Nantucket
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 MapIParcel:Map 44, Pacel 132
Land Court PlanlPlan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 9
Date lot acquired:E1.2.J..22. Deed Ref.lCert. of Title: 20884 Zoning District: LUG-3
Uses on Lot - Commercial: None---L 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.
-1-."
0::
...c' )-
~.
c-
r"
:::t:=>
Wl
c::l
....
.....
::z:
r"("i
-0
LV
N
w
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.
SIGNATUREJ ~~ U~~ ""-- 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:_1 _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_
Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_1 ---1_ Mailed:_1 -" _ I&M:_I _1_& _1_1_
Hearing(s) held on:_I_I_ Opened on:---1_I_ Continued to:_I_I_ Withdrawn?:_I_.-t_
DECISION DUE BY:-"-"_ Made:-"_I_ Filed wffown Clerk~_I_I_ Mailed:-"_J_
DECISION APPEALED?: I I SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
FEE: $300.00
CASE NO.
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 Jersey 07931
Locus address: 59 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket, MA 02554 Assessor's Map/Parcel:Map 44, Parcel 130
Land Court PlanlPlan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 35819-E Lot No.: 10
Date lot acquired: 02121/J12. 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
Pre"ious 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.
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:U\ I~V '~..e__ Applicant Attorney/Agent X
(If not owner or owner's attorney, please enclose proof of agency to bring this matter before the Board)
FOR ZBA OFFICE USE
Application receh'ed 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-'_ By:
Wai"er requested?: Granted: / 1
- ---
Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_I_I_ Mailed:-'_I_ I&M:_I_I_ & _1-'-
Hearing(s) held on:_I_I_ Opened on:_/_I_ Continued to:-,_I_ Withdrawn?:_I_I_
DECISION DUE BY: / 1 Made: 1 1 Filed wffown Clerk: 1 1 Mailed: 1 1
--- --- --- ---
DECISION APPEALED?: / / SUPERIOR COURT: LAND COURT Form 4/03/03
f s. 00
Town of Nantucket
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
RECEJvEo
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
AUG 0 8 2006
TOWN OF
NANTlJcKET, MA
,
LIST OF PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THE MATIER OF THE PETITION OF
, ,
PROPERTY OWNER'........... ....
- ,
..~/!-e-
MAl LfN GAD D RES S, .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . :, . , .. , .. , .. .... .... .. .. .. . .. .. , . ,.. , , , .. ..'
PROPERTY LOCATION......~??"...... .. ............ .. .................Z?d
. U'I- / 20
ASSESSORS MAPIP ARC7:J... :r............ ~..,..............
APPLICANT.., '" ."....~~....,. ,..,."..... .........,.. ...", """ '"
SEE A TI ACHED PAGES
I certify that the foregoing is a list of persons who are owners of abutting property, owners of
land direct I}' opposite on any public or private street or way; and a.butten of the abulters and all
other land owners within 300 feet of the, property line of owner's property, 1111 as they IIppear ?n
tbe most recent applicable tax list (M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 11 Zoning Code Chapter j 39.
Section 139-298 (2) ..
12-:.,.. .~. .:&!t!?
~::V,
;?~~l)~
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
,..,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q)
01
III
p..
00 00 00 00 00
!:: ...:l ...:l ...:l ...:l ...:l
,~ ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! c:l
... ===== ~
III 0 0 0 0
g ~~~~~~~~~~
...:l t:olt4r&lr&lr&l~~~~E-t
~ ~~~~~~~~~~
... 00 00 00 00 00
III
'" '"
Ii!
Ii! Ii! Ii!
c:l 0 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ 00 00
~ Q) n ~
t1l \D \0 rt
00
:;: Ii!
...:l
o 00
'" H
'"
...:l
o
'"
00
Ii! :;:
...:l
00 0
H llo
'"
...:l \D
M octt 'D \D 1""'4 0 M
\D \0 \D \D N Pot .....
..,. U'l M r-I
III
E-t
\D CX) N rot r-i
o 0 N f"'I
lJ,\Dq<E-tOO\
.re 0 l""I ..,. 0 t"'-
N \D..,:EriO
0\ 0\
o 0
r- r-
III III
I I
III III
ri ri
ri ri
ri ri
o 0
..,. ..,. ..,. N N ..,. \D U'l N N
U'l U'l U'l 0 0 U'l 0 \D ..,. 0
U'l U'l U'l rt 1""'4 U'l \D ..,. t"'- r-t
N N N ..,. ..,. N M N ..... ..,.
o 0 0 f"'I ~ 0 MOO f"'I
E-t ...:l ...:l
00 H rz.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...:l ...:l
rz. rz.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
o
H
l'j ~
r:l III
III 0
~
0(
8 '" 0
0( = III
),UE-tO
... H ~ ~
'... = 0 0
U UZE-t
tIl
10: ...:l
~ ...:l
o H
>< =
c:l c:l
...:l ...:l
r&l r&l
H H
rz. rz.
u u
Z Z
H H
~ ~
'" '"
tIl tIl
E-t E-t E-t
r&l r&l r&l
10: 10: 10:
~ ~ ~
00 tIl
r&l r&l
...:l ...:l
'" '"
~ ~
E-t
r&l
10: Z Ii! 00
~ i I i ~
e ~
N
III
III
Ql
...
'tl
'tl
0(
0\
!::
'...
.....
'...
III
:E
(II)
r&l
E-t
00 ~ ~ ~
t!) Ii! ~ ~ ~
Z E-t :s
H ~ 00 III
P: l'j r:l z
E-l c:l E-t H H ~ :il H
tJl ~ ~ llo = =: 00 r&l =
P: 0( ~ '" '" ...:l ...:l ~ ~ '"
H .. r&l ...:l ...:l ...:l U ...:l
~ E-l l<: o 0 H ~ 0
U ~ r&l ~ 0\ 0\ c:l c:l = H c:l
rz:l ~ 0 0 u
tJl ~ E-t P: i< 0 ... r- \D Z Z 0 ~ ~
~ 3 l<: 0 III III .., .., N r&l r&l :E u 00
p:: t) ~ ~ ..... ri ri ri .... r&l r&l r&l H ~ r&l
rz:l =:> III E-t E-t U ~ P: P: ~ Eo< 0 l>:
III P: M M M M M U U ~ ~ u u
E-l ~ Q) 0 .., '" III 0 0 0 0 0
E-l ... Z III E-t III III III III III ri ri IX) III ri
'tl .., tIl 0 ~ ... ... tIl '" ...
=:> 'tl 0 ri III 0 0 0 0 0 N '" IX) q< III '"
!Xl 0( N ri '" III '" '" '" '" '" .., .., .... 0\ ri ... ..,
!Xl
..t
It j, ()o
Town of Nantucket
BOARD ~ECEIVJ:D
f: ASSESSORS
AUG
o 8 2006
AlJla!...OWN OF
. "IV'! rucKEr.
I .M",
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LIST OF P MTlES IN INTEREST IN THE MA ITER OF THE PETITION OF
PROPERTY OwNER',..........V 6.R..&:.. ..{~.......,",....,......
. , '
, ,
MAILING AD~RESS,........ ,..............,..:"..,...,..,... '.... ..,.".."""""" ,..~
PROPERTY LOCATION.......~:7..... .. ..... ,.. ...... . ......,..,..,/iI
, /ff-/G;;L
ASS ES S 0 RS MA PIP ARC E L: .. . , . .. , .. . .. . .. , . , , .. . , .. . .. . , . .. . . . .. .. .. . , .. .. , , , , , . , .. , , , .
APPLiCANT""" ./?ttf..~((,k,., ,~,. ,."" ",'" ",", '"
SEE AITACHED PAGES
I certify that the foregoing is a list of persons who e.re owners of abutting property, owners of
land directly opposite on any public or private street or way; and a.butten of the abutters and all
other land owners within JOO feet of the, property line of owner's property, all as they appear on
the most recent applicable tax list (M,G,L. c, 40A, Section 11 Zoning Code Chapter 139,
Section 139-29B (2) ..
t2;;..ep~~
DATf.' ,
A ' , ;;2.~,
J~ ..,:,~ .., ,'7
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
-jP'
.....------....."
' '-.
\
/~.~
I~ '-J
I~
~\
"-
~I
\;" ,.j
.~ :---
:\' "
~" "
~> ~,
, '" '
\) l~ :
,) N '-. i
\j !
\)
-if 5, 00
RECEIVED
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
Town of Nantucket
AUG 0 8 2006
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~
TOWN OF
NANTUCKET, MA
LIST OF P ARTlES IN INTEREST IN THE MA TIER OF THE PETITION OF
PROPER Tv OWliER. ~4t.<<-.~1'!/.(!.. .1JJ1,U.t:2~,
MAILfNG ADDRESS. ,........ ,. ,.,. '/)":" ,.", "..,., ,., ... ,."., ."fJ""'" '"
PROPERTY LOCATION...." ..~M.ld:~r... .tJ!c[.".."
ASSESSORS MAPIPARCEL:.....,:y ~~... ,'I.. ~.~....,....,."..,",..,'"
APPLICANT".",',.......L?~d.,....~........,.,""""",,'.
SEE ATIACHED PAGES
I certify that the foregoing is a list of persons who ~e owners of abutting property, ownm of
land directly opposite on any public or private street or way; and a.butten of the abutters and a\1
other land owners within 300 feet of the, property line of owner's property, all as they appear on
the most recent applicable tax list (M,G,L. c, 40A, Section II Zoning Code Chapter 139,
Section 139.298 (2) _
~g~.C00
.&~a;!f//.J
DATE' .
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Town of Nantucket
~~.J:totvl\Jl\Jp..JtoJtv 3:
".. ".. ".. -.,J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J PJ
'0
())
'-
\J)
"-
N
)
~.::>
..........UlUlUlUlUl...... t'
w '" w '" ..... 0 '" ..... 0
o m ~
f-'
N
W
N
f-'
>l>
'U
3:
()
o
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
t-l
:<:
~ ~
l'Il
'"
ttl
o
t'
o
~
Z
t-l
~
ttl
>'l It'
l'Il
l'Il
H H
'"
.....
ttl
~
l'Il
~
:o<l
t:l
Z
o
3:
>'l
:o<l
t:l t:l ~ :t: 9
~~c~ 3
H H M tJl lD
ttl ttl :o<l lii 7
~~~>' III
~~~~ ~
>'l >'l l'Il t' lD
:o<l :o<l t' t'
()
()
It>
~
H
'tl
~ ~
lii lii
l'Il l'Il
t' t'
tJl tJl
:o<l :o<l
o 0
o 0
:"l :"l
l'Il l'Il
~ ~
:o<l :o<l
~ ~
~ ~
t-l t-l
:o<l :o<l
~
...'
~
() ()
...... 0
o
~ ~
t' lD
"l t1
"l I
III
~
~
l'Il
>'l
z
~
lD
Ul
:t:
)I
lJl
~~
C::tz:l
C1::t1
~t/)
tz:l
8t'4
H
t/)
~~
Z
(j)
~~~~~~ ~
o 0 Po
tJl tJl tJl tJl t1
o 0 0 0 tJl 'tl lD
><><><><iii~ ~
8 ~
~ M
~
>'l
..... ..... ..... .....
eN eN VI U1
..., ...,
o 0
\D \D
ADDENDUM TO APPEAL OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S
DECISION OF NON-ENFORCEMENT OF TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING
BY-LAWS
Pursuant to Chapter 139, 9 139-31 of the Code of the Town of Nantucket and
M.G.L. c. 40A, 9 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, 9 139-25 of the Nantucket Zoning
By-Laws ("9 139-25"), written requests were sent to the ZEO 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 (9 139-16B(3)a), the total frontage combined with Lot 9
exceeds 400-feet required for two lots (9 139-16B(3)b), the regularity factor exceeds the
0.55 minimum (9 139-16B(3)c), and a notice of frontage reduction has been filed against
the deed for Lot 10 (S 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 of those 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.
A2853-001 - 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 E. 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 I. One condition contained in the
Canopache Certification Letter provided that, "[e]asement rights in Lot Con 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 of the 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
A2853-001 - 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 E.
(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 E.. Lots 9 and lOon Exhibit E. 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 VBDC 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 of the
Planning Board recommended approval of the AR Plan, with apparently slight revisions
made to the recommendation on September 28, 2004 ("AR Approval Recommendation").
Exhibit.s.. 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
"j\1though Lot 9 was created through ANR Plan #6720 [sic] and it does not meets
minimum frontage requirements along Shawkemo Road. and v,ill obtain the minimlHll
200 f{let of frontage from the proposed roadway Shawkemo Ridge Road.". Id.
(strikethrough in original). At its October 14,2004 meeting, the Planning Board voted 3-
I to approve the 2004 AR Plan.
Thereafter, in December of2004, a draft of the Planning Board's decision
regarding the 2004 AR Plan was prepared. Exhibit T. 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
A2853-001 - 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 1 0 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, VB DC 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 P.
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, 9 139-1 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 sin21e 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~. 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 comer 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 comer 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 9 139-1, 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 S 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 9 139-1 ("Frontage").
Lots 9 and 1 0 were created from Lot 5 as shown on Exhibit 1. 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, 1, and~. 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 S 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 "[f]rontage shall not include
jogs in street width, backup strips and other irregularities in street line..." 9 139-1
("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 of200 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." 9 139-1 ("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."9 139-1 ("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 ofthe "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 ofrecord." 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 ofthe 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 ofthe
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 of the
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 9 139-16A 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 VBDC 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ZED wrongly found that "the total frontage
combined with Lot 9 exceeds the 400-feet required for two lots (9139-16B(3)(b).. . and a
notice of frontage reduction has been recorded against the deed for Lot 10 (9139-
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 ~ reveals that Lot 10 itselfhas 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 ofthe Nantucket Zoning By-Laws, Lot 10 must rely on
some other theory.
11. 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~, 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 9 139-16B(3)b cited by the ZEO.
Thus, in determining that Lot 9 and 10 combined had frontage exceeding 400 feet,
the ZED must have relied on some other theory. Again, however, when requested, the
ZED 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 ZED must have been relying on the inclusion of the 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
I 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 of the 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 ~, 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 S 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 9 139-
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 ZED 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 of the 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 ofthe 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
A2853-001 - 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
lObe hereby ordered not to issue;
c) That Lot lObe 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 lObe ordered demolished or
otherwise removed from Lot 10;
f) 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
,.
~
"):
I'
e .
cJ
.,. .,. .,. l\J tv l\J l\J N fIJ X
". ". ".. -...J "'-oJ -..J -...J -...J -...J nJ
tl
f-'f-'U1U1U1U1U1".". t"
w '" w '" f-' 0 '" f-' 0
o m ~
I-'
lJ1
o
o
01>
'0
3:
:I- tJl :<l
n 0 l':l
:"l c:: Z
g ~ ~
~ H ~
l':l 00 l':l
o :<l
c;) t"
:<l 0 n
~ ~ ~
t" >i 0
t" :<l t"
n c:: t:l
00
>i II>
l':l
t'<l t:l
~
~
3:
>i
:<l
n
o
~ I
~ 0
; ~
>i
::.:
~ ~
l':l
O'l
j j
n n
:"l :"l
l':l l':l
>i >i
n n
o 0
Z Z
00 00
l':l l':l
:<l :<l
~ ~
>i >i
H H
~ ~
00 "l "l
::.: 0 0
~ ~ ~
t<
~ ~ ~
H H [;j
00 00 :<l
~ ~ ~ :I-
~ ~ n ~ Z
r:: ~
>i>il':lt< ~
:<l :<l t< t"
n
n
II>
~
H
'tI
H H
O'l
f-'
00
i
l':l
3:
o
~ ~
~ ~
l':l l':l
t< t<
tJl III
:<l :<l
o 0
o 0
:"l :"l
l':l l':l
"l "l
i i
:<l :<l
l':l t'<l
~ ~
>i >i
>< ><
>i >i
:<l :<l
~~~~~~ ~
III tJl tJl tJl '1
OOOOtJl'tl ~
>4>4>4>4i~ :
o :l-
i :
'tI
>i
f-' f-' f-' f-'
W W U1 lit
-..J -..J
o 0
\D \D
U1
:!;
Ilill 00 00 "l ~ n
'tI 'tI ~ t-"
:<l :<l ~
H H '<
~ ~ ::.: ><
~ Z ~ ~ H 0
"l "l t" :<l
l':l l':l l':l H H t< :"l
>i >i >i t'<l l':l 00
t< t<
t:l t:l
s:
t-'.
~
~ ~
tJl ~
~ 7
01
n n
, 0
o
~ ~
t< ~
"l '1
"l I
m
~ Z
e M
l':l
>i
6;
g~
qtz:l
()~
?:tI.l
tz:l
I-it"f
H
tI.l
~~
Z
Q
3:
111
t-'.
.....
t-"
='
III
:I-
IJ,
IJ,
'1
~
01
01
'"
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
15 BROAD STREET, SUITE 901
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
LJ COpy
WILLIAM V. HOVEY
Telephone 617-443-0123
Telecopier 617-443-0122
Writer's e-mail: wvh@hoveylaw.net
Duxbury Office
25 Meeting House Road
Duxbury, MA 023324405
Telephone 781-934-0583
Telecopier 781-934-2913
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT F. DAUT
MICHAEL L. D' AMORE, JR
INDIA L. MINCHOFF
ADAM V. RUSSO
Please Send Correspondence
To Boston Address
June 28, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT
Nantucket Zoning Enforcement Officer
37 Washington Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
Rf.: LOT 9 ON LAND COURT PLAN 35819E
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, ~ 7 and pursuant to Article V, ~ 13 9-25 of the Nantucket Zoning B y -Law, of the
Trust's be1iefthat 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 Inguirer and Mirror. That listing asserts that "[t]here 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, ~ 13 9-25 of the Nantucket Zoning By -Law, the Trust
requests that you enforce the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws by: I) 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.
tbe Trust submits that offering Lot 9 as a buildable lot in the face of insufficient frontage
A2853-001 - 17766
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
ZEO Lot 9 Letter
June 28, 2006
Page 2 of2
constitutes an unauthorized sale under Article V, S 139-25(B)(2), thereby requiring the issuance
of a stop order to the owners of Lot 9 prohibiting such unauthorized sale.
Additionally, the Trust requests that you deny any pending application for a building
pennit for Lot 9, or revoke any such pennit that already may have issued, as the Trust believes
that Lot 9 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,
~~
WVHlvrnm
A2853-001 - 17766
;....::.~.. ..;;:.> .:"~~~.:',l....., :._"~;""'>>-: -_.:.'.r,. .::.::',.,.;;......;.:.;.,_, :..,:':;..'e :. ;;,;.::.:~.,-.~ti-.:.:.:;...;.;iJ...u:.; .' ..Ok-::,:~...~.~.::.':..-..;J: ;:: ..,~~,;,~': '..~:~..,:.:;..., ?:o:. '. .':.:..;...)~~;. '::; u:"...:.W.!..e~:':.~:t:';(~:. ~;';;:.:~j:.- ':-.~:~)*
POND" C}JnDNET ~ T1-D?: A'iOORS *' LONG POND.Ill: J10COMO HEAD
Z
>
.....
4.-
>-1
;r ~ ~ s.. :::- ~l S- ?;' ::l >
~ ~O'C~' ~ .. n ~ t:;, =
::r :::- n H r, ~. R ::: ~ ~
0: t: a::t :;:! ... ;:: r.i ;:;.., I:
. o--eIliS"':-
S~~ s.:~.- ;;-~ ~
'--=: ~ ~ g V'J t.l -3 g...
1'(-l;'~"S~:;
~:TO n lfr.-l' ~
~ n ~ a Q.~ Et :l-
~~ e'3 ....x
000 or-E..-
0""0 ~ ~ 3 ';;' ~ .l'O,
::I ~ ..., :S" - ':3- _ S"
l'l-:(no:;l"'c""
_ Cog< f....
::;... _. g., ~ e! ~ ::r
Z ;, 0 ~ ~ ~ 2' ~
!5 1::::: 8 o..n:".D
2'-::~3,.sg~
*' !;. 0.. 3 ?'" l'; 'E. ::l
,." I ~ 8. E;; ~ ~. ~
:- 8 ~ fl,I :r ~"ciQ :;
""0 :l .; s')l C ;;
., e.,::J - c- 0 ;S, to'
~ CI.O"i:" n::l
::. g 0 3 F ~ :'
~ " ~ ~ E, 5. c 5
n Q.':; 0..:' , ..,~
!i:?>.g o~ 1': -l::r>":l
!; ;:;. ~ -g M n Q :r 5 -:!.
~ _,' is;;;' Q. ~ <
~ ~... a - m c.."C ;; !!...~
Z Lo ;; = ,E!, Q.::! &.- '< '<
(") ... "< :::.;.;. c =:..c :::- >>
!'rl~":l'< M -;;!l.!:\ g,g =
'=' t--l!'rl .. - ::r ==-< '" ;:: ~
0'\000::'1\= n''':l
C:: \0"" n e.."'tl "" :r a l::!. 0
r'l ~ J;; ~ ..:r ~.~ ~ E;;
1"110........ ..~ 0...=
-I 0 '.J n 0- ~ :='::! ..., a :.
-Ioo~c: ':55Z~~
!". rn;; 8 ~ 1" = ~ ~.
t::: il< iii ~c...", "l-
::! pgnllg.~fi:~
f:" S ~ C ~ !> "', ~ !:L
.... ::"~nH:'J.~-,",:
;ij 1/ ~ 0 ""0 :, n ~'
.. . i'f1 i ~ 0 '
n.. ...:: _ n = ~
e' ? So. :: ~ ~ R
--'CT"''''~~
IF ':: 5 Q !S, ~
P. 2': ;;;'1l a c:
&.~8~=-~
it ~ = ;:' ~ c...
~ ~ ? ? F-~
"
w:~ ,'~'
~ ~'I:
,! ":.11:'..;
L~'"
~' : iJ'\ :..11' '"
, '1~'
~~~"" _~J.:I .~'
'",. ~... I --:: "1 "":~
<~ii--f~ I 't'''.
:\:\.c~j I'] <. .
*,". .,.; ..' "'1:...1 f.
_ ',...'-,i.;.:.~,...~..L~~.1 ioI.l'
'..'~.'~: . _. ~l
.,.':';.';'; ... .~,:. I,' ,
~:.. ~~' ;'"'4. 1. "
,.~.I'_,'.~~;' -, #;'.'';/ 0<<:\"
f. ';,/,..." ~ .-"':::'" \ l r. ~
:, ',~,,- ,.,40 " ~ ,i I ..;,IQ.
'~0::~~t ".,.::.\ I:'
:..ltT:;>:' ",",e1~~ kt:, .,~..t .
,: .;J\ 'P'- '",,:::~,;.l
. i'
> ~ G 5 3' g- --l,O
~ ~ ~ Q.. 0' .., g: E.
.... :5 5 "'C ,f)"Q Z;"::.t ~
~ " c..~' g a. ~ (')
--: ...2.;.tI lU - 0 p.o c
~ .~ 3 ;r ~ ~ c.,.....
"":Jri~:J""'~a=.
0;:; ~...;;1 n n
~ ;:; ~ c.. c.."C E en
"" ' Q. ~~. g 3 ~
(j O-":rn-r~
o ~!>." M 1:;'
I f)9:.fl~=-
!J( ~;:j';: M X
n r.;:;":f:- 9 ~
~ 9- ~ CL. 2. a...
~ ~&-~~g
~~:..~P
ri ~- "1 :;..0
~ ZT: ~ - :;,
C ~:(c ~~
II. ;T '-.
. ", &'" ~
c.::l n""'C I
.....:r ~ ~
o c; R- (3' .;:
~~ R-~ ~
r'l1lD
lID =~
:: n ~
rr ~in
=.....ft;as
.:. i' 5' ~
~ ::c ~ ~
~o .. ..
..c:.. ...
~~F:
i::~~
..... "" D
.. '- tr"-
ft.:..-< :
I'" -, II
" ::::c 0
B 'Il.. ~
cr. '" t"'li
.s ~a.~
- .=:
lID -"
Cl ::C(')O
II C ~ 0
" II ~, II
ft-;" D
,.," ::c"
'M" .. II'
M . =:
D .... II
-"
~ ::
~,
Z r^
-! "'.I '"
;: 0 p
~ r-t ~
~-..~
o..J
~ tD ~
; C- ~
~ "'< ~
~ en'
0,-
~ ..
Cl " tIl
~ ~'> III
~"r-:tlI
tIl'llrno
... .., ~,.::;
o ; > I'll
~nlll:tll
.. ft II>> CIS
~;; 0"
.. ~(')C'J
_... - ~
~ ~~~
III .r l'Il ..a
c: IIl_.
=(').. ..
-. ~ U) J:I
.e ., rr"
~ !.=!:
-.. -
~::c(')~
"< 0 Ii ~
Ci -= --t -.
ft aD G J:I
<","_II
-.0"-
:: II
..
.";--::.
{~~l:~
}tE3,t;;~;;
~ f< :~ik~
i ,::,f'.::;\/
:~: ~t~
1~4~:
:~,f.:;,'::::;;:>...
~.;,\' \)i
....,......;
...:.~.' '{
t
<;-
.. ..,. ~.'.', ~
.:'t~...~:~~~:.~:,:.
.... ~.::" ~
~;:'\.iF.:.'...
i.:
.
-: ).
.~..:. 'u (
'-',;,,:J
.-
'-
n
7';
~
~
J:
.....
j...
Z.
0
.
n
.....
>-
;;:r.::
~
n
0
.e
'"
m
.
~
,...
v
z
D
?"
-
0
...:;
If
'J:
:c
-
<--
-
~.
,...
v
.
;>
!::r:
;:0
:>
3:-
~ 0-{
:r
-. ([)
....
0 5
- .0
Z ~
,.., a;
., ....
Q
;/; ::J
Q.
:-: ~
>
::E :::;-
0
7\ ....
.....
:?'
-
,~ t-
'-' C
. ::J
([)
-{'
,..., I\)
~
~ 8
0-
Z
m:
< "'0
m.
i1=' 0
(Q
;n . (ll
(.oJ
-0
:'~:...~:'~;:. .;;~*:;-: ;::.;..~~:;..;':...:~r'.:':i::~:.::~:.. :;~:.:;,;;.:.:'.1"t:...c.:';~.':... .r...x.-::.,......~9... ~;.;f:~::'.~;:;::::~"'-.:::~;;':.~;.~ :, ~M~.........,,&)~.:';;~-;;::~:': '.,./l;j(::::.';:iJIil:;-.~:~..;.:~A'.:' ::..-: :':'.:~.:.a;.:::,,*::., ~~~~';'.N~:7 ,~;;;:.:;x:.;
.LN J Od On I FLL ~ J3 .1'.1 L~:'dl Y A'\ ~ Ol-v OJ Od ~ 11 0 R'clV H _LDf:-) 111 N V 1~J
T . d
~3nl:JW "W "jJ"1
dOl: 10 90 82 unr
:4' ~,..;',.~ '.:'.:
t'--
~,.~.: ......(;. ,......._~;.~; .;:._.'~;-';...:i;-~~;-.'::"'-'.-""~~;~~-'''-~. '::;~J.:' .."..... ,-...
. :rOND _ COATUE ... G I'B BS rO.i<D ,j;
t:.~' LA<~' ::"\~;~, ~.: "~.
.~.
'c:?>>
~ rrg>~
oolDo-lc:
.....:c'"
....-Gl-<
S.....OC"tl
~.!"".... III
!:l~!Z~
- Vlool (;;
~"o l:l >
~gzz
n . ~ C
.., .0
:z
.~
.~
r-;
;:
~
n
...
r::
<II
~
B g-"g, ~ ~-;:l g2
c: c: < ::I ., -,,,
~ ~ ., ... :l: ... :a!
-.Q~~;r>;r
o Ol: 0 7;":; r7' a
==~::I~SE-o
O'~-;i::r:gr-
"::r;r~c="'s
O-o"'::I"'-~
~ C n ~ ~ ~
Eo) CI'l - ::I ..,
:::;!' g- Do.: ;;;.
!" ~:C~;..
~ -" 0
.u"~s-~
OQ~g-~;;
!t:n:'lnQ-
"t:l .....J g -"
oO::ro-:l
2-o-~ ::D"-
,-n,...:r
~ =.:;;,~ 0 n
Do. ~"'C: -; r:
50> R -, ~
~_:l~c
- ::l - '" lii
:5 .. '< ... -,
:;.' 5' g., f:., ~
C"'l'"::l>
~;'~
Cl n ~
c..o:::
;::~~
~~;;r
Z\J.o
0'"
~p~
t:Cog
.., 0
o 0
:r:-. I
~ ~
r-
c:
'"
<
lT1
I .., > ~ "t:l ':l"'"'t:I ~ -i (f)
~ ~ 8 ~ ~,~, a:~
- ::r ;: .;Q =-!t
~ ~ '
0::: .. ;:; ... 1::Xl '... t: 0
" '" tl- 2 -- _."'CI 0'<: c
_<-=t:!='..!)lIo.lAv.
~ "':l c' ",':: n ::1 ~ ~
....f'!1.. a,n 0-=
'".b. 0 -- 8 "",""t:l ~ '""
U\"" g E; n e:. 0-8 C1
o~.._o=- ::I..
., n'~n'\ooll::r~~
:5 1"\ &: '" ~ -0 ~ g'!:l.
00 ~ ~ ri ~ ~ 0
. iti n ~.. ;5, ~ ~ =
;< ;; n..9-~< n
n _, c: rt n !!...::r
r-3r7'::~-o
S;~5~~..8
<;(1;:0 '::In
1'11 ::; il """f') ~ :::L. 0
!"" S-n~~:::1
'"r1 n I>> n
::::: 11;;l
~ ~~ a c- ['
~'l~l~
Vo' :r ~ ~
if 8 ~ ;'5, In
~ 0-.0- 5- ~
\r 8 S::] 5.2 S ~ ~ g ~:;.l
l"l = c: ~ ~ .. ~ S1' n - <:
g,,~ ~- 5' ~ 5 """ - -' 0
l\ g F.~ :r~gJ Fi ~ ~O'
a:J t:1c- ~!;::t~"
;:: c- c -;:< ~ ,.. 2 t:l c.9- c, 0
:a ::,:g E:"'Q 0 ;:3' Iii "'- - ~ =
!:.. ~ Q ~:::. ~ n g' ~ a :r"
:_ ::.. _ = ;3 2- CT? 0 "'0 a
_..C:--<n t:l- ~
!:!n= p!tQ..~"""nu
3 ::r$ 3:: c ;, ;! ::I " 0-.
" g - c. c: ::I :: ..
. ... ~~ a.o-; E""
c- - CIl x (l.?!JQ
...,.. i:; ::; lJ<; n
~ H"'Q ;r ~ 5'
9-..g ~ "=.!; ~. ~
n ::;. '=""' (:I :::.... 8- -
:r:"~e:" ~
_. ~ '1' fl- :r ~ _
~ _IWE!..Ec'
Cii""o~--:'"
:. ... ;:I 7 0- ..,
r"l~ ;-'~loir -
ot"'no~~~
;;;. g' if tl, ~ n
~::I:>t:lr:"i'<"
r:" -." t\. ~ __ r:;
~~;:r~:rn~
':ll'":i
~ ::.
"
If
)> "'"'
i'" "
~ ...
'"""'....
~.:-
~~
'" _0
- 0
too
~ 0
.,.'
g
.~. ...._Ui~../;,::;,~:-:;.;~:-::~:.:-::.~,,~.;,..,:.::..~.::;:. :_:~;~~:;.:~:r:~;': .~;i~~.":,:t~r'.' ,:....".;.: .....io..:.. ..,.-..:J.:::: ...;;:;'::;:~ ~.!~..;. .:.:i.;-x;- .~.. ::':.':-','
,ns . S1BA3.N WOJ. '<<' ,.LISNO~)SVI.S ;~i;:;\y(H:,s f{
_...A. .. _ u.,..,v!~ .....A1.. ~ ..1 ", .11.' A.. . ."~' ......- ,'h..' .- . .......... '. .'
T . d
~3m:l1ol "101 'i"1
dvT : TO 90 E2 un[
q
,(
'to
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM V. HOVEY
15 BROAD STREET, SUITE 901
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
WILLIAM V. HOVEY
Telephone 617-443-0123
Telecopier 617-443-0122
Writer's e-mail: wvh@hoveylaw.net
Duxbury Office
25 Meeting House Road
Duxbury, MA 02332-4405
Telephone 781-934-0583
Telecopier 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 lOON LAND COURT PLAN 35819 E
OWNED BY ACKQUIRE 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, 97 and pursuantto Chapter 139, Article V ofthe Nantucket Zoning By-Law, of
the Trust's beliefthat the owners of Lot 10, as shown on the aforementioned Land Court Plan,
currently are building in violation ofthe 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 ofthe 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 o\vners 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
t,
".I
"
1
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 I 0 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,
WVHlvmm
A2853-001 -17765
BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT.
TOWN BUILDING }\.NNEX
37 WASHINGTON STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 021)54
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 358l9E." 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 find no enforceable violation ofthe Zoning Code at this time.
Please be advised tbat an appeal of tbis denial may be filed witbin 30 days of tbis notice with thc Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to
~139-31 of the Town of Nantucket Zoning Code,
BUll..DING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPT.
TOWN BUILDING ANNEX
37 WASHINGTON STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHLlSETTS 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 lOon Land Court Plan 35819E."
Specifically, you requested that Lot 10 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 S 13 9-
16B(3) of the Zoning Code. As Lot 10 meets the lot area requirements (9139-16B(3)a),
the total frontage combined with Lot 9 exceeds the 400-feet required for two lots (s 139-
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 (S139-16B(3)d), Lot
10 appears to have met all the requirements for the creation of a buildable lot with
reduced frontage. Therefore, I can find no enforceable violation of the Zoning Code at
this time.
Please be advised that an appeal of this denial may be filed within 30 days of this notice with the Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to
~139-31 of the Town of Nantucket Zoning Code,
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
358/9 8
The BSe Group, Surveyors
~
~
~
t:l
September IB, 1987
I'ItIn 1*1. 143/111
tl
...
'Ii
...
..
~
l; ~
"
.~ '"
~
~
III
U
l<.i
.., /0/< 'lI'6'
..,
2
~
~
~'
~
"
~
k
~
~
~~
. f
:-....
f'
\
'it
~
III (;:i
U ~
~
I
~
<S
~ I
",-
5/6".29
c.B.
'2$'
, .C.B. -
(}G"
Smith
538811
2181
c.B. -99.05 ~ c.B. - 127.79 ,/
N :53'
E.
Frank/in
Plan
CHi.
Subdivision of Land
Shown on Plan 35BI9 A
Flied with Cerl. of Title No. 6165
Registry District of Nantucket County
Separate certificates of title m7 be issued for land
~~o~~ g;;~~~ as "I,f!(J;'({J(lp...'..'2....:..,. ~_
.=, 'algg, urtJ~~.llf.0'
,~,<:':.....,....., ~/
No.
No,
Abul/ers are shown as
on original decree plan.
Copy of pari of plan
-fi/adin-
LAND REG/STRA T/ON OFFICE
FEB. I:]. 1991
Scale at this plan /50 188t to an inch
Louis A. Moore, Engineer for Court
TIC
Form LCE-S-l.lm-6-U
~
~
~
~
'='
Z
w
~
..:L:
;:::
;r;
~
:;:
~
::::
'"
-'
z
<:::
...J
Q..
~.
~
;:::
Hart-Blackwell B Associates, Inc, Surveyors
358/9
c
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
/""-
"-
"-
,
'*" '-----iiO.---
---------
,..r/ --',
, / '
Y / De/ail '\
Scale I in : 50 fl. I
/
~-
-'" ~
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
,
I
1
/
,,/
y.
,...---~
,/" ...... December 7, 1990
/ " ---------........
1 V S~ .....,
\ ~k~."O
\
\..
~\
\
,
,~
.....
..... "
----"...,
IZaGB'
NJrJi."zo_
_/\ II' _ _ ./ d A
/4311 A \ G ~.
"-,-~____1 If.' ~
\ .
\.. ;:
ROAD --_ ,~
~
~
'78.00
,,-
'-
/40,00 W/rNJ
(~ HI4
c.J1. S 3B- 5S'16-E'
605.68
" 683.68 ~
, o:a .....
- ~
---
- II ..
I ~
l.
..
) ~
c..
~ ~
~
~ ~
l::: z
Ie w
.. ~
<::i
~ t.:l
;z:
;:::
. cc:
u:.:
~ ~ '-"
" ~ :t:
"- ~
OJ ;g:
Iri
~ 0
w
" ~ -'
;z:
~ :z
\ .; ~ <(
-'
" a..
~
en
i'
'" ...
~
!
'l:
""
,
~
~
'"
"
..,
\;
~
4
"15
-...
<>
\U
0;
~
~
13
...
,~~
~~
6'O.t6'..r
.1'<'3_ J?'.
....9- Jr
I
subdivision of Lot 2
Shown on Plan 35619B ----- 'fh
Filed with Cerl. of Tille No. ----- franklin E. Slnl
Registry District of Nantucket County fio. 5J88A
Separate certificates of title may be issued for land p~, f/D, 2/8/
::;'O~~ ~:;~~" ((J~; '2........~
""." i9?'............ .\!:cc',;/ ~~(;'
lIG
Abutters are shown os
on original decree plan,
Copy of pari of plan
_fj/odin-
LAND REG/STRA nON OFFICE
flJ1. /.1, l!l!l/
Scale ot this plan /50 teer to an inch
Louis A. Moore, Engineer for Court
Form LCE-S-l 3m-6-811
~.1..
-'
OfT"
HB-340
FOR M A
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL
File one completed form with the Planning Board and one copy with the
Town Clerk.
Dec. 7
OCTOBER 2Z
, 19 90
To the Planning Board or the Town of Nantucket:
'.
The unders igned wishes to record the acc.qmpanyingplan and reques ts a
determination and endorsement by said Board that aiiproval 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. ) i
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 building on such lot; and every lot shown on the plan has such
fron tage on:
a. a public way or ways which the City or Town Clerk certifies is
maintained and used as a public way, namely
, or
b. a way shown on a plan theretofore approved and endorsed in
accordance with the Subdivision Control Law, namely
on .
to the following conditions
and subject
jor
'-"c. a way in existenc~ on , the date when the
Subdivision Control Law, became effective _ in. the Town of
Nantucket having, in the opinion of the Planning Board,
,~, ", sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate construction to
,-,. provide for the 'needs of vehicular traffic in rela.:tion'to.the"
proposed use of the land abu tting thereon or serv'ed the,'r'eby~ -, 'and' .,
for the installation of munic ipal, services to serve such land
and the bu ilding s erected or' to be erected thereon, namely
,-
0.
The division of the tract of land shown on the accOrnpany'ing"'-p1"an; rs~'"
not a "subd i vision" because it shows a proposed,- conveyance/other~ ',:
instrumen t, 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'd
~n;>/.-R;>;>-Rn~
SW~~II~f'l ~PU~I
dvS:20 90 82 Inr
, ~"A
--"
.Ii-
...... . .....'1,h
Hll-34 0
FORM A
4. The division of the tract of land shown on the accompanying plan ~s
not a subdivision- 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, 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'rol Law is submitted ,~s
i.follows:
5. Other reasons or conunents: (see M.G.L., Chapter 41, Section 81.L)
Name of Reg istered Land Surveyor CHARLES W. HART
Address 6 YOUNGS WAY, NANTUCKET, MA. O~:>4
The owner's title to the land is der i ved under deed from CLARA B. LOW
, date FEB. 16 , 1971 ,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
of the' principals of the owner entity such
of a cooperation, trustees of the trust and
~~A~~A: S~~~F.~ND CLARA B. LOW
~~ A ;~~~u~~ ~~ 105] 4 . .
all the names and addresses
as (ie.) principal officers
partners of a partnership. )
Name of owner: FRANK H. LO~ AND CLARA B. LOW
Owner I s 'address: 33 .JOAN STRiEr.CHAPPAOUA; NY"-10514
~
I hereby
authorized by
property ~_ha t
cert.ify. that the applicard:. (s >. i temiz ed above have been
me.'to file: a: subdivision plan wi th. the Planning Boa-rd on
I own. -. -.. '~.P If. ~-.,..,.' . 0~""'- _ .
- .. ,.',_'~-'l..;. ~"~~.~UJ
, ' Owne.r '~. Signature
Planning. Board File No. 3~''':S. .
End~~sement Date: ~
,{
ii
~~f\d hu. I, /Q10 J!~ bf. ;;;UJ",-t!<(v~ .
~'d ~n~/,-R~~-AOS sW~~II~~ ~pu~~ d~S:20 90 8~ rnr
, ,. .
1I~;{IJr..\;;...:,~......<.
. ~ .... .: .~ ~ ...:
'{oif).'F.E;: t.o-r A. ~l;rK: H-.ERJ;:QM' ~l"'1Y'S
.:tfl;'niZf:~~~~~~~~~fl~,
....,~ .
~~Z~::~'~'~;t~:;~\. .,"
~,'...' ..~~.....".....,.... T:
'., .'~ :; ..
.. ... ::....:, '..,
4-4-3,}
'CA#oPACJ(r N01o-(IHrF: rR/;/sr
-'"
e:
.J.
I~
I1~A.~Z.
. f,'
,35'
.08'
. "fJ
,,-
..;-:~
A~?f~r~-i:;'
.'r::'
'. ,
,
'"
..~J;;~Y~:~~':i~~:i;~~~,:':"}~'f
J' ~.'
: .'Or.'.:".::;:::"
.,>
.. ';'>::~.:
. I;' 'lo, ,
"::1
.,
".
'/' .~ ';"~.'
:"f:;[:2fii~~;:~~,:
i~~ r/0i.4 .. .c;.r. . .1$1";. 'IJtiwcirJ./
:~~~f,~
. ':,:
.j";.
'.:.;: -:
.....'...
.".
') .'
c,
'....
". ~":'.'
',:
.' '.:..:.':: ;
.. ';.;':,~:.".:: :-~\.'::~:.~~~::
. ...."'.. A ': " ;: '.~ .
:::./..
. ~t~~A..i. ...~...~.'..~:~':.2::~;.
c'd
.....:...
. .: 1~-:' ::.
.' .;-~:. .
......
..r.... ,;
T...Il;~.;/.:..
..~:
.. .
. .,.,,,,
":. ~..
. t: ;'~", -;....
cn;:>J-R;:>;:>-Rnc
;.--:....
'- .'
..,
swetTTt!'}
eput-,
di:rc:;:>n an
\
;. ..:'
. . =..-. .... :,~.-.';;j.,!". ...
. ~qP.ACI{C 'WOf..r:/NCF; rRl1s-r
f.~
.' ,Ji.OI...C _' ~~~.'
AteEA. Z5001r.S.F:' -...._~..-;- ,
',-. "
..4:" 41
.~., ".
. 0 .....
~:~' .0
.../1 ..
., u
..... . :.11;I'
~'o< .
,: ':~
.1I;i.'
.:f
r ......
r:'
s.
:t.. .
.'. . -
", .,~.
',~ .'
:~:~':': l:,:...
:''i';":'~'::'" .
. ~.,
'~::.
~
"
IQ
~
o
~
.L..I
~'.
3
it] .'-.:(
,~
'(.I)
(\'l.
It')
(0,
~
.,
.,' .
"
'R.CA.D
.. ,'"
1'-c?6.. A('Nj~. e/J!w.x:.-r;
~.tlROt.ij.iD.' lioi . , . '. ...'.
r'<,rk'6'::,I'14'I'fD,'.(;oIJ1I.r .'
"~.I/IryI&.&1I MAft~1:t .
~,I"Cl,< ,.
...if!)" '. i(l/!O
~. ~.~"'.
'.' ;
L'..J
cn::>/-Q::>::>-Qnc:
""-"
;_. ..
;" ..
" ."','
r'. ':,. :. _' <~~ :.:,.~~~r ~< ,~. :' '.' "
;~~(J~:~'~"'~i$i:"'~.'q
. :. TB'I~1P1c.'" '3;~r3
.t:lAtt. " dFlL.r::Nd~.
^<<Jr.. is.,,.. L:GI. .'r" C S~ KE:R!E:r:W :J€
'. :lJf;(~1J1-L])4~t,~' ~i' .;;. '.i~u;;'kjt,
. AKEA,.'
. . . ~ .~. . .
. "
, ::~"
"j
;", .': ....:.'.
. ...."'1-. ....
.J\tit'aTf;1~~~,{;J~~Ht1SEh
:.J'~i~~~~~~t"~~'#~
.,.;.. .
:' ",
'0
I' . " "
""~:'. ..' ::. .,' .!OO" : t'. :': ........;aoO .'
.,' .
. . .,.~'*, - "
.'. . ,.;..'/i(j,-3t;
d~S:20 90~2 Tnr
SW~]:II]:M ~PU]:I
~.~.
t;,j
jl:-<~ .
~F~ .
---. ::.
<l)i
Ii}
.~
~~
, ...r,~~
"i(\
I
". i..
~
I
~.~
, .. ~
".' ~
""~I
. r.':i
. .
',,-
.:U -5
~.'.'. .-.
.~~: "'';;:
, ~ ";:.1 ~;..~
;{t~
'"
i
L
-
i
..
SHA'WKEMO
( I"'IlPIYAr.- - ...u:
- N
""
.s Z~' a;' ZS:' C .5lX.1;r
%110.01> I
@ I
...... ........,. J~
. /' Ii
'rl/~ '*"ttTAt4I ... LIT" . / I
" ,.. ~ 1tE5~N:'T4D ~1ItIST/
'''''''''CwerMN, ~'5II~urr""~ AMII' ~
/;' T~EE CL€A..... ~
" AU'A. .!r......ar:
..,.., Z$M4 _
~-~--
I~
tc
!;
"0
u'".
L'
....
MAJOUIiC
CAOIC<CNT
I
I
I;
I
I
L.::.- _ _ !!!L _ _
-..........
I; .u1l....lNiN6 D1"~ /
-..
/~
/p \
( \@
\ A.eCA.. 1OtI3n'SJ:
L~S. .oI.c.
/.Dr ~ '"
\ /-IIUIt..DN/i, Elt/V~_-\
'( 1-~
\-:. ~\
~ \
~\ ;:;>
./"
\ /r'P
~/
:~.
t.b. - ~o_-,
01 D<<NI.cu
fl C4U:.,E.on"
(
\
\
~
~\
\.
..;:;,
,
..
.ry' "
DATE, IT,ufJ,l 11(/
"I, JOANNE ... HOLDGA n" CLERK OF
THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET.HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE NonCE OF APP-
ROVAL OF THIS PLAN BY THE PLANN,
ING BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND
RECORDED A T THIS OFFICE ANO NO
NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS RECEiVED
DURING THE TWENTY DAYS NEXT
AFTER SUCH RECEIPT ANO RECORD.
ING OF SAID NOTICE.
/u-u.il. ~
f' TOWN LERlC
t~'
,t. I'.,. ,I I',... I..,.: ,
.u.I..... A.co"a. ca.~a"'AT10N
AU. Lars St<<l.,. ON TttrS ~ ARE SU8JECT TO CERTAIN
RESlRtCnOHS. INCUJDtNC lMTATKlHS ON SECONO DWEl.UHCS
ON LOTS 5.&.7.8 AND 9. COHS(RVATlON RESTRtCTlONS ~ lOt 10.
AHD RESTRt:11ONS PROHtBJTlNC USE' OF LOTS 11 AHIJ 12 OTHER
THAN faR 'Ul4.0WAY PURPOSES. NfL SET FORTH .. A DfCl.NlATDN
~~Ai~~~~ REW ~Np~~~
1llJll.
Hlll'"OP ROAD rs SHOWN AS A PROP(R'T'V BOUNDARY QtLy NI:)
hI\S ,..or BE(N ..,pPROVEO In' THE PLIHMNC IIOA.II:D W CONNECnON
Wl!"i ! rftS PLat..,
,..-::~-fti\
~ .......-.,:
<<Sr..
zt;'/C r co -
.-......r 10 I
II CAM-..r 1';./ -:;\
. ',./ \
....,----...----# - ,.
./ \
(.f' i
\ L"'- 7 'llo...
V,- -.~/L..'''4 ....nii.D,._~..
\ r.r ~
\ \.!.J ~
~.~.&~ ....>;.
\,-Q~ k. //;;.
\~ "I/ft./
\, ./
\ "././
~
"..,.,., J
r .,
,,.
I
8 '&1
~ .~~
~
AaIDl- GIC04..,
L na.c ....
L,jlllll
....
ROAD
5 ::JZ"
rTfl.9A
15' t$'C
@
AIrCA. MXY7. ..r.
Z.4ZI;S ....
- H
za os' 00I~ ...
!1'
v'
@
..
TItANr 4 CLLItA. UJI.r
L.I:~.A
. A . r _ c << c r
" A It . . .
~ UIt/ZlDl T.tC".,..,......,..,
CDIrII"n!oL LAW' .R~~
.sua..Jn:T nt A C~~
IN TJI'C N~ ~I:"""
., .IW:I:ZIC..ACA:D ..... .....
NAollrUCICCr ~LANWmr;
~~-)
~
(~~T
-9,J~1J.L ~
'-Jb.S-~
. GCA/OTc:t t:al<<WDr...... ~
o DeMOrEa' taM:'JlC7r.... .. lie err
8
~
):
r CCItTlFY' THAT r"W1S ~
VAS, t"frC"~E7J N COMFb~-
NAJCE Wlrw TJlC RULES A.ND
~cr;.ULAnON3 OF T"KC ~-
16Tl:ES OF DE:ED5 .
Z:"..73
~
'. ....
-~.. i:
.
.
c:;.
..
0)
IloOFr. lD13 "f IZ ~ ....r.
AND ~c "'... ~ n. rNr
.l\G1l#~ <4S3oC'1A.rOf. AN ~..,._
ar.r. ~ T#fC F'"DIttn<( AND COUIIff'Y OF
HANruOCcr:
~p
AlOrE" wr I] IS NOT A. ~/LDA.IAC
L{J'r .c.1JD 4KALL .c ~ "'
1f.antlcrlON:J _ CQ,llI''''I:YCD ., ~
1"D ... QUAL/rICD CONaEJrv'A.nOIIlIt(
()It:l';.(WIZ.ATlON. Aa I"IJIf' nrtI: ~
W/f){ TilE' ~I.(UIfi BI1AJtD.
D)AhWC L-tl... . ,
""N. AJ(G(
"""" n<<JNT.l.t;c
noWT r.LllD ..
.,.oc oa .e.c..c..r &.
.IQUNTJ C'DllfEr WArIO
. 40000 ..r
100 n-
35fT
10 Fr
71.
...~- ".-..
qq.~
r TO-
-
QIlJE ~
~I-"'. ---.., ....-..- .......
: -=.-----
.5'-ft1lf --
-
.....'lICkET _ OF lIEBlS
.. /t~!nlff .; 3> j.:1-1i
T_ /v';_ I<f.!
--- ,..
-~ ii[;-.,..
.lI4"';'4-~u/G
- ........
-
1'IIO.8:fntU:
SHA"'K~""O HIU-S
LA"'~
SUBDIVISION
~1FUIt:
CAND"'A:HC M>>#uvcs
...."...
~ w.r-.c AIM
-...--.....-
k'D 8OQI( 32C . N. ..
HART-a..<lOCWBl. & ASSOC:IArES. N:
~ LN<<l 9.Jl\IE'tORS
6'1lllMGS _
NMTLOcEt M4S$, _
l50lII DB-52!iIZ
<<oIIElrT C EP'f'LC . ~
""IT NOCL UI.
ItAMT1lCrCI:r. NA. -
IUH~
JJCF1WtrTYE: 1'L.A.J/
OF LAWn IN
WA,WrUCKcr
3CALE r,
I ,
O. '.
Or.!'t ',. .j St-HT
""........
O"EC~ ~ r. ,
FIfi.De.:o<.
..lJb~j "B ",0" cr .~
f,
-~~~:
~.;
-.
~:-:~
--e-1
--I.
~-r
- '!::
:~
o
j _::.'
l=-~:
.:~:.
.'-...01&:,;.
;-.~~:
.-.....
.~~
--,
=--=---.==-;
--
-'..,
-:-:"-.:,;;:
--.;
.:~
:~
, f
/ I
.r....-..
~
----
t:;Xl:l~I:H,T A
~.
oJ'
'"
".V
'>:'"
, f
...;(
,~'''''~Uc''''''
~...~.__k('~"
..:..0/ -",. "..
i~1 ....~~
!o:~\~\
='"\" .:..
~. ~ !.i
,,-:-'. e. =
~"t-... -. ...~
~...C,.....__ ..~:~
",.,~~:,~"""
l?31o - Z-~
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
4 NORTH WATER STREET NANTUCKET. MASSACHUSETTS 02554-3593
(508) 228.7233
APPROVAL OP 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 Town's Rules and Requlations
Governinq the Subdivision of Land (as amended through October 13,
1987), and on the following additional requirements and
agreements:
1. Lot.10's status as an open space lot, never to be developed,
is an unconditional requirem~nt of this sUbdivision's 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
organiz-ation 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,
E-d
SOZl..-BZZ-BOS
SWI?~II~M I?PU~l
dSZ:Zl 90 BZ Inr
Shawkemo Hills Lane subdivision FB# 3505
Decision - February 25, 199~
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 pr ior 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
prelim.inary 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. Shawkemo 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 at the road for the entire length of the
improved section of road, approxim.ately 1300 feet, ending
approximately 25' beyond the turn off to Shawkemo Hills Lane.
The road shall widen to a width of 18' for the first 30' 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 as a
121 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 Hills Lane.
6. A location for on-site brush disposal shall be indicated on
the plan prior to endorsement of the plans.
v'd
502l.-822-805
sweqpl'l epu~.,
d6Z:Z1 ~n R? Tnr
Shawkemo Hills Lane Subdivision 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.
a. 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 recommendations 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.
S'd
S02L-822-80S
SW~~II~M ~pu~-,
dS?:?T ~n R;7 rnr
4
Shawkemo Hills Lane subdivision PBI 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 subdivision of the
land shown upon this subdivision. plan except for
plans which create no additional 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
q'd
~n;:> 1.- R;:>;:>- Rn~
swelTTll1l eOUT'
c-lnC"~:7T on 0""'7 Tn,...
Shawkemo Hills Lane subdivision PB# 3505
Decision - February 25, 1991
5
setback from each street which the lot abuts (in this case 351
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 well 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, 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 within 5 years
from the date of this approval (February 25, 1996). Failure to
so complete 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.
.~,
......' , -. _....~....-.._._--.. ".
L.'d
S02L.-B22-BOS
sw~~'[PM ~PU~I
dOE:2-r 90 B2 '[nr
.' '. - > :. .
Shawkerno Hills Lane Subdivision PBI 3505
Decision - February 25, 1991
6
".;,.:-' .... \:
Please' call' the Planning staff at 228-7233 with any
qUestions regarding this decision.
I '.
APPROVED
/~ /{#y-
~~~~
NANTUCKET pLANNING BOARD
COMMoNWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NANTUCKET, ss b'l ~<:}..- 4 ' 19:1J
Then personallY appeared S~~Q>. ~.. ~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 D
1~ l<..T~otarY Public
My commission Expires; (G/~q~
~:l/tlt!il )11~ elk., l/;' //1/
!Jt/{ffC )/1 lit/1m / Mt&
~I
S'd
502l.-822-805
swe~ll~1'I epu~1
dOE:21 90 82 In('
egistry of Deeds
http://www ,masslandrecords,camlmalrl contra lle!
l!]~~~~~~
[a:i~II~;i
~~
0,..":;,,,,-;:-; ';:.1>
~""'" 1..~ "--0,;. v ."IfII
DE&D WITH RESERVATION
OF EASBMENT
We. FRANK R. LOW and CLA.RA B& L0141 ot Chappaqua. ~ew York, for
consioeration p.,id, gran!;. \:.0 ROBERT S. WESTBROOK and WILLIAM Y.
a.OOEWALP, as Tru5 t:ees of CANOP.ACHE NOMINEE TRUS'l.' under
Decla~atiDn of Tcust dated June 13, 1987, regi~tered a~ Documant
NO. 40447 at Nantucket Re~istry District, having their principal
place of business at 61 All~ood Road, Oacien, Connecticut 06820,
~d tll QIJ 1 TCLAIM COVBNAN'1'5,
That ce:-tiiin parcel of
County, Massachusetts,
desc~ibed as follows;
land :;d. tuateo in Nantucket, NantucKet
adjacent to Sh.awkemo Moao. bounaed and
NO.R'l'HEAS~.(Il':::RLY'
by Shawkemo Road, two hundred forty (240.00)
feet, and
SOUTHEASTERLY
four (4.00) feet,
SOU'l'HWES'rERLY
one hundred twenty and 68/100 (120.68) feet,
one hundred twenty and 68/100 {120.68) feet,
and
~qESTERL 'i.
NOR 'r B WES TERL Y
four (4.00) feet by
hereinafter mentioned.
Lot
4 Oll plan
Said lana is shown as Lot 3 on Land Court Plan 35819-C.
This conveyance is made subject to the following matters:
la} An easement hereby reserved for the benefit of. the
J:email'ling land of the gr-antors, shown as Lot 4. On saia ~lQn
358l9-C, to pass and repass, to construct, maintain, repair and
replace utilit.y lines, and othet"wi5e to u~e said Lot 3 for all
purposes fOl::" whicn streets no.... are ot: nereafter may customarily
be used in said Nantucket.
lb) Real estate taxes assessed by the 'l'own of Nantucket
for the fiscal yea~5 1991 and 1~92.
ror title, see Certificat~ of Title No. 6885 at Nantucket
Registry District.
~
lAND COURT, Bt);,lGK Tile lant1
ht.>[(!ln descri!l~r. y:i1! l::~ Gf\owr~ (';0
Olir a1}ployc1 n~!w h) ~(.::!:\~I ~::.
APR let} i:)~1
I-'JaH~ 5Y19 -!~..~.-
(EX~lNtD "S TO Df.SC!liPHW C~,iY:
LO!,Ji~ A. Mooll!, [rI'Jil1ee; LM S.
-1-
~egistry of Deeds
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ control leI
1:tJ(!2~t!J~
lii:i:\iI16!1
~~
Cl:""~f-C,--?
,,_,..J~ffo.-
This conveyance is made without monetary consideration, for the
purpose of widening the layout of Shawkemo Road to encompass the
area of the present travelled roadway thereof.
Executed and sealed on
J 1991.
Clo..~ '-)~ \ 9.\ ,_'
Clara a. LOw
STATE OF NEW YORK
~ \,:,.6 -\chc~+vt (leu rd-~-I ' s::;.
o
f'r\a tJ 2_ '5' tb.
. 1991
TI;~n personally appeared the above-named Frank EL La", and
acknowledgeo. the foregoing instrument to be his tree act and
deed, before me,
My
comrniiS~ion
'-J~ ~~.
( Nota~y Public
ct.Arr~t' IL I.OMflAflr,H
e.xpiros' Notllry PUI)';c. Stolle <>f New Ynrl<'
II N.:). 47";~'~04,~
~':r~i~.;.17 ~',,~~\';,lr~';','-J;~~~t
x
tr
.t::.>.:::. r"
... -<::> ,..".
~ .' .... x
..... ~. rI': <l::
~
tV~ .-, !PlItt
'T"!.'tQo ..
l(~
-2-
ejw(9(CANDEDEA
http://WWW ,mass landrecords,cOn1lmaLrl conrrOller ! CUIIUlli1l1UUi1g,-:'Ci:1L ..'
:gistry of Deeds
l
l
~001~~~
~gj
,
~ "
} : ~ '.
C?
S
i'6
o
d
z
l-
m
~
i3
8
~
\
'k
.
~
%~.() \ '\
~ 0 I Vlj e ~J ... J f<
~ i=" ~ ""l~
..!ff 2~1 ~ '::2 ~, (l
~ t... ~: ~~ ~ <::> 'I ~ 'e;
. .. .....1...... :u
.. ~ ~ ft ~ 1:: t.;:. :;:;~I ~ . ii
~).i ~ ~~J '1; I ::: ~~rr: .~!C;i r: i
l- ....'= I:- a: '9 I';,?, d I ~
z """" "'I"""IO:.r ~JJ':~~:'
UJ "= 0:. Cl. g I~; r; i:' ~ Si 8
oc _ _ -' ,< li ""r I- 0 ~
oG ";i; - 0 Cl ~ ~~~-'l Cl ~
50\ ~ x:. ~~o ~ ~ !E~f i ~ F
. ~ ~ iii :So \'.;n 5 l? ~
o ...::il'. 0 ~ ;'l,,~ !l<, t'i ii; J.o;
Q y-- h' t:"~ ,;, & Vi ~
ii ~~~ ~il
'"
y....',~,.
'-)
",
, "
.... ...-~ -
Q!A!")(l(lt:. "),A<: Dl\A"
gistry of Deeds
nrrp:/IWWW..IUiiSSH111Ult;\..IUlU~.\..rUHlI1.UaLl/...VU1.J.VU.-...L
G~'II';~';I H;:';:~II'l:~411~;:111i!i~11~lil
t!':l ~ t2:J ~ ~J1~ ti!!J
~"~';""'I ~'a:';";""
;' ~ -~~ ~ ,-x- "'"
~;_,:>_'\! h>:,&~
03/1V93
t5:45
eS11 720 5'/80
.lORN BRAZ-IUAtl
....... K1Nt\OS
QI ~1l (}
05991.3
a0I1K0410tA~f 121
gJHIt':IeAlfl OF TRU~U
I. Clifford E. Barbour, Jr.t as Trustea of canopache Realty
Trust, under Declaration of Trust dated June 13, l~ej, and noted
a~ Document No. 40447 on certification of Title No. 13,141 at the
Nant\lcket Reg-istry District of the Land Court.. hereby certify as
follO\ol'S :
1. 1 a~ the sole Trustee ot said Trust and I am not the
sole Beneficiary of said Trust.
2. That said Trust ha$ not bAen altered. amendedt revoked
or terminated.
~. That I have beon duly authorized and directe.a. by all of
the Beneficiariea of said TrU$t All of whom are of
~ajoritY4 to execute, signt deliver a deed to zyd$cO
Investments 4 Inc of the real estate of Shawke~o Ril15
LanaI Nantucket , MA and to further execute any ~nd all
docu~ants that would effectuate said oonveyance.
EXECUTED as a $$aled inst~ent thig '~~day of March, 1~93.
C1>.NOP,1>.CHE NOMINEE TitUST
By:
S~~TE OF TENNESSEE
March i'l 1993
CAMPBELL, s&>.
Then personally appea~ed the above-named Clifford E.... ;,-'::.r. ';;',.. "
B.arbour, Jr. and acknowledged the f01:eCjoin9 in$tru'lnent,:~?;.',:b~"'hf5{Jt;:,.,
free aot and deedt a.s Trustee, before 1119., :' '.. : , ,..,- ~',,-~J '..
::';',O"1i'-,!,~ ,<>
, ,: "...
. .':'
~
NotarY public:;:
My Commission expires:
",.. ...': '
\,..:,........J : :;~ :
r~ " ......
r \ : ,..... :
",! ';.: '. :':' , -:; >'! :'
-'t_ 'Z.u,.;D.::b"" .-",
'" . - t":~'Xe.~I~ ..., .:~.,
jt>\for_\tru;~c~.(:tt
MAR 1 7 1993
Jr II rm
SANOAA M CHADWICK
ATreST RE.GISTER
NANTUCKE.1' COUNTY
REC'O EN1"EREO
.\
1I/.1!700h ')'.1 <; PT\
nup:IIWWW.IUi:l~~H1L1WC;;VUl U,::)."",,UUlJ lUUUI \,IUUU uu........
:gistry of Deeds
l
~OOk!JttJ0~~
1;.i\'llwai'll
~~
(fa/JZ/9~
U',44
'B'617 120 5160
JON~ BRAt.lLiAN
""'-+-~
KINKOS
ij'oo7
I ·
05991.3 ,,",>r:-
....
"..-.
BOOK(}L11l{)~~Ct1L1L~
J2IJm
I, Clifford E. Barbour, J~.I ~ru$tee of canopache Nominee
Trust u/d/t dated June 13, 1987 and noted as Docu~ent NO. 404~7
on Certificate of Title No. 13, 141 at th$ Nantucket Re9istry
District of the Land courtJ of 292~ Barber Hill Lanet ~noxville.
Tennessee 37920 for consideration paid in the SU~ ot six Hundr$d
sixty Thousand ($660,000.00) Dollars grant to zydecO Investments~
Ino., a corporation organized and existinq pur~uant to tha laws
of the state of Florida with its princip~l addr~~~ at 4 King
street West, suite 910j Toronto, ontario, M5H, 136! with
quitclaim covenants, the followinq described property lQ~ated in
Nantucket county, MassaehusattSt which has the address of
ShawKemo Hills Lane, Nantucket, Kaasachus&ttS/ 02S54:
situated in the rown ~nd Coupty of Nantucketr commonwealth of
MassachUs$tts, at Shimmo (also known as Shawkemo) ~oadl bounded
and described as tollows:
~D,roel I
~hose certain parcels of vacant land'situated on Shawkemo
road, ~ore particularly PQunded and described as follow5~
NORTHEASTERLY:
by Shawkemo Road, seven hundred rifty-
tour and 10/100 (754.10) feet 1
NORTHEASTERLY:
by land noW or formerly of Frank H. LoW
and Clara B. LOW, four hundred torty-
seven and 49/100 (447.49} feet;
by Lot 4 $bawn on plan reoorded in Plan
File 36-C at the Nantucket Registry of
DeedS, nin$ h~ndred fifty-nine and
27/100 (959.27) faet:
by said lot 4, six hundr$d (600.00)
1
SOUTHEASTERLY:
SOUTHERLY:
2//l /"'IflfI? '),/l? "01\,
l1Llp./ / vv vv vv .111U..:l.:l.1U..1u.a. "",""'VI. ........1.""'......1.1.1.1 1..0..0._......, ................ .........-.
:gistry of Deeds
II
[
~I;l' II~llli{f;:lli!~llcl'" ! 1:;".1
k!Jl!tJl.!!Jr&J~~t!fJ
~~
0:V12/93 11\:44
6'617 720 5760
JOUN BRAZIl..1,o\J'1 ...... ll:INKOS
....-... -.--.---. .-------. ..----...
'--ijjrio3"---
..
QS991.3
Bno~()~1L()p~r,{jlll~
feet 1
by land now or fOr:lllerlY of Clifford E.
~arbourt Jr. a~d DorothY D. Barbour,
$ight hundre~ thirteen and 47/100
(813.47) feet:
by tand now or formerly of sai6 5arbourt
t~o hundred ninety-.ix and 21/100
{296.21} feet;
by land no~ or for~erly of Nantucket
conservation Foundation, two hundred
(200.00) feet; and
by Hilltop Roadl t~o thousand seven
hundred $&venty-four and 15/100
(2,774.15) teet.
Seinq sho~n as "Shawkemo Hills ~ne~ and: Lots 5-~2,
inclusive, on plan entitled nShawkelllo Hill Lane Subc1iV'ision1'
prepared by Hart-Blackwell and Associates, dated october 24,
19901 revised May 10, 1991, and May 29, 1991, and recorded with
the Nantucket Reqistry of Deeds in plan File No. 40-R.
SOUTHERltY:
SOtTTHEASTERloY:
SOUTKW~STERI.Y;
NORTHWESTERLY:
For title, see deed recorded in Book 320, paqe 34 at the
Nantucket Registry of DeedS.
~
That certain parcel of land situated in Nantucket, Nantucket
County, Ka$sachuset.ts, ~djacent to Shawkelllo Road, bounded and
described as follows~
NORTHEASTERL'i : by ShaW'kemo Roadl two hundre.d forty
(240.00} teet I and
SOU'I'HEASTERLY~ four (4.00) feet;
SOUTHWESTEnI/:l ~ one hundred t'Wenty and 68/100 (120.6S}
fe.et:
WEsTeRLY: one hundred twenty and 68;100 (120M 68)
feetl
NORTHWESTERLY: four (4.00) feet by tot 4 on plan
hereinafter mentioned.
said land is shown as Lot 3 on Land Court Plan 3SS19-C.
For title, see certificate of Title No. 14891 ~t the
Nantucket Rsgi$try District.
2
R/LlJ")nn{; ') 'Ll{; P1U
:gistry of Deeds
... ."
liLLp.11 Vl' vv "" .I..l.u..:t.J.L.....I..I......................l ............"".l.l.&l ...................., -............. ..........-...
~l!!1BJ~~
~~
n:l1l2/9:i Hi: 4.5
9617 12:0 576{)
JoHN BRAZli"IA..1>J '>-'0.. KINKOS
~009
..
QS99l3
a!l(ll(0410~p.{;t 120
Said Lot 3 ia 5UQject to an eas~ent reserved for the
benefit of the remaininq land of Frank H. and Clara B. Low, shown
as Lot 4 on said plan 35819-C1 to pa$s and repaSsl to construct,
maintain, repair and replace utility lines, and otherwise to use
said Lot J for all purposes for lihich streets now ue or
hereafter may customarilY be used in .aid Nantucket. Said
easement is reqistered as Oocu.ent No. 53652.
wi tness l11Y hand and seal this 1:z.lE. day of March, 199:3.
5Y%
r.
CANOPACHE NOMINEE T
~~
STATE OF TENNESSEE
CAM.PBELL/ as.
March, 1993
ThQJ'l personallY appeared tbe abov8-na~ed Clifford E..;.,o~'~~ c;>.
Barbour, Jr. and acknow1.e.dged the foreqoin9 siqnature,...:itp.,;})..'h:(~>,. '.
free act and deed, ad Trustee, before lOe, ~~l / ,. ~ 1'::' ::.",.;; \ :.
LA Lf~L:~.;:~ J
Notary Puhlu~= ..,,'~~.;>.. ' .... ,('I..,;~"
My commission expires: j.;,"2~1o~:,t-~>..::
" ......
.......:. .
)(
13)0100, ....
JDIl/17 .3, i7.13
~
..?.....:...;.: ." .:. ~/ ,:.;,:'
.'l1\=.iUs.. ~~,)/!
. '.'fl~~1~T
,",;:,: : ...,1.,..
Ib\d..ds\~h.wk~,na"
3
~
'\ A~ '~\l~(~L~ll,
~I\(<II' I" ii.r,l\'. .o~
\,.Q.\;jn. , ~"~',.,
~./ ...;(
-:' J'el2.f1~~,q .~\l~,~\)
.'..EXt,:H~E. 1/\);: '
. . . . . . .
.... ..
. :....ic. .',
1I/Lll'/(){\h ')'Llh Pl\/f
.egistry of Deeds
nrrp:1 /WWW.IllCl~:S1i:111Ult:i\...UlU;:).l....UUlJlUau...".vuLl...II..1\.....L ; "'"'vuu-J.u.....u'-l..&..J.U.b ............... u.
1,:;,i.i'1 Li~II"o:t!ll;i.:'11 I....,
~ t1L ~1I1tl L:!!J
l(.cl, kd01
~~
If''f
~
~
~
r-
-
..,;
BGGr. 518 PAlit 91
d
z
t-
:z
uJ
::!
;:)
o
o
o
; ~ Z - Je J
r- f ~1 J~ -S I
S imm~~ l~;:trl
~ ] ~ ~ h i Jif: i
m C} 115 @ g ~ I ~j! II
~ !. iii~ ~ ~ ~ i
(,) .,... g ~~~ ~~
o cr k~"'" ~~
o
OCT 2 2 1996
NANTUCKET COUNTY
REC'D ENTERED
q'.'/ ~1I/J1
SANDRA M CHADVvlCl<
ATTEST REGiSTER
II. fA /')()(){;. 'J ,A '7 P1\Jf
egistry of Deeds
l1LLIJ_11 vv vv W .111Q.-:J;)lUU.Ul '"''"''V! u.;)......vu.L' .U.U.....uf "'"'V.I._H.I. ...................
r>~II>...\':llt~,'1 hi.'II:~~II;;1411:;.rl
~l!!!!~-~~~
('a:i' [I*"'l)
~~
BGO~, 518 PME 89
073761
QUITCLAIM DEED
Zydeco Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation whose address is
387 Eagle Orivet 3upitar, FL 33417
for no consideration as a tran$fer into trust
do herehy grant to Erika Greenberg, Kenneth Beaugrand, and Martin
Atkins, of 4 Shawkemo Hills Lane, Nantucket, MA 02554, as
Tru&tees of Shawkemo Hills Association Trust dated July 7, 1991,
and recorded in Book 370, Page 247, as affected by documents
recorded in Book 424, Pages 212-220 and in Book S"lrt Pages ir:1-
at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds,
with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS the tollowing~
The land with all improvements thareon in the Town and County ot
Nantuckett Co~monwealth of Massachusetts, situated on Sha~kemo
Road and described as fol1ows~
Parcels 1 an<:l :1'1
Lots ~1 and 12 on a Plan dated october 24, 1990, revised May 10,
1991, and May 2~. 1991, and recorded in Nantucket Plans File 4Q-R
at the Nantucket Regi$try of Deeds.
For title reference see the deed recorded in Book 410, Page llB
at said Registry.
~l1L1
Lot 3 on a Plan nQmbered 35819-C filed with Certificate of Ti~le
No. 6885 at the Registry Oistrict of Nantucket County.
For title reference see certificate of Title No. 15,701 at said
Registry.
Said Parcels 1-3 are tlroad lots" that are intended to be used to
provide right of way for Sha~kerno Road.
The land hereby conveyed is neither all nor substantially all of
the grantor's assets situated in Massachusetts.
QII1/')(\(\t:". ,),117 Dl\/f
legistry of Deeds
l..lLLf-J.f I"" ", "Y .J...lJ.u...,J.lUJ.J.......I.....""'--".I. .....................,.J.Lf J.J..l.....UI ........,1.1."... vJ........J
~lID~t!J~
j!gj.ID,:.......'..' ~'~.....~.
r.- ': i/l f.,;;.; '1
-;:~-:"..".,. -'-= '-;"""""- '-
fino" 518 PAGE 90 073761.
IN WITNESS WHEREOf, said Zydeco Investments, Inc. has caused ~
the$~ presents to be signed in its name and behalf by Martin
Atkins, its President and its Treasurer this ~ day of
-.!t1-t&u.5i I lS96.
Nantucket County. ss.
ZYOECO INVESTMENTS, INC~
~~.
Martin Atkins
President and Treasurer
COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS
A1J\1~)r' z,3 r
1996
.' ,
Then personally appeared tbe above-named Martin Atkins and
acknowledC]ed the foregoing CluitclaifE~eed! ~o b~:: ~h~ f~~"{ac:t, .~nd
deed of Zydeco Investments, Inc. be'~r~e;}~,r '.~:;: I :" ~ ':.~.,
J 1 ;:: ~ \, <:<:::" r : ' . .,..
(seal)
ff;C::i.;~;:':;:.j..
. .~ -'It.....
.: :.; .... - ~ .'
.~:: -... .
).( J)
/Y8/,:.t;J tr ''')Y''
" \<: f '-'I'''" I-!*'
:' , . (~MAf~~{
My 'camm:i~sio!i expil:-e.~; .,.
."
c ~1Cl-lAAO LOFTIN. fII(l\ary Pub&<:
My Commlsa;BIl ~II Jllty :!T, 2:001
QfAI'"){){),:;. '").A'7 Dl\,r
:r-619~
JSY.J moo, 01Nl
'~ ~
-
~
....
c
....:
~
ti
~
~-=';'
.....
N 0..-""
.,,~ -~
~c:t32""6
..... ~i~~
8..:i
f'
ti
z
~~~
~ a~6r--.
i~~e:~
~ ~",:~9
-~~
~o
~
...
~
CI:l
8~~~
~~
"'-'> ~ 0,
c:::. ~
~ 'l~
Q:\
~
~
...
~
~ei'O
e;:I:-~
:cU Do I
~_~~D...~OI
,.........t;:.1Q .-.
,....,.c:: -,.-..Jo
'" ~Q~~~
~~o
ti
~
tg=~
. :;-....i~~~
I~ ~-'I-
~ ~5g
"'''-
o
~o
~
oIlS3t;!:
~ ~9~~..
..-)_ 1Ii.1"")
.l2-:t: ~~b
~ !~:~~
~
I!f~
l!!-:~
~""
_ a..o~
.....- ...
~?~&1~9
...........1
..."'''-
10
1-.
~
tIi
~
It:) ~I
0)".;
~~
......~
..~
~
~
"l:::
~~
;;i! h ~ ~ ~ '" ~
~~~!<l~ ~ ~ ~ Ss 10
",'''' ~e 00
lil~li'j ffi~~ ~""t3 -J-J 0
:E~'" "'::. ~ .... 1:1) Q) ~
lilt;:~ IS ~ '::::: ~ ..... :r:: en --
a~5 ~\lj '-.) ~ ~ <I>
<~~ _ e ~ ::::J Q)' Z ~ "5
~~~ :l!l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'~E S~ ~ I::::: '-' ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ "
0>
0>
U
.:
..... ..
oi.,;~ ;:!;
:--r..:a.'O
L ~ t ~
a...::S ,,>-- '" fa:!
~ glll~ .~:(
'" "'''' u ~
",1!",~1 Ul
~~~::i~ u
." ..... C\I:-
a .:;;::'~ :t:
~ "=~l:!~~"
:j"lDge It:
~.. ~ t:l
~~ .~
~t ~
Q.; ~
oll:l
L>
(Jj
~
"".
-...;
tIi
C9~~
~~
..... ...... 0.
':::l ~
~ 11C>:i
~
~
"l:::
~I
-...;
tIi
Q~~I
C:V IS: ".;
~~
~ ~~
~ II~
~
~
"l:::
it
~i
",'"
"-
.
~
'"
~
~
'"
"" ~
.....~.....:
..;~8~tl~
~~~u;9t-
... \w:g9
~~:;}
~
ti
-J
...
...>-=
bl"'ffi
:;_~~u__
i~ktri'5
I.U~-'
~~~
.., ..,
~
U
-J
z!
~;:
~i
%"
01
~~
~d
~.,
ue
o'
i~
o.
~~
o:~
~E
<.>-'
:;ittt
ooll\otc
OOl"lC'\l'"
ON
.,;
~ )i__
..~"'..
~~[C~tt .
u;~~~a: ~
b~OU1~~~.
.J~~~8 ~ii
2'2:>--0 'ii;
~5~~5~~
~Z~LS~~~
::I.~,"-D::.U~
'. " .
, .--
- -. - -- -- -----. -'--
- --
.. --
'-
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN NANTUCKET
Blackwell and Associates. Inc" Surveyors
April 9, '997
l. c: PIon No.
'4.3IJA
<:i
n:i
<..i
..,
g
It)
Cl;)
<Q
'- ~
OJ
'"
~
'"
!Xl
-..,
c
~
Loj 'g
IIi
<..i ,--
\
Qi
""
t."
.
<s
5 S?
~
~
J2f.!!
IV
.38'
00.
~
'-
~
G
n:i
<..i
<"i
01
oi
'" .....
10 .....
<5
....
~
8
, ,
"
6'0
N<'J' :.J:6'.)"
oJ">':'$>'
,0/0" ? '"
C<!"rt. ~J'S8
q.... /.9.:9
Subdivision of Lot 4
Shown on Plan 35819-C
filed with Cert, of Title No, 6885
Registry District of Nantucket County
35819D
6
~9o. 96
N35";?9'.JJ.W
7
~o.oo
w
'<(
~
~
~
OJ
!::l
r:r
II
~
u
..,;
N5J'25'06.W
Franklin [, Smith
t. c. No. 5388 A
C4r1. No. 2181
Separate certificates af title may be issued for land
:;: ^="&J:!d)'o.. .~..
DEC. 8, /997 7#
A8H~2E6
Abutters ore shown os
on original decree pIon,
CQpr 0' pari of pion
_ fktf..-
LAND REGISTRATION OmCE
_ DEC. 8, '997 -
Scale of /II;s pI<JI1 750 'eet 10 <JI1 inc:!l
LO<J;s A. Uoor~ Engineer for Croft
~
CO
...3
d
z
~
~
~
UJ
U
:I:
t-
~
r.:>
...,
..,
c
z
""
--'
c..
'"
X
t-
http://www.masslandrecords.comlmalr/ contro Her? commandflag=sear",
~egistry of Deeds
t
t:!J~raJ~fl!B
\iIi\:llo';I\
~~
\
IIEe . 8 1997 078290
,.",,3'i81~l)~~1 5
lWlI>mJ.Sl('1tE"c-OtCJIll
~",,,"'._c.t"t"""'
WE. fRANK R 1J:NI aoo CLARA B. LOW, 01 :\.'\ Joall Prive, Ch.p~
N\.-w Yorl:. 10514, lof ((H15i1lcratlol' I"'\&j ~ll..t in run considural\<'Mlf NINE.
HUNlJll.EDSEVENn'-FIVE ntOU'SANO and 00/100 ($IJ7S.aoo,tI1) DOLW\llS.
.-::-::-'l ~ .~
lJlltujjiJ 'P~tl ol'i...
INlOco.;nr, IlOS1~. n.,.lIfICl
hCl'Ci=t rlll.....~~'(PJ ..O;;besJIl__
_If ~~p:':":';)$r"'t. I': It".~ it'S-
Q.Vtt'CL.b]M DEED
J;r.il'nt lu
PHILIP G. HEASLEY at1d MAUREEN HEfo5l.EY at 601 Sel;ond Avet\Ul! South.
MiMLoapaHs, ~Ia ssm lIlI1eNntt. by tbI! entiJo:ty. wi.tltQtllTCUJM
COVENANtS,
TII<-..se lWO ccrt4ill JUrc:e~501 vac"lllliond U~CllJilw>u:d onShilwl<:emo
R'lill1 in N~Rlutlwl T,lWJI;mt.t Cl1"'nl)'. CllmtllC'flW1:11lthOI M"fo.<Ol~hlll'(:lt5, mote
rar1kul.uly lx.IINk"j tlM ..k~rib..'d ~ 1.,Il"W$:
r,,~..J 001
That I."I!tlllin para>1 or Y""MlII.nd $itU41~ 00 Polpi~ ROo..o, in N.:..nludl.ct 'l'0Wl'
aCId Collnty. M~~lIliCl1S, mort' particularly ,i"!lCfil><>J lIS rollll'Wli:
SOl1tHEAST"ERLY
by laOO .5OOWl\ ~s L.ob6 and 7 on the ~\ow.
menlioned plan, five h~ndlCd forty.eight and
52/100 (5.JK.S2} !l'<.'t.
NORTHEASTERLY
~ s.1i,t 1..'1 (), lVol'om!)'-''''''' and b7/ 1!$) {2."Z,67} k'<.'i.':
by Shawl<\ln'lO R,);w <I1'1d \..cl;'l 00 lAnd CO\lr~ Plan
35819"-C on "..rj~CV\lnm. ..11 os MmwJ\ on
Itw bclOW-tl1l)fltll."W.d plan. ~Ilns fi"e
h"ndfL..llh;rly-~""n and 15/1(l(1 ~S.'\7 .1$} {~'C!t.
SOUTI-IERI.. Y
9()fJ1HWESTl:1l\..~
by lan..i <llQW Of lormt'.l'Ey of ZydllW lnvl.'I'lmcntl.
Inc-. NAnIU-clu:l A~iat(! 'trust, and ratt\!1
Two .Jc5Crib<.~ bdt>w. tix hllndrod e:\shty.five
;U'Id 00/100 (66$.00) f~'C:l; and
by \.)>RLi ..nown .as lJ.lt l! on the be1ow'J'Il(!~
pl..... \l.1Z"C'C hundrOO tW<:'L'lly-oJ1l! and 11/100
(3U-m~'t.
NOKtllWSERLY
.~..._......__'_""_"""'.- _._..._~ __. _............_......... .._. ...-._M_' .-.-.., ....... ." ........ .-........-...-_......................-.,,--~
http://www.masslandrecords.comimalr/ contra He]
.egistry of Deeds
I
t!JlitJ~t!::J~~~
l;i:I:\i!I'6i!
~~
l'..:'"..:""'I .. "'"
l~W'" ".rh~
078290
~t.md ialhowm_Lod- .~nct tand in N~ h4ast, ~ lor
frank H. \.oW ,,1ICi C1aJ1 B. Low~ dateJ Aptil 9. 1997. fd<ld wilh tbt Land ~
liS l.U'od Court rbIn 3581<)'D-
For tiUe,lIIlI! Qrtlf..:* of1i~ ~o. 6,1l8S at 1M Nfl'AtIIC~1 ~ pjIItnd for
,1>0: lAI'Sl Court, Salol ~~ in. pMlilln cfl,ot I, 01\ VM O>uri. 1'tlrtl.35819'-C.
r~~
That -wn perce!. of vaanl bind Ii"",hld on Pd.';' Road. in NlltltlKket Town
and Collnty. M;,gacbuw.ia. 'P'lX" pattj(;,llarly obcrl-'" (ol\t)W$
~f/..mltl.Y
by l;md ~.~~"boW:.twO
hul14in:d fdl)' and ~/100 (2S0.0ll) Iiedi
NOR'tHE\U..V
by l~nd 1I0wor lom=\yol Narrtl.ld:et ~
T ru$t. Jetd f< !I:;l1'Cll Fischer ~nd z.y.Jeco
InVlS\MellIS, l""v lll'sboWil on ~ bl!low
n;u."'I~ plat'\. tWl'tL\Jn,Jn.'d forty-nu,c,-
201 t 00 (249 ,20) foot~
SOU1HWESrERLY
by I:'\nd llQW or larmcr1y or Fr.;)n\< it Clara Low all
,hown on pia 'PIli[\, 1ll'lC lIundn:d thirty.fOL1t
and 87/100 (t~.Il7) k'1!t.
Saill \and \l1hown .. Lol 11 01\ NMAn o( ....no! i... Nanl\lckel. ~ p~tcd for
Fmok H. Low ancta...- B. LoW dale.! April 9, 1Wl, lO ~ ~tded .....ith 1M
Nllntw:b!t Reglltry<< [)o!o!da.
Foe tille. ~ dllL'1i roCQII'dI...f iJl "",k ~. l'.llWl' 174 at the Nantuckel f(llgiotry of
Oco..o.d!;,. SAi" ~I i& a porl~ "I Usl" 3S sllowl> 0", pI;1n recor.Jed in Pion File
36-C ilt tlw: Nant..~\;ct R.:sl*tty tat O".....h..
$aiol r~tool~ ()AC! Bod T...." are b.,'1>!by (Ilnycy':.1 $Ilbj\.ltt tl> thor lollOVl'ir13 ~"l\"jI:iiDnII
whicb ale ill\pooed fot ~ bo.mdit of Ih(: Grantor.;. th.!ir is!irs. RI~r,; <and
assigns. as OW~n of lanol anJ \m~lS &110_ J$ tDt II <'JIn und Callrt Plan
Nu. :.\51119-0',
r Ir_.-.a----...... . .
....-~_....-_...._---_....--.--....,. ... .
. ._~. "~"~'" ........ ... .,.
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ controlleJ
~egistry of Deeds
r
I,;,~~!! I ~ll ;;';;;'\\ \iliJ1 b-'l'II2't;;ii'1 L~,i
~L!J~~~~~
~~
1
.......-.--.-.. .............---...
-...---' -..
~!lI:G557~~{L 3-tJ
078290
1, u.'\$ 5 ..nd t 1 ~t.all b.! t",,'l~-.l ~$ ~w l>1l iklinl; lot ami ~y 11c>11lc subJ.ivi.:kd
,nlCo m<,,-c th..n <lJ'tC builJing wt in the hllurc,
2, l1w l"-""illllln'llln.utlt.I a1'\'O't (as J~/in.w. il\ th~ Nlltltuckct t.oni~ B)'.I.wl'~ olI\
l..(llSfU sh...1l b,,'lU.OO(f"lllm'I: f"'1:L
~_ Any ('pif'lllll1Y <:\)l1$lruclcl! I.n the pror~rly $hill( ~ ~'lf n~l..rnl <:lllo,. bci(-k,
., No nll.'! w;>lk~ I'l'3Y ~ ((II1Nlrucl..... on any' ~\rtltl\lfe i>uill uPO" ,he p"'I,,~ny,
!;, 'rb!> maximum ~i.ll~" h~iltht ,,~f all)' ~t",cIUT" ton~trlOC'led 00 the properly ~Nl1
b.! ,"'''nly~jx (2il~ l~~t ~1"''''1l ^vcr~Sl: M""'n Crook, ll$ 'hat term is Lldiood In
tbe NaIltuck<:l7..oning 6y.IilW,
6_ I r .) lenf1i~ ~\1rll~ (Onstfll(t\:'1t M ligJ1ting ,b..1I t><! permitted of Jlul court.
7_ I r ~l\ ftlCl~tior $wimming poot is C<H1$lru~t(ll,i, lIflY iigntins or tAIl pool mllo$l bt!
four (ol) f~~ot or lo.l$s in bdllhl ;md J.....~t ~, jl~ w dirc:ct tile li&htil1g toWU
l(l'ldard tlle- Vtll.1nJ.
II. All it,,~riur rons.truction l'IlU&t occur belvt~ Sc~mbl:r 1S and MlLY 15.
These ~trittior\$ ~II run wilh lbe land ho.."n.'lly canv<:y<1d !or the ~iJ;pQ",
paiad ~rynj"l/Il by u.w, indl.ldil'l& all)' extensions tl1cn~ dilly clair/ll!d,
WITNE$m1r hilnJi aliI! JieOtls till" 10:.: ~ of ~Jnlx,t. ~W7,
G(t115 ~EG It.
;1~l;IUC1:' t
_'.:.-r::..i. ((. tJ,..-
Frllnk H. Low
!'(...' I~ .t>/:'C,t-o ~
II. .. ;
., ..... ,..---' .
',' ':r.. .:.' .: ';;.:" ~:" :
"._' .... i
~
I<'X ~..~..~$
tA~ I .ol4~I>.Ii~
~..:::t. '-.-....J
c..1N'4I il, LoW
,'..' I
I/,oS5&:', .~:o.l.'ff'ii i
, " ,:~.: t::.i#.? ,1IirrJ
i44~/'~~O N~4;l
EXCi~1:. ltw<
S'l" t.1l! Of NEW 't'Oltl<.
c.~- 111 !\Io.
IA>a!mber .1i-- 1rm
TI\c!n pc..r.;onally ~PlX';lI't...t tlltt a.baV<H>iImed f,-,nk N. Low and
al:ktlaWbl~ !he fQ"'(,Qi.n~ iNltn.tl'ACllt II> be hi& In:<! act "I'''' J~, bo."kJte -
$Q~I~$~_'~~' .;" :1~ ~1l1~
Nt1fNfJ l'Iletoc._Oltfloor- ·
'" ,....~~~~=!... ;. M)'Commitlioo~plnlll;
~~~,_lt%.I ..
J .' ..."
... -' .
:," ~ ~~~/~;:;.:~::, :.: ': '-'~-,':."
............,' ,- -' ._~......"
.egistry of Deeds
o
~
&-
2,:
...'
ffi
::
g
o
o
fJ
~
~
~ ~
ffi
~
'::>
l)
g
\
I
I
I
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/ contro llel
I>!~I li6':! I-~;! k:";1 1;;'::"1
~LlfJ~~~
~rg]
t_6fiG7r~~t 3-ri
f~ i4~JI\~~~\
__.... !i jl, S ~ .;;~ i
~~t.l.o ~:l~"'~i
1 @ g i ~ If.~ I .,
~ 1iI~ ~J~ J~i !
+ ~ \ i~1!; i~ ~
DEt 1 t 19!1
If.'~ cCl;!1'\"1
REC-o (!'4!Et<E<l
r:;J:S'fJ/'1n
1jIt.IlC!V; ~J ~~!.mJlr.K
~Y6f ~<;I$ll!R
End of
____.._.___ ''4",r'unl.~nt..-
http://www.masslandrecords.com/ma Ir/ contro II er'! commanc1tlag=sear,..
egistry of Deeds
l!JL!J~l.!J~
~l3J
I
I
1\
103936
BOOK b 4 b PAGEOOS 4
9urrCLAlM DEED
WE, PIDLlP G. BEASt.tY aDd MAUREEN HEASLEY ("Grantor") of 3271
GreeTI Dolphin Lane, Naples., Florida, 3410;2 ("Grantor") for non-monetary consideration
and in consideration of a transfer to a Limited Liability Company at the time of its
formation in exchange for membership and ownership of said Limited Liability COIDp1UlY
grant to VBDCt LLC ("Grantee"), a duly organized Delaware Limited Liability
Company qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a mailing
address clo 32.71 Green Dolphin Lane, Naples, Florida, 34102 with QillTCLAIM
COVENANTS,
REGISTERED ~!JI{D;
The vacant land situated at S9 Shawkc:mo Road. Nantucket. Town and County.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and shown as I,ot 5 on Land Court flu No. 35819-
D propared by Blackwell and Associates. Ine.. Surveyors. dated April 9. 1997. and filed
whh Certificate of Title No, 6885 at the Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court
(the "Registry District").
Lot S is subjl:lCt to, and has the benefit of:
(1) A certain View Easement dated December 15, 1997. filed as Document
No. 78291 and noted em 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 Rebr1.stry District;
and
(3) An Easement reserved in a certain deed from the Grantor to Robert S.
Westbrook et. aI., Trustees, dated May 25, 1991, filed as DoclUYlent
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 the Way known as
Shawkerno Road as shown on Land Court Plan No, 35819-0- filed with
Certificate of Title No. 6885 at the Registry District is subject to the rights of
all those lawfully entitled thereto, in and over the same.
For title, see Certificate of Title No. 1 &, 172 at the Registry District.
~----_.-.
,.. , . ,_........ - - - - ...... -
hnp :llwww.maSSlanorecoros.com/malrl contro Iler
gistr)' of Deeds
~W~L!J~~~
l3J~
BDOK 8 .16 ~AG[OO 9 5
103936
!,lNREGlSTERED LAND:
The vacant land situated offpolpis Road in the TOWll and County of Nantucket.
Commonwealth of Massachusett1l and shown as Lot 11 on a plan filed as Plan file 51-J
at the Nantucket Registry of needs,
This UNREGISTERED LAND is conveyed subject to, m'1d with the benefit of:
(l) A certain Conservation R~triction dated December 2.4. 1986 and
recorded in Book 266, Page 19 a1 the Registry~ and
(2) 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 557,
Page 341 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds.
The REGISTERED LAND and UNREGISTERED LAND conveyed herein are
subject to any liens for real estate tax assessments and municipal charges that are not yet
due and payable.
--_,.....'.....~".........,.....-.._.
n I" I......,...",....... ........~.. I
nLLp:// WWW ,[ lli1SS li1llUrt::l.:UrUS,l.:UfW [[li1tr1 comro ller
.egistry of Deeds
~ l.!J ~ L!Jl.~ ~ I.!!.
~13l
]
I
103936
EO OK 8 4 b ~AGE 0 0 9 6
WITNESS tbe execution hereof under seal this
tf!,-
day of September 2003.
Ph' P G. asley
A, f)
'/rlltLVl~
Maureen Heasley
Nantucket. S8,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
September I ~ , 2003
Then personally appeared the above-named Phiti
acknowledged the foregoing insuument to be his free
.'.,.
Public ' "": ::''P ,: .'
'ommission Ex~i~: " '::::; ...,. '-.
KIVIN~l)ALi?. .~~:... .'~':;.: .
NOfAnPlJltlC.... . ,;,.:;.... ':
~ I!xpiJ:D Feb..... . <~.t. :, ~ ~-~'
..'_' ',' D:,.::;, .~I ~'; i:~
..,./ ;.,.~" t:.... ,,= ,
,.;.:-'t ....~.
:., ..
....
OIAI"n"r ,.,."'..., n},..
egistry of Deeds
.
o
Z
~
M
a-J
~
o
't"'I
I ~ ~/ i~
~ w r ~ g\~
. - co a:~
~ IJli ~~~
n "G fulL 9
\ '/ Je.. V') fii g
~"\ ~ 1
&1
a:
.LL
nrrp:llwww.massmnarecorus,cum/mmr/cumroller
. -. -
~L!J~l.!J~
~~
BonK 8 4 B PAGE 0 0 9 7
103936
c
....
~
~
~o'"
wt:~~
~,..-
':"I~@ .
....e ~
!.ifS \"::
ci a?~
~ i!E~: d
c ~w"'" '" ~
~ : ~~ g ~
~ ii ~ i
l5 j! ~ <>
I. II J
~:~MCl~)mr~~ E~S PM
Atte<&t: "P--~' ~ RegiQr O(.o..df
End of
I ~~U"l;ment -~----
---
J 1
o IA '''At'lL: ""l."''''' n~ K
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
o
I.}\
l......
....,
f-;-I
~.-:I:?
L~
.::;)
.:~
!~
Minutes for che Meeting of
Monday,]anuary 10, 2005 7:00 PM
Middle School Cafeteria
Present Chairmlln Donald T, Visco, Vice-Chairman Fmncis T. Spriggs, Barry Rector, J ohn McLaughlin and
Sylvia Howard.
Alternates: AlIron MarclIvitch
Staff: John PlIgini, Andrew Vorce, Leslie Woodson and Ca !be tine :\ncero
I. Call to order:
Chairman DonaLd T, V'lSCO called the meeting to order at 7:00 P,}.-1.
II. Approval of the agenda:
A motion 1.Io-as Il1lIde to approve the agenda, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in fa\'or,
III. Minutes:
. December 13, 2004 continued to f;aDuary 24, 2005
IV, ANR Plans:
. #6817(A) Town of Nantucket, 7 Mi2comet Road (Map 67 Parcel 679)
Representing: ~one, 1k 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 fa'l.'or,
. #6817(B) Tov.'Il of Nantucket, 7 ~'1iacomet Road (11ap 67 Parcel 679)
Representing: ).lone, M:t, McLaughlin abstained, Staff recommended endorsement. A motion was
made to approve in accordance '\\Ii.th the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 2-1 (M.s,
Howard abstained) in f:1vor,
. #6818 Robert L, Coffin, lYIilestone Road (Map 73 Parcel 55)
Representing: None, Staff 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. Papale Kalman, 2B IVUzzenrnast Road Ext. (Nlap 66 Parce166)
Representing: Arthur Reade, i\ motion was made to continue onJanlmry 24, 2005, duly seconded:\nd
voted 5-0 in favor,
. #6820 Hampton S, Lynch, Tr., 9l\1ilk Street (Map 42,3, Parcd 130)
Representing: Staff recommeoded endorsement. A motion was made to appLOve in :lccordance ""vith
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
#6821 H. Gordon Kennedy & Ellen 1\., Mackenzie, 8 Beaver Street (1vf:lp 55.1,4
Parce! 79)
Representing: Staff recommended endorsement, A motion was made to lIppro\'e in accordance with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. #6822 Le\\:is Lubar, Trustee of Eel Point Trust, 197 & 199 Eel Point Road (}.hp 38 ParceL 33-34)
Representing: Staff recommended endorsement. i\ motion was made to approve in accordance with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in fa\"or,
. #6823 Octavi:l Bredin et:l1, 7S HulbenAvenue (1fap 29 Parcd 4)
Representing: Stllff recommended endorsement. A motion was made to approve in accordance \\~th
the staff recommendation, d\uy seconded and voted 5-0 in fa\'oL
1 East Chestnut street . Nantucket, MA 02554 . (50B) 228.7233 . fal( (508) 228.7236
email: nanplan@nantucket.net
J:;'['d
en?l. _ A;::>;::> - Ane
SWI::>TTTTm ",nIlT-.
,J.....f""....,T
-...... ....--
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
. #6824 VBDC,llC, 116 Polpis Road & 59 Shawkemo Road (l'.lap 44 Parcel 4 & 130)
Representing: Suff recommended endorsement. 1\ Inotion was made to approve in accordance with
the staff recommendation, duly seconded and voted 5-0 jn favor.
V. Secondary Dwelling:
. Reginald W, Ray. 89 vestal Street (1hp 56 Parcel 251)
Representing: None, A motion was made to approve in accordance with the staff recommendation,
duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. Peter \\lise, 110 Baxter Road (Map 48 Parce137)
Representing: None, 1\ motion ,vas made to approve in accorda.nce ",~rh the staff recommendation,
duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor.
. Margaret Gilroy. 32 Madaket Road (lvlap 41 Parcel 316)
Representing: None, A motion was made to appro~e in accordance wid\ the staff recommendation,
duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
t-v1r, McLaughlin stated that since April of 1997, the Nantucket Planning Board has approved 824
secondary dwellings.
VI. Previous Plans:
. Cliff Acquisitions LLC, Nobadeer Farm Road & SW1 Island Road, Form J
(LotS 2.3 and 2.5)
Representing: None, A motion was made to release and endorse the ForID j, duly seconded and v~tc
5-0 in favor,
VII. Public Hearings:
. Policy regarding the continuance of public hearing continued to January 24,2005
. #1665 Modification of Fisher's Landing Subdivision, Ridge Lane, North Point, Fisher's Landing &
The Grove (lvlap 38 Parcel 7, 42, & 59- 157) WITHDRA lm
. #6323 Modification of Backus Family Subdivision, Back-us Lane, action deadline
02-16-05 continued to Janu3I]' 24, 2005
. #6784 Donald C. Allen, Jr. and jean !\{ Allen, 13 Hooper Farm Road (l'.1ap 55
Parcels 222, 223 & 224), action deadline 01-31-05 continued to January 24, 2005
. #6815 Eli Place, 7 Brinda Lane (i\'lap 67 Parcel 313) action deadline 03-31-05
Representing: Christine Mallia, Gretchen Eigenbrod and Arthur Reade,
Applicant submitted an Appro,'al Required Subdivision Plan for a neu' roadway to be known as Eli
Place, This subdivision would create two lots, one lot ",>ill be buildable and the other lot would be a
roadway, :Mr, Reade stated that the applicant has been meeting with the neighbors to discuss the
paving of Brinda Lane, The applicant and other residents who utilize Brinda Lane discussed sharing
the costs of improving and maintaining Brinda Lane, ll-it. Reade stated that there was a brief
discussion about creating a Homeowners Association and that :myone who joined the Homeowners
Association would contribute to the costs of any maintenAnce ofBrinda Lane, Mr. Visco opened the
floor to the public. Wendy Watts stated that ten of the fifteen neighbors have conversed with the
applicant and had a productive and very positive meeting, She further stated that the neighbors have
no objective to the subdivision, Ms, Watts asked the Baud to waive any requirements for roadway
improvements for Eli Place in exchange for the applicant's participation of the proper engineering
and paving ofBrinda Lane, Mrs, WattS stated that the abutters are in support of the proposal as long
as the Planning Board would endorse the agreement they requested, 1\1r, Reade stated that he would
contact :1I1rs, \"Vatts to have another meeting "..ith her and any abutters who have concerns in reference
to Brinda Lane, B.ruce Watts stated there are two catch basins at eh intersection of Althea Lane and
Brinda Lane. Joanne Kelley asked who would be in charge of the escrow account once contributions
to have been made? l\,fr, Reade stated that he would contOlet \'(!end)' \"(TatlS to discuss further regarding
the escrow account and Homeowners Association, Robert Bates expressed concems as to why
construction is st;u:ting right now. There was a brief discussion and e."'<planation that a secondaty
dwelling is allowed on the lot now bec:lUse the subdivision has not yet taken place, therefore it is on
an existing lot, A motion was made to continue on Februaty 14,2005, duly seconded and voted 5-0
in favor,
. #6816 Seven :r-..[ile Lane, off Milestone Road (1Iap 72 Parcel 3),
action deadline 03-07-05
Representing: Leo Asadoorian and Greg Nichols, Trustee of Ryden Nominee Trust, M:r, Asadoorian
stared clut the Board approved a preliminary plan for the proposed subdivision February of 2004, The
n:7-n1
cn::>/_a:l::>::>-Qnc
sw~tTTtl'l ~cut"
d~~:::>T Qn Q::> rnr
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
applicants are applying for an Approval Required Subdi~-ision known as Seven ~lile Lane, The
appliclmt is proposing three buildable lots, 1-1r. Asadoorian stated that each of the proposed lots
would be l.imited to one dv..elling unit to preserve the existing vegetation. lvlr, Visco opened the floor
to the public. Leedara Zola requested that a no-disturb buffcr zone be implemented, l\'ir, Asadoorian
suggested chat a ten-foot ,regetlltion buffer would be reasonable, 1:1[. Visco asked what the time frame
would be. Mr, AS2doonan stated that there would be a few revisions that need to be made, l\. motion
Il"llS made to continue to Januar}' 24, 2005, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. #14-04 Modification \v'estmOOr Club u..C, Cliff Road & Westmoor Lane,
action d~dJjne 02-10-05
Representing: Arthur Reade, lvii, 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 f3vor, A
motion was m3de endorse thc decision as drafted, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. #26-04 Goodrich Nantucket IT, LL.C., 36 Shawkemo Road,
action deadline 04-10-05
Representing: Meliss3 Philbrick and W. Sterling Wall, The applicant seeks for:l second driveW3Y
access, There \l'as a brief discussion of the second dwelling that was Ilpproved on March of 2002 and
how the secondary dwelling shows a sh:lred dri....eway between the main house and the second
dwelling, l\.{r. Wall stated that the approved second dwelling driveway does not allow for adequ:lte
emergency access from the common driveway, J\ motion was made to dose the public hearing, duly
seconded and ......oted 5-0 in favor, A motion W2S made to instrUct srnff to draft a decision based on
staff recommendation to approve, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in fa'\'or.
. #27 -04 Chris & Lizbet Fuller, 6 % Dllffodil Lane, action deadJjne 04-10-05 WITHDRA WN
. #28-04 Peter Wise, 110 Ba....ter Road, action deadline 04-10-05 WITHDRA W7V
VIII. Decision:
. #09-04 Carter l\'lltchell, 2 TeascWe Circle, action de:Jdline 01-21,05
Representing: J OM Shugrue and Carter IVlltchell, A motion was made to endorse the decision, dul"
seconded and voted 5-0 in favor,
. #24-04 h-iodificari.on Cliffside Beach Club (Cotcges), 46 Jefferson Avenue,
action deadline 02-01-05
Representing: Arthur Reade. l\ motion was made to endorse the decision, duly seconded and voted 5-
o in favor, .
. #25-04 TIle Galle}' Restaurant (Modification of Cliffside 'Beach), 54 Jefferson Avenue,
action deadline 02-13-05
Representing, A motion was made to endorse the decision, duly seconded and voted 5-0 in f:lvor,
. (Draft Decision) #14-04 Modification of West moor Club UC, Cliff Road & WestrDoor Lane,
:iction deadline 02-10-05
See under Public Hearing # 14-04 Modification of WestrDOOr Club Uc.
. #6803 Shawkemo Ridge Road Subdivision, a,t;oll deadline 02-28-05 continued to January 24,2005
IX. Pre-Plan:
. Kennech C. Coftin Inc" lurowhead Drive (Map 69 Parcel 10)
Representing: John Shugrue and Kenneth C. Coffin, Mr, Shugrue briefly discussed that he is
proposing a subdivision containing a sixty-four buildable lots on _~rowhead Drive, Mr, Shugrue
agTeed with the maximum requirements of the Rules and Regulations Goveming the Subdivision of
Land, There \Vas a brief discussion of infrastrUctuIe improvements, The Board members agTeed that a
definitive plan be submitted and that lot 117 needed to be revised for it to be more of a function21 lot.
The Boud instrUcted staff to draft a decision for appro't'al '\Vith conditions given, duly seconded and
voted 5-0 in favor,
X, Sketch Plan:
. ;\1an & Cynthia Hall, 30 Crooked Lane
Representing: Alan Hall. Mr. Vorce stated that 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, rv1r. H:lll ,,:ould
like to propose .to a di....ision of the properl)' into three lots :Ind would like to have access from
Crooked Lane, 1\.11:. Vorce stated that on this property there seems to be an issue regarding
subdividing due to the property ha....wg twenty-nine feet of frontage on Crooked Lane and with that it
would require a Wluyer in the road right of wa)' width in order for 1\1.1:, Hall to proceed or lvir, Hill
would need to seek additional property from abutters, Mr. Vorce :Isked 1v1r. Hall ifhe has thought of
pursuing a Major Residential Development special permit. Mr, H:lll said yes, but he has some
T"'.,J
cn:::>/_I't;:>?-l'tnc;
swe~II~M epu~1
dEE:~l 90 8~ Inr
22'd
Planning Board Agenda for January 10, 2005
concerns, There w...s a brief discussion of the subdivision being restricted to one dwelling per lot due
to it being serviced br septic. ;\lso ;..{r, Hall stated dut he road surface would be kept as natural as
possible and that there will be no asphalt. The Board briefly discussed that the road surface be crush
shells or gravel.
. .'\ngelastro lnvesrment Trust, 25 Pilgrim Road
Representing: An:hur Reade, ?\.1r. Reade briefly discussed the sketch plan that v.;as being presented to
them and said that it would be proposing to divide the property into three lots, Ivf.r, Visco asked if the
Board or staff had any questions or concerns, Ilk Vorce stated that he did view the property with
Michael Angelastro and pointed out where c:learing would need to take place, The colldway surface
would need to meet the minimal grading requirements, Mr, Vorce stated that lot three would be
problematic due to the erosion of the roadway, which would need to be filled, raised, lInd cro'wned so
that runoff did not furdler destroy the roadway, lviI, Visco asked Me. Reade if the propeIt)' 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)
. 1:-86-04 Bruce Cohen & Mary Louise Cohen, '7 Bank Street (l-1ap 73,1.3
Parcd 27)
. #89-04 Don l\.llen Auto Service Inc., 24 Polpis Road (Ivfap 54 Pucel177)
. #01-05 Suzanne Taylor, Trustee of 33 Pine Street Realtr Trust, 33 Pine Street (Map 55,4,1 Parcel 66)
. #02-05 Lawrence D,1\kAtee, Trustee, J\kl1tee Nominee Trust, 2 Windy \Vay (l'v1lIp 67 Parcel 118.5)
. #03-05 16 Washington Pond Road ~ominee Trust, Richard J. Glidden, Trustee & Samuel & Susan
Lehrman, 16 & 18 Washing Pond Road, (lvlap 31 Pared 18 & 18.1)
. #04-05 Harold A. O'Callagh:m, Jr, Trustee for Gorham's Court Nominee Trust, 1 Gorham's Court
(Map 42.3,2 Parcd 205)
. #05-05 Denice Kronau For Herself as Owner & for Raymond p, Conlon & Susan E. Conlon,
Contractor Purchasers
. #06-05 Peter Jannelle & Wendy]. Clinton-Jannelle, Trustees of 56 Union Street Realt)' Trust; &
Virginia Andrews
. #07-05 Island Buggies Auto-Reneal, liC, 41 Old South Road, (f.,fap 68 Parcel 8)
. #08-05 Restoration :\ck, LLC, 43 Center Street (I\ofap 42.4,2 Parcel 40)
A motion was made chat the ZBA applications were not of Planning Board concern, duly seconded
and voted 5-0 in fayor.
XlI. Other Business:
. Town Administrator's recommendation on FY 2006 Planning Board Operating Budget and i\hster
Plan funding,
:Mr, Pagini stated that the funding for the MGL Chapter 41, Section 81D Master Plan and zoning
bylaw supplemental funding had been reduced from ~100,OOO,OO to $20,000,00, The Board
unanimously voted to request consultant funding for a Master Plan (I\oIGL Chapter 41, Section SlD)
and a comprehensive re'wnte of the Zoning Bylaw,
. Francis T. Spriggs W3S nominated fot Chairman in absence of Doruld T. Visco, there were no other
nominations, and a wunimous vote was taken, Barry Rector was nominated for Vice-Chairman pro-
temp, there were no other nominations, and 3 WlanimouS vote was uken,
. l\fr. McLaughlin asked what the sUlus was on the property of 25 .-\ppleton Road, I\.1r. Vorce statednthat 11 memo was sent out to Zoning Enforcement Officer Marcus Silverstein and a response from
him had not been received at this time,
XIII. Public Comment:
None,
IVX. Adjoumment:
Chairman Visco adjourned the meeting at 9:15 P.lvI.
S02L.- 822- 80S
swe~II~1'1 epu~l
dEE:21 90 B2 Inr
"
~..
NANTUCKET PLANNIN
1 EASi CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET. MASSACH
(508) 228-7233
To the Planning Board ofNaptllcket:
c.i
~
~ ~
~w... ,
r:'? ';:: , -
I'" ,.,'
Tho undersigned. being tho appli.,..,t as dofined ...,... CbapI<:r 41, Scc60n 81-1., for ~ oii~
. . .' . Sh8:W'kemo Ridge ROlld d'~" b Blackwell Wsaoelj:Ues
subdtvtsJon sbowll on' pJ>n entrtIed _ ~ohd~ vio,:I.OI>' . _...(<11oo y..... On" ipO" _,~..,1"8
cIalod -""goo t 11, 2004;""" described OS fullowS: loeatod 00 _ Sh_ llOad aM ?pblo' llOad
-.J num~ of lots proposed ~ 1
~ _ of..... . 11.64 1 . J hcI<bY submit> said plan os a d'- p.... .. ....,..s.noo ""'" tho
_ oad RegUlation< c;..-;ng the SubdJvlshm ofLtmd of tho ~pWming ll-' """ -
application to the Board for approval of said plan.
~.
rn
f.k ..e completed for with the P\lull>in8 ~oard """ - copy with the Town C\eI:k.
.......
Date:
AUll:ust 26, 2004
.oJr
.' .
The undenigned.'s tltle."..;d land ;. derlve<! from Frank ". Low · Clara B. LoV by doe<!
.cIalod V -8-97. 9-16-0' and recooJed ;" tho N".,.- 1\Cg!SU)' of Deeds aook j 57-334 a"" 848-98
Page _ >~ ;" <he N__ Regis1IY o;su:let ofth. Lon<I Court, ~ ofntle #181 n. 2~884
""" shoWD on NontuC\o:t _r', Map # _ 44 > pa=1 4, 130,131 , ...d said 1und is 1lo<> of
.......blun= ""'"'" for tho followinZ' :
Said pion 0 bas ClO bas Dot "Dive<! from a p<e\imb1arY plan submitted to tho ll-' on
(date) and 0 approved 0 disapProved on
(date).
The .ndmigne<! he..eby applies for the ~ of said d.&nltlv< plm by the Board, ;" belief tbat tho plan
coofonns to the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Name(s) and address(es) of the Applicant(s):
(to ...",de" the """'" ood _"',.. of Ibe priodl'a1s .flbe ownCf _,.ch "l'ri..c1po1..mom .ftho --
tT\1Stees of a trUSt or partners of a partnership)
VJ)DC. LLC
Phili G. and Maureen Reasle
n
3271 Green Dolphin Lane
Naples, FL 34102
Naples, FL 34~02
, .
ploMiJIG Board. FtJt'/lI B. rxzg<< 2
',:, ~I'?
~
".,
, :Name of owne1\s): , sallle aa applicants
A.ddress of owneI(S):
1 !>=bY certify 1hal1be applK,atd(S) listc4 aboVe have been aut\IO<izOd by me" file'''bdMJion p1m wilh tho
PlllDning Board on property that I own.
Received by Town Clerk
l)a.te: _
Time:
Received by Board of Health:
Date:
iwe:
Plann\ng Board File #
,1 'r
eEe No. 20430041
August 11, 2004
SHAWKEMO RIDGE ROAD
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION
Waiver Requests
ItemiZed list of improvements requested to be waived or modified:
Th81and on..e accompanying plan., Oefinlllve SUbdMsloo Plans ~orno RIdge Rood. -.,.,."pay
wllll the roleS and "'llul8tlo," of the -,""ket P\Onn!ng - RuleS and RogUIeIIOO8 Gowminll the
SUbdivi.ioo of Land .. emended ..rough [)eOomber 20, 1999. ","",pilar the - ...........-
reguIoUOO5 _ the applicant req"- the Planning Boenl........ or _In the - epOoIIIed:
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 centaln adequate information to represent a site analysis mep. Thill
waiver is requested for economic reasons as this is only a i-lot 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 wl\l 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. Existing and
propOsed tree lines will be indicated within the subdivision plan set. No
landscaping is proposed due to the small 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 Moot shoulders. The subdivision is
located in a rural area and will service only o.ne lot.
SECTION 4.038 - STRE.ETS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of ZO-foot minimum fQ8ftNay wldth
and allOW a 16-1oot roadway width with 2-foot shoulders. The subdIVIsion Is
located in a rural area and will service only one lol
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 swales 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 - S-rORM DRAINS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of .storm drain system." The
proposBd drainage system would consist of a grassed lined swale, catch basin,
(9
\\Cacl11\g-G8d 11 Iproject\1\;l0430Q41" 1 0-1 OO\Doc\Exhibit A.doc
Page :2 of 2
CEC No. 20430041
August 11, 2004
and underground infiltratlon system. The proposed storm drain system will be
designed for B 25--year storm as an open dralnE'Q9 system In complience with
section 4.06c - Open Drainage systemS.
SECTION 4.09 - SHOULDERS
Request that the Board waive the requirement of 4<-foot shOUlders as requited
within this section. The proposed roadway will contain 2-foot shoulders.
SECTION 4.12-WAiER PIPES & RELATED EQUIPMENT
Request that the Board waive the requirements of this pction in Its entirety.
There are no public water lines near the site. Proposed dwellings will be serviced
by on..site domestic wells.
SECTION 4.13 - DRY SEWER LINES
Request that the Board waive the requirements of this sectiM In Its entirety.
There are no publiC &lWier 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!lcape plan. exISting and
proposed tree lines wl\l be Indicated within the subdMslon plan set. No
landscaping is proposed due to the small s\z8 of the project.
SECTION 4.18 - SIDEWALKS
Request that the Board waive the requirements for sidewalks. The volume of
pedestrian traffic generated from a 1-1ot residential .ubdivision 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 1-1ot 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 Nralln
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 Mndle stormwater runoff. The proposed drainage system wUI
not function properlY if curbing and berms are constructed.
ce
\\Cad11\g.cad11 \pt'O\&CtS\20430041.1 0.1 OO\DOC\!O)(hlblt ,A.,doc
.,...\ to '" ~ .. ~ ~ jot ...
all" '_Ii ,-. t.' ~.I ..-Inlo,
:~ a" I II · "it II ~I' .~
II', t hi ~ . Psi \'!ll1n ~ I
'I 'I. !llGtllii pili I,ll 'I;i~~ ~ .1
, ~i! !I' i q~ Ii! II! I'~ itii;i\d !l
, ,~-111 II fti ~I 'Ill I i "II .,IIt~ldl I'
I ill ~ r~ ~ -.1 ~ ~ \H;ill\l: ~
11 ~ ti II! II~p;'lli\l~
. i, \hd. I 1 'Ill' ~ II, ~ii. .~:
.~ II, I I?i~
!~ .1 .
, ~ I
r' .'
'"
J
.I!!.I~
"al 'Ioj:
I ~
I · · III !!!f.\ ......
1,1_ ,"S: I
.. i~ -!ji
I 11'\ '
, ,'hi
Ii
. Iii:
I
Il I
I
I, ,
,. 'iI; .1 '
Ii ,(
- I~ .~Irl
I J-I ~!, !
I I . \ I ~ I
i .
I I It~
I a -
I /, ~I
I ~q~%
I !il\t
m 111\ ll'ij' .
\ II!j J I 9.1 ~q1 liT Ii'.
I 18 II I Ill" tli'
! ~I ~ ''-i' i ~i.'
J nt' .:.~ '\ ~ i! ii ~~ ,. i bi.t I i'"
I J, I ~~i~ I ~'~I' J'I'1 ..- i II
HP'I' "I I
rv~' it i i~'il .'. I.IM " _ i I, : ai. ..
l I I ~\ ~.a~'. ;11.11.1'1 .
. ~~ , ~~~;1\1 .
; DEFIN\11VE SUBDIVISION pLAN
i- ..~~ SH...~o !liDO( ROAD SUIlDMSl~
.JIfJ. ;:::..- HANlUCl<ET, W1.llSIICHUllEffi!
---
~~~ ..
,.
. -
Ii HI
I! 1:11
~ III
~ J
I "I
i il"
i I
~a
~
i .
II!!.....'
~.. ~
,.
'\ ...;-
\ \
\ ,
\ \
I \
\
'1;
..~ ...
..... ...
.... "
\
\
\
\
I
... 1 I
;- ....,~..../ /
\"', I
... I
/"
I
...
",-
~!;
8 8
~
Q
Ii
I
I
; II Ii; a!i~i
i H i! I ii il
I i ~ I! Ii
I ~'~I!
I hN
i ~ .Sll~
~e I
E
lce~ SiiF
i
jO"" 'Y'!. Ij '~;..,.. 'j'.' .
OVERALL LAYOUT PLAN
SH^VlI<BlO RIDGE llQ,I,ll SU~SION
N......ruGKET. 1I^5SAGHUSE:TT5
_lOll '
~
..
--
...
...
DATE:
APPUCANT:
OWNER:
L()Ct\TION:
LEGAL
DESCRlP'tION:
SIZE:
LOTS:
ZONINQ
GENERAL
ptSOUmON:
PROPOSAL:
NANTUCKET PLANNING BOARD
September 27, 2004
REVISED September 28, 2004
philip and Maw;een &asley
Same
.Along tilt 'West side of Shs.wkemo Road
11.64 h.re5
1 building lot
Limited Use Genertl3 (LlJG.3)
Tht applicants are applying for an App~v~ of a Definitive s~n Plan (Al9 for ~ along
the ~ side of ShaWkemo Road. '1be sl.te IS 11.64 acres square feet In area mi IS located In ~
Lu:;.3 zoning district. .All abutting properties m also locited in the L$3 ~ district. The site
has approximately eight-eight (88) feet of frontage along Sbawkel1Xl Road. 1'bt applicant is proposing
to create one (1) new building lOt and a. new road~, Shawkmno Ridge RoW. from which the lot ~
gain access and fronmge.
The existing vegetative cover of the site is primary scrub oltk. Developttlent of the site will mult in
removal of elciscing vegetation within the area of the proposed ~t.of-w.lY and the area ~
the proposed dwelling location on Lot 11, ll$ shown on the proposed plan.
Although the subdivision contains 11.&4 aCres, only one (1) building lot, Lot 11, will be ~
Several exi5ting lots ate shown on the proposed plan:
. Lot 9 (approximately 120,000 squate feet) with existing frontar,C along Shawkcmo Road
which was created on an ANR plan (# 6760) approved bytbe planning:Board on May 24,
2004;
Lot 13 (8.44 acres) which has frorttage alotlt Polpis ~
. Lot 12 (8,822 square feet) which is an nnbuildable lot that wiI1 be combined with Lot 11i
Lot 11 on PhIl File 51- J (approximately 16,208) which will be combined with Lot 11
shown on the pkn.
Lot 11 as shown on the proposed plan. is the new lot which will be creaurl. Lot 12 as shown on this
plan and Lot 11 on Plan File S1-J will be combined with Lot l1l u shown on the proposed plan. to
create one buildable lot. Lot 13 is only shoVJn on the pcopo$ed pIAn and is only included in this
suh&vision applica.tion for the purposes of conveying Lot 12 to Lot 11, as shown on tlx prOp06cd
plan. Lot 13 will not h:lve access from Sb.1,_mo Ridge Road., ~~ Lot 9 was created through
-'\ East Chestnut street. Nantucket, MA 02554. (508) 228-7233. tax (508) 226-7298
email: nanplan@town.nantuCket.net
ANltp!m* 6ntJ "'" . ~ :: U<<l< ",;m.nwn Im_ ~ oloog S..........,Rood.....
oMIl.L....... /.... _ 1_ ... ... V.I....... ~"P ,_.1 .01-.41 Glo .lo-...1liOt" 110001
'Ib< ..".m.y;' propo"d 10 be Wd "'" "itl,. fo<<r (40) foot rigb>-oI-"'l'with... (2) oir:bt (8) !oot
travcl ~ with twO (2) foOt grass shoulders on each side of the roadway. Tht ~ roadway
,.;u be _t<<! 0I~ """,_ oM ,.;u be 'l'P~";() l<<t;.,.;a,b with. col-de-
sac at the temllnU5.
No .~ '" ba.. podo "" ~ fartbU mbdiviOon- Due 10 tho "'"' 01 tho oubcJioD... on<!
tho cloo. p.,.;.Dtr 01. ~ along pal.. Baod. mff "'Ill"" 1bO' tbU ~ be ...,;,.,i
~
Storm water runoff will be treated through the use of stann'fJlter management Best Management
PraaiCC5. 1be propOsed drainage system is designed to store and mfiltrat.e ~ from a twefto/"
five (25) year twenty-four (24) hours storm event. The drainage systetn im:ludes a ps .wak along
the east side of ShaWkemo Ridge Road, :a deep sump hooded Utch basin, and II sr.orage and
infl1tr'al:ion sys=rn located in the center of the cul-de-saC. 'Ihe drainage .- will. intercept rumff
leaving the roadway system and overland runoff en=riDg the system. '!"be runoff is then ~ to the
iDfiltration system, is the low point of the eJ1t1re site.
(pm Sp.u::
No proteCted open space has been proposed for this application.
5WI_~
The :applicant has not proposed any street lighting. It is the opinion of planning st$ff that the request
for a waiver is appropriate due to the small ~ca1e of this ~idel:ttial subdivision.
j..dWisarpitt!
The applicant has not shown any hndscapins. as required by aection 4.16 of tbt Sub:J;r.isim.RWs am
~, on the submitted. plans. The applicant has indicated that existing uee tmr.. ....at be
roaintaird and they are requesting a waiver from the landscape plan.
~
'1'bc proposed building lot will be serviced thro~ oil-site weI1 and septic. All other l.ltilities will be
installed in accordance with the prospective utility company.
~
1'he applicant is requesting the following waive~. These waivers shall not apply to Lot 13.
2.06a(11)
2.06b(14)
2.06b(18)
3.02
3.06
4,03:a(1)
4.03e
Site Analysis ~pOft a.od Map
Waiver ~commended - a namt1ve has been submitted which is adequate
for the scale of the proposed subdivision;
On-site Brush Disposal
Waiver Recommended - c:xisting brush -Mll be shredded and chipped
therebyelitninacing the need for disposal;
Landscape plan
Waiver Rtco!l'l1'nended - existing tree lines 'Will be maintained and are will
be indicated on the definitive plan;
Public Open Space
Waiver Recommended - due to the seale and locarion of this subdivision;
One Dwelling Pcr Lot
Waiver Recommended;
Streets - Width
Waiver Recommended - a sixteen. (16) foot roadway is suffICient to
provide access to twO (2) lots;
Streets - Width
Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision
20f4
Waiver Reconuncnded - a sixteen (16) foot roaclwayi<l sufficient to
provide access to twO (2) lots;
Dead-Ead Street
W~er &commended _ ~ curbing ;u'OU11d the cul-de-sac "llIOUId
prevent the drainage system from woxkins properly;
Storm Prains
Waiver Recommended - proposJl un1.izcs an Open OrainarF Systen'l;
Shoulders
WaNer Ra:oromendcd . proposiil is for twO'foot grass shoulders;
Guard Rails and Pom
V/~ Recommended' not applicable to $ire;
Water Pipes and Related Equipment . .
Waiver Recommended - on-Site owdls will be uci\iuld;
Dry Sewer Lines
Waiver Recommended - on-site septic systems will be ~
Landscape Plan ~L_ 1:___, L.' ~,___..1 _t.._* . . 1:__
Waiver Recommended - UB: app~t ~ ~tIJlA\. exJStJ.Dg tree ~
will be maintained and indicated on the defmitivc plans;
Fire Alarm Systems and Emc:rgencr Waf&r Supply
WlIiver Recommended
S~
Waiver Reco[!l]lltnded - due to the scale and location of the ..ire and tht
lack of connectivity to other sidewalks/bike paths;
:Bicycle Paths
Waiver Recoxnmended-bic)'tle paths DOt neces$aryfor the interior
roadway and there is an existing bikepath along 'Polpis Road;
Streetlights
W~er Reco~d- the sJ:tUill scale of the subdivision does DOt
necessitate sueet lighting
Bridges
Waiver Recommended - not applicabk to the site
Curb~ and Berms
Waiver Rtco.mmendcd - wt,nlld DOt be in hannonywith the proposed
dra.in2ge system.
The tdfic generated by the tw (2) loti which will utilize Shawkemo Ridge Ro,o, 'Will DOt create 8-
signifil;aI1t impact to either Sha.wkemo Road or polpis Rowi
4,04b
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 RE VIE VII:
See attached report from Horsley Wmetl. Group dated September 17, 2004.
REOJMMENDATION:
The proposal for the Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision meetS the ~nera1 inttnt of the Nam;ucktt Zoning
B)'lawas set forth in section 139-7. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following
conditions. which arc; not appllCllble to Lot 13, and are subjeCt to change based on input Uon'1 the
public and the: PlaMing Board:
1. 'Ibat the applicant be granted the: ~ as described in the "WaiNersD section of this report;
2. 'Ibat recorded copies of all legal. c:1ocuments (Homeowners Association documentS, Statement of
Conditions, G.rant of Right of Enforcement, Grant of Easements for Utilities. DraiM&e. and
Covenant) shall be: pxaenred to the Planning Board prior to the release of any lot fl"OlP the
Covenant and within ninetY (90)days from the date of the decillion.
3. nut a Homeowners Association (excluding Lot 13) be established by the a.pplicant, tlong with i\
Road Maintenance Endowment Fund for the maintenance of all reqUired improvements to the
private way including ~ drnIDage facilities, and utilities. The As$OCiacion shaD. be initially
Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision
3of4
endowed at $500 per buildable lot ($100 total). 1his fund shall. be administered by the
Homeowners Association ..vith the Planning Board ~ as a third party enforcing agll'nt;
4. That Lot 14 to be transferred to the Homeowners A$sociation. Evidence of the conveyance sball
be pl"e$cnted to the Planning Bow prior to the release of any lot and within ninety (90) days
from the date of the decision;
5, That all required infrastrUcture iInprovements be completed within twO (2)-~ars from the datcl of
definitive pl;Ul endonement;
6. That ;tCcess to Lot 9 is limited to shawbwo Ridge Road only, .Access shall he prolnbited from
Shammo Road;
7, That the applicant provide documentation of the dninage and utility easement Uh is shown
along the east side of Shawbmo Ridge Road. Said easement shall be ~wded with the Registry
of Deeds and a copy shall be provided to the PWming Board. within ninety (90) days from the
date of the decision; and
8. That a pre-constnlCcion meeting take place prior to any clearing for roadway COnstruebon. The
following agencies, at a minimuIll; shall be represented at the meeting: the applicatlt or tht:ir
representative, the lead contraCtOr for the projec~ the Depanment of Publi.e Worb, the
engineering consultants for the Planning Board, ~ PWming Board. staff.
Shawkemo Ridge Subdivision
4of4
_.-----'
DRAFT
APPROVAL OF A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PL-^N (AR)
Shawkenw Ridge Road Subdivision (planning Boan! FiI.e 1/6803)
Owners: philip and Maureen lieasley and WDe, u.c
Pmels 4, 130, and 131 of T~ Assessors Map 44
NantUCket Registry of Deeds Book 557 and 848, Pages 334 and 98, respectively
NantUCket Registry District of the Land Court, Certif1Ca.te of TlIie 18172 and 20884
December 13, 2004
n,. ~1'IanoWll1lowl "it> o=ber 14. _ ~vood 3-1 to APPROVE m..... (:!) !at (- bWJdAbl<
lot) J\ppnml~ (AR) D<f.,,;u,. SubdiWkm _f.r p_ ~.. m. - ,Ole of Sho- Rood- n,.
.il< ;. ~"'"" t.itnttod Th. c-nl3 (LUG-3) :tnninl: ilimia"';' ro~ of · t<lOIl of IL" oaa. tt..oo.ld
be oot<d ilia< .k\tnugh "" t<lOIl- .f bnd from ..bi<h "" aubdM>k>. ;. dotirt<I io 1 t.64 ""'" tho t<lOIl """!:' of tho
new buildable lot and the roadway is approximately 3.31 acres. The remainder of the site included in this appliution
(Lot 13 "m;,h;' 833 _) \,., fronraoo oloog PoIplo Road ... ..;n not have fronraoo .. ....""" from the .-Iy
created roaO:w:a.y (Sha:wkl:roo Ridge Road.) and will not be included in the Homeowners Association.
1'be following lots are shown on page 2 of 6 of the Definitive Subdivision Plans:
II Lot 9 (2.75 aeres) has existing frontage along Sbawkemo Ro.a.. This lot was created through an Approv,.l
Not Required plan (II 6760) endorsed by the planning Bo~ on Ma.y 24, 2004. A1tbough this lot is not
included in this app1ica.tion for a subdivision, the ~pplicant has voluntarily restricted access to this site
from the proposed. roadway (Shawkcmo Ridge Road) only and bas volunWilyincluded this lot in the
Homeowners Association;
Lot 13 (8.44 acres) whicb has frontll.ge along Polpis &:ad. 'Ibis lotwi11 not have frontage on or access
from the proposed roadway (Shawkemo Ridge Road) and wil1not be included in the :aomeowners
Assoc~tio1'1;
. Lot 12 (8,822 square feet) ~h is an unbuil.dable lot that will be combined with Lot llshowo on the
Definitive Subdivision Plan;
. Lot 11 on plan :file 51- J (approxin:uLtely 16,208) which is an unbull.;Wlle lot tbt will be combined with Lot
11 shown on the Definitive Subdivision PIm;
It should also be noted th:>.t at the October 14, 2004 meeting, there was cliscussion a.mong the Planning Board ~rs
regarding the potential for this subdivision to be accomplished through the Approval Not Required (ANIQ process
rather than through Approval Required (AR). 'The d~cussjon revolved arouod II piece of property shown as pan::d 4.2
on Tax Assessors Ma.p 44_ Said parcel was iod1.1lied in the Definitive Subdivision Plan for S~mo:Hills Subdivision
and -ms dedicated for roadw;ty pw:pOses pertaining to Shawlcemo Road. Therefore, some ~rs of the planning
Board were of the opinion th:ar. the subdivision could be accomplished thtough .ANR and frontage ~g. Ho-wever
bawl .. """'" di><o<oiQ~ tho p],nniog B..,a 'PP"'vOO tho ..bdMok>n boo'" .. m. foIIm,iog docum<n<>' '
DRAFT
An application dated SeptCtnher 01, 2004;
. plans entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plans for Shammo Ridge Rol1rl SubdivisioIlj Nmtucloet.
Massacin1'letts prepaRd by Cullinan Engineering. Co., Ioe and Blackwdl & Associates, Inc., pages 1-6,
dated.Angust 11, 20048 and as amended by this decision;
. An.Apprclval :Not Required plm dated May 1.7, 2004 endolScd bytbe planning aoard on May 24, 20M,
listed as planning Board file /I 6760;
. ~ A~.a1ysis Report. Shammo Ridge Road Subdivision, NantUCket, MassachusettS, prepared byOillinan
Bn~ Co., Inc. and Balckwell &: AssociatcS,lnc., dated August 11, 2004;
. lV""~"'" ~~ RUl&< Rood S"bdWWon. """'""""'~. pn;>a<<d
~nan Eoginceting. 0:>., Inc. and nalckwdl & Associates, loe,. dated AlJpt 11, ZOO4;
. Sba~mo RU\U Rol1rl On.irtll~ ~~m I"lwnershi;> & M~;ntP!f1ance Plm, pripared byOillinan
Enginceritlg, Inc., dated November 30, 2004;
. Astaff report dated September 27,2004, revised on September 28, 2004.
. ~rescntation and testimonyteceived in conncet1on with the public hearing bdd. October 14, 2004.
MinUte5 from this .meeting are on file with the planning Board;
. A report hy Horsley WJ.tten Group, the P1a.n:ning Board's consulting engineen:, c!atcd September 17,2004;
and
. Ot:her assorted documents tmt are on file with the Planning Board.
Approvol of tho~' ~ ,,,.,",;,,,,o11yupo. th< d","",,""'..,d _. ~,.;n. m.l'Wndno
Board's &ks ttnlRtgJJtJtim ~ the S~ rfLanl (as arm:nded thro~ December 20, 1999). and on the
following additional requirements and agreeInCnts:
1. That the applicant be granted the following waiv'el'S, which sluill not apply to Lot 13, all sbo'W:n on
shl;et 2 of 6 of the Definitive Plans:
2.06a(U)
2.06b(14)
2.06b(18)
3,02
3.06
4.03a(1)
4.03e
4.04b
4.06b
4.09
Site ,Analysis Report and Map
Wlliver Gnnted _ a nanative has been $Ubmitted which is adequatz for
the scale of the proposed subdivision;
(;ontents of Defi.ni.tive Plan (Landscape Plan)
Waiver NOT Granted - a landscape plan indicating the maintenance of
existing tree lines as ~ as additiona1landscap~ along the IlOrthv.'CSt
side of the proposed rol1rl~y. the proposed landscaping shall be ve1j"
dense as to provide an adequate buffer be~ the site and abutting
properties;
Qn-site Brush Di$posal
Waiver Grmtcd _ existing brush will be shredded :and chipped thereby
elimina.tint the need for disposal;
Public Open Space
Warver Granted - due to the scale and location of this subdivision;
One Dwelling per Lot
Warver Granted;
Streets. Wdth
Wai:v~r &commended - a sixteen (16) foot roa.d~y is sufficient to
provide access to twO (2) lots (Lots 11 and U);
Streets. Width
Waiver Gnmted - a sixteen (16) fl:et wide roA/iWl1Yis suffICient to provide
aCcess to twO (2) lots (Lots Uand 12);
Dead-End Street
Waiver, Granted ~ granite curbing around the cul-de-sac would prevent
~e cIrWtage system. from working properly,
Storm Drams
Waiver Granted. proposal utilizes an Open D~ System;
Shoulders
Waiver Granted. proposal includes two-foot grass shoulders;
Silltwkemo Ridge Road Subdivis~on Decision
Guard.lWls IU)d PoStS
Waiver Granted. not applicable to site;
Vla-ref :Pipes and Rdared Equip~Dt . '.
Waiver Granted - on-Site wells will be ur.ilized;
Dry Se~r Lines ..
VI~ Granted - on-site septic systems will be utilized;
Landsca~=r NOT Granted - a landscape plan imfu:ating existing thl;
m;a,in.tena.nce of ~ tree lines as _U as additional Wx\scapmg w.ng
the oonhwest side of the proposed roadway. 'Ihe proposed landsc:aPU\@;
shall be very dense as to provide an adequate buffer ~n the sltC and
abutting properties;
Fire A1arro Sy.ncms and Emergency Wav:r Supply
Waiver Granted;
Sidewalks Waiver Gran~d. _ due to the scale and location of the site and the Jac.k of
connectivity to other sidewalks/bike paths;
:B~lc: P;l.ms . '
Waiver Granted _ bic:}'cle paths not necessary for the mtc:tlQr road-ftyand
there is an existing biltepath along Polpis Road;
Street LightS .
Wirter Granted _ the small scale of the subdivision does not neceSSitate
strctt lighting
Bridg~ .'
Waiver Granted - ~ot applicable to the S1te
Curbing and Berms .' .
Waiver Granted _ wOuld not be In harmony with. tbt proposed drainage
system.
2. 'That a fiml set of definitive plans be submitted to the PWming Board. within ninety (90) ~y.> from the
date of this decision (December 13,2004). '!'he definitive plans shall include a deWled landscape plan
indicating tlu: cxisdng tree line and vegetation which will be maintained as well as a dense landscape buffer
along the no,mwest side of the proposed roadway,
4.10
4.1Z
4.13
4,16
4.17
4.18
4,19
4.20
411
412
DRAFT
3. 'Tbat recorded copies of all legal. documents (Homeowners Association documentS, Statement of
Conditions, Grant of Right of Enforcement, Grant of EasementS for Utilities, Drainage, and Covenant)
shall he presented to the Planning Board prior to the release of the lot from the Covenant and within
ninety (90)days from the date of the decision (December 13,2004);
4. 'Tbat a. HDI:Ilcowners Association (C'XCluding Lot 13 and. including Lot 9 (as shown on the endorsed
Approval Not :Required Pla.n dated May 17~ 2004, Planning Board file If 6760) and Lot 11 (as shown on the
Definitive Plan)) be established by the ~?plicant, along with" Road Maintenanee Endowment Fund. for
the maintenance of all required improvements to the private way (Shawkemo Ridge ~ including
grading, drOJ.inage facilities, and utilities. 'The Association shall be initially endowed at 5500 per build2ble
lot ($1000 tOtal) for lots served by Sha:wkemo Ridge Road. This fund shall be administered by the
Homeowners Association with the Planning :Board named as a third party enforcing agent. If permitted,
Lots 9 and 11 will also join the Sha.wkemo Homeowners Association;
5. That Lot 14 (l'Oad-Y) he tranSferred to the Homeowners Association. Evidence of the conveyance shall
be pxesenred to the Planning Board prior to the release of the build~le lot and within ninety (90) days
from the date of the decision (December 13,2004);
6. 1b.ar ~ required infrastrocture improvements be completed within twO (2)-years from the date of
definitive plm endorsement;
Sba.mo Ridge Road Subdivision Decision
DRAFT
7. '!bat ""'" '" Lot 9 ;, funDed to Sbnk<mo rod&< RD..l only and ,boll bo ~ .... Sba..lomo
Rood. A.- '" tlUs .If." ,boll bo ,....,..w ,,;m the N~ ~ of Oe<<lo, · copy d..bich
sball be presented to the plaro1ing Board within ninety (90) days from the date of this decision;
8. '!bat the........ p""""' _"""" of tho ~ and oliIi<y""""',,;,;,h;,'~ oImlg dx
..., .;do of sbawI<<o>D ItiJge Ilool",d """"" dx ~"". SOd - .boll bo ...,.,..dod ,,;m the
~ of Deod< and ,,,,,,,,.boll bo proWled tt> dx ~ B-' ,,;,blo.....,. (90) do" !tom the
date of the decision (December 13, 2004); and
9. '!bat Lot 11 bo pmhibtt<d 1_ funh<< ~ A -- to tlUs dl"',ha11 he ,....,..w ,,;m the
~ ~ of 0...;., , "'1'Yof which ,boll bo 1""""<<1 tt> the ~ Bo..d ,,;,blo ~ (90)
day.s front the (\ate of this decision;
On ()cto"" 14,2004 the P"",""" B-' voorO "1 tt> APPROVE tlUs ,.hdM>;"o and 000<"""",,13, 2004 tho
Planning Board voted 3-1 to ENPORSE this decision.
Donald T. VISCO
APPRoVED
Barry Rector
APPROVED
John M::La.ligb1in
APPROVED
Francis 1. Spriggs
DISAPPROVED
COMMONWEALTH OF MASsACHUSETIS
NantUCket, 55
,2004
Then personally :lppe=d
Mass2J;husetts aod acknowledged the fo~-~':~ ==::r;:d ~&frers of tW:!~ Boam of NautIlCket.
net e act lWI> deed ~ore me.
Notary Public
Dille my Commission Exp~s
Sha.wkemo Ridge Roa.d Subdivision Decision
000251
oe'
o
o
~
..c
.....
-~
----
c:
Q)
E
a
o
(:)
.,.
o
o
Ep
w
Lu
P
,.
o
:z
.....
c:
Q)
E
g
C
~~2
#1=
11t1-88 ~
f!J ~ !~E
_ CJ
S 00 w
~ II:
.- ~ ~. ~
... <( II. ~
,.~ ~ g 0
~~ > I
\. ;l
. , IfIr
fa I
~
~~ ~
~_ 0-
~~fil
~~
<~
u en
g u:~
~ ~~e: 0
oC lii~;; ~ ~
~ za::z ~ 3
a: Su:< ~ -
~ ~en ~ i
i!~ i I I
- -
_ao _I
,.....,...."...." n,"""]I on,.....
swelTTllll eOUl,
11.1004
dRl:~l qn I.~ Tnr
000252
111004
9UITCLAIM DEED
VBDC, LLC, a duly fonned Delaware Umited 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 Shawkemo Road, Nantucket Town and County, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and shown as Lot 10 and Lot 12 on Land Court Plan No. 35819-E filed with
Certificate of Tit1e No. 20884 at the Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court.
The Grantor hereby reserves for itself, its successors and assigns. a permanent, non-
exclusive view easement prohibiting construction 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 "A". 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 hanntess 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 t 1 on Land Court Plan No. 3S819-E at the
Nantucket Registry District and shall run with the iand in perpetuity or for the maximum period
allowed by the laws of the Commonwealth 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.1 \ t 00' 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.
_' _I
f"'n....,1 n~J_onc
SWi:?tTTtl'l i:?PUt,
dvl:21 90 L2 rnr
000253
111004
Executed and sealed this ?.3 day of February 2005.
VBDC. LLC
~~.~
~o~ LLC. CE:.RT l::>A-r~D t.(~(1..CJ::::sr{
XIS : l::bG \'oct II
countyo~
STATE OF OliO
. ss. February g~~ . 2005
On thi~ l ^ day of February 2005, before me. the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Philip easl~ p. ved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, which were . () to be the person whose name is signed on
the preceding or attached docwnent, and ac owl edged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its
stated pIlIpOSe, as ManagerofVBDC.lLC. ~
OTARY PUBliC tj
My Commission Expires:
.. COUILJlQSfOff. .... ....
........-'11II be **" III
..., ",,1O\I8Cl plan to foAow ..
MAR 0 2 2lIfj
€
"",356''1 Lots 10 +11.
~~ DE3CRIPr1CII
~T..,......~..- _~
J"MH
...~~~~
."0 ~
/.~.. \ PAlRlCIAA, KEU.OGG ,
; . '. ) NoIary PubIt, SlBleof Olio
\. . :... I My conmssIon expiIes 1 OI2O~OO9
...JI); ~/
-"'~~~; .
.... :::.NTUGKtT,...
J"i' .' EDS ~b
F-:EG " .PE: . . .
NANTUCKET "
'~
~".'l!:'l'\ Ql
~- ',.,..../.,,"'J t... r
11.VUO \J
WC)I}QO Ml44
$13680.:)(;
-L.,80 00
.-_^~L' <[:-1- .':''''-' -
__tto-,f1
FEE
. . I
.............,J ,....,-, nnr--
SWe!TT!1'l epU1:,
d~I:21 90 L2 Tnr
~J
WJ'" JW,
PlAN of LAND
..
Nantucket Mass,
p"".-.d Fd
VBDC'. w:
$_, J'.;" JAiIWJlr',_
_ 1I.l~~m......
. ..~:.ru
--,-
---
, - .....
~... T
I......
,-.,.. ..
i
,
f.
... .
I
i
!
.....
-..."'--
, .:::::.
..
. ,
.::.
......',..
N.....
.,
-
_1___..I:tJ',
_.IIIt..... .,.....
~.... ,.v..
~~"'.~--o.l~
~---~-- 'I~
~~~-:..
-- ~ ':~IIII\
-~
_ \i\&.!~:8.L
'"
'M"- _ ~..w:
~~~-=;:....-
:.; _~_.W;tJJD
:.:..: :t;..~~ri-:=-""
_.....'11.___..
....-n.....- ... IiI'Q
,''''''
_'~'i- .
-......
teA......,.....
~-==:.m:.=.-
-- .
ll!IIEIIl' 1i1f1III~1/OII
~ ~ . . Ut; ..,.,
-.r~_1
N4IItll.alctt PI&JIlIiIlt IloercI
___lWI'
--~
...-
Ulil.IIII
. fit
t::"'~~
==~~~
S==-~ i..
'.
... I ...... ____ _ ........-
...-cr--'-'
. ..........- ~
.....-
-.cr
......~-.
..... ." It ..-:I . ~ -.
EXHIBIT "A"
. \
\
m;'6~
'111004
VIEW
EASEMENT
AREA
,\
1\
'I
\'
\
1
/4
~. -I
.....n7/_0::1::1_0nc
SW~'[TTtf'l ~PU~l
dvl:2l 90 L2 rnr
(1
m
:xl
-l
=n
o
~
m
o
"
o
o
o
C
"C
~
Z
o
-<
z
o
-t
:I:
-
en
(')
)>
:IJ
C
s:
c
~
OJ
m
c
-
en
"tJ
r-
~
m
c
-
z
)>
(')
o
z
en
"tJ
-
(')
c
o
c
en
"tJ
r-
)>
(')
m
o
z
-t
:I:
m
"tJ
:0
m
~
-
(J)
m
en
.
OJ
c
r
CJ
Z
G>
Z
en
"C
m
(1
-l
o
:D
..,,"'tJ-I
>m:I:
::O::O(j)
>~."
(/)::lm
::Om::O
mO:5:
~:J:=i
o)>(/)
Z(/):I:
>z)>
mOl
!(-II
"'tJom
::0 Om
)>:5:0
0:5:0
::!m~
oZm
)>0_
mmz
10<
mo)>
. I
::0_
-0
(/)
ZOl
O~
-10
."Z
::0-1
O:I:
oen
m."
m::o
20
z~
G>
0-1
0:I:
zm
-10
z~
5m
Co
(/).."
~-
-I(/)
o~
om
0-
~.."
"'tJ-I
I::X:
mm
-I
5~
ZO
)>:0
(/)~
::OJ>
mo
Om
C:o
--I
::o_
m.."
00
z~
(/)m
"'tJo
~."
::!o
00
zo
WC
:I:)g
~z
mO
m-<
m=E
m-
zF
(/)m
i5m
z-
moo
o~
>m
zo
Oc
o"'tJ
~~
m::o
om
m-l
-<c
-1::0
:tz
mo
)>."
"'tJ-I
"'tJ:I:
::0-
000
"'tJ"'tJ
::om
-::0
~~
m-l
-0
ffiz
-o!(
m
0)>
-I.."
0-1
:om
':0
)>
I
r
......
~
~"'tJ-I
-o""~ .m ~ m
z ::0 r= ::0 (/)
-Iomm ~:5:
:I: - "'tJ -,., _ ~
mZzm (/)....
-I )> ::0 (/).AI
OZ-l(/) ~ 0 s: c:
:EO:I:o Z =i
zmmz ~ 0
oWm)>' -I m
.." ::0 coo ::0
z~r=o ~ ~::!
)> ~ 0 m,~ .."
Z~-"'tJ I - r-
-I-Z-l m
cZG>z ~(/)
0G>0G') -I
" -I -I :I: C
~o~:t 'i ~
.. -1......-
)> ,yen
Z ffi ::0 "'tJ ~""-
~o~~ ~ ~
:J:o~~ I~ ~Z
mm-l-l I
:5: -I (/) 0 .
~::O~:t 0 ""-
w~o~ ~ Q
l;-I-II m
:tooo 0
~.?!=-I~ ~ ~
~~ffi2l
(/)z"'tJ::O
(/)-1::0:5:
~~~d
~)>U;-I
mZ-:t m
tDOOm
S;mz-I ~
I)>wm ~ ,
Qzo::o
~ 0 ..,,:5: ~.... :IJ
oZ5!~ ~'"
O(/)m.."
0-0 1.
m~(/)~ r
"""'-I-Im
00_......
oo:=i)>
o z C -0 ::0
:5: 0 -I." 0
::0 m r <
. .." (/) 0 -
m ~ 0
~~~ ~
roo -I
Q-Iz :t
5 :t 0 ~
cnmZ
-a
z
o
.
o
ffi
(J
~
o
~
g.
~
~
'~
.......
...-
e:
=
crq
~
=
Cf}
~
~
g
o
I-t
OJ
c:
1-1
CO
~
Z Zg
::
G) oi
C "~
m Z~
)>~
Z~
~ -I~
....., C S
"AI 0 en
-I~
3:!!1
m
Z
-I
.
........I ~ ~
~-. ~
IC
;l>Z
<:0
mm-u
;l>Glm
()Uj:o
-..j~n18
CDUl:oZ
OUlmUl
()-IO()
O':O()O
::e-lOZ
OlIZ-I
O':m-l:O
~Gl52~
OC()-l
~;l>-Iz
~:OOGl
~~~::E
-Io=i
~OI
Cz
zo
0-1
s:
~
lJ
III
o
~
IMPORTANT. Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, ana-s
OWNERS NAME (print): e (, '^ L. LC-
_ _ /1_ La7t irst Middle Init al /J
S r 2tJa w IE e.,rJ (j !h(jO ct'-
No, Street
~!I-
.. t i?~~~~ ~
1.
LOCATION
OF
BUILDING
Assessor's Map No,
Lj/i)-C)S
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICATION FOR
BUILDING PERMIT
Lfif
130 '
Assessor's Parcel No,
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
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential
o One Family
o Studio
o Two or more family - Enter
number of units
o Hotel, Motel, Dormitory
enter number of units
~.Jecond Dwelling
;K:l Garage
o Pool
o Other - Specify
D, DIMENSIONS
B, OWNERSHIP
~rivate
o Public
Dimensions of Structure
First Floor Area: 6 50
Second Floor Area: ..>fS -:;-
Third Floor Area:
Total Floor Area:
Full Cellar Area:
C,COST
TOTA}"cOST OF IMPROVEMENT
~ '1C;~ (;)('0
,
Detail scope of work by floor & provide the
square footage,
0fi2.'$~tl<f Ik- -Sbrj WOaJ ,fram
~ ~'!&- tam/lj {se,"o"d -Iwe4~
';,'fi't, ll1~e..r Iwf:!:j a'(O j e:, -
I ~_ SltH11L- 6 ~.s r :J;.- J:: ;Z ~ -+-/(70 r
~r .5 F ::!:--
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
For new buildings and additions, complete Parts D-N
for Demolition, com lete onl Part 1" for all others ski to 4,
F, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME
~Wood frame
o Other - Specify
G, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING
Ji Gas 0 Electricity
o Oil 0 Heat Pump
o Other - Specify
H, TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
o Public
J2(frivate (septic tank, etc,)
K, ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE. A ':>
No, of fireplaces / {~Vl~ ide
No, of Wood Stoves
Other:
~..~
[M t;U+
\. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
o Public
;a Private (well)
Number of Bedrooms
J, SMOKE DETECTORS
No. of Detectors -:?
See Plan for Location
Number of Bathrooms
Full ~ Partial
~
- --
3. Continued
,
M. ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness R Value ~
, ( ~ 111 - /2-
Foundation or Floor insulation _ P71~5 \~d "t- ~ ~
'-' -f:t -" / 177-11
Wall Insulation r::~ b - /?x;. r-.J;.
Ceiling or Roof Insulation ~ -- 104 if ~ kt // P1-70
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass ~ Double Glass Storm
,
Doors: Insulated Yes ,K No Weatherstripped: Yes ,:>( No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: 1f),5""%
, :
N, STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
Applicant Is .equl.ed to submo complete strucMalframlng plans wllh application due fo the complexity of the strucMe, ilfhe
following information is insufficient for proper plan review, 5 l). peri () f' IN df / / ~
Foundation },- - -:tP 3
Footing size: /0 I{ Footing reinforcing:
p~ ~ /1 ;"/
Wall material: 5t2fX2 1" ~ all thickness: /0 l'ij
Wall height: C(, Wall reinforcing: d:tLl
Pier or column size: '7 ~T/ lot ~ Pier or column spacing: Ii" /() "......
Pier or column footing size: 1~~l/6 '" Pier or column reinforcing: *t.{
No, of crawl space vents: n 1ft Crawl space: SilFUIl o Partial
/ LiIL-
"3 Ik; " ,( k q. i, 1.f A,c.tJf/r1t . /) I/O~
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: X / l{ Support Spacing:
First Floor Framing Joist size: .2-- J( l-z.. Maximum Span: " 64- Maximum Spacing: /6// tJ.C
rz. -
Second Floor Framing Joist size: J-, x: ,1- Maximum Span: /h" f"/ i6 // o. C-.
. -0 Maximum Spacing:
Ceiling Framing Joist size: 1 )<~ Maximum Span: /0" -() /" Maximum Spacing: /6:rO,t:
~ xftl f" /'
Roof Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: 1- -0 Maximum Spacing: /6 r IJ C
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 Usel FEE CALCULATIONS
!yY7 5~
II 7 1 ;l.P dE cl<..s
-
J00~
X'7 .-
, ' ~
~~
-,'
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 L u?;> ? Total Land Are", I Z ':1-) ftJ Z 6r.:t-
, ............ k- )C) ~
Frontage on Street: 57J' 6 __ Lot No,: . J -Z-
Plan Book No. and Page' Land Court Plan NO.': .", ~-151 '1 - &-
Date Lot Purchased: ,?/15 I/J> Certificate No.: ~ 0 ~75 ~ .
I / Name of Previous Owner: VB L '.iL' ;- n(! Jleus'7
' 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
Yes No
If YES: Plan Book and Page No,: Date - -
DIMENSIONS l/f/-t)// ~ 'f. /' /-'.f- ~r,#+
8/ -7~
Distance from Property Lines: FRONTZ:; -0 --- REAR LEFT f j -- RIGHT 0--
Distance between Principal and Secondary Dwelling: 4//->--Y (12ft. minimum) -Z tf 5....-
Height of structure above finish grade: N ''2. 4 " ~/.. E -Z II /'5''''' S '?'1/3 w
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed "1.- On-site "
GROUND COVER
Principal Dwelling: ~ S=icr-
Secondary Dwelling: b5?2 38a:;J
Addition: Total: SF.
Garage: Allowable: yf33ff' SF.
Accessory Building: 2.:j~
Swimming Pool:
Other:
MISCELLANEOUS
Was a request to "Deleonlne Applicability of the Protection Act" med wOh the Nantucket ConseNatlon 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 N~ JZ
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
~ APPROVEO $
-
Date: 'A, \ <J
Zoning Officer
..,5. IJENTIFICATION - 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 he..by cert.y that the pmposed wort< ;5 authorized by the ownec of ..co,d and fhat I have been authorized by the ownec to make
this application as his authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction,
ens-s1
sz:;g- S;?';"-
~
1,
Owner or
Lessee
Builder's License C~- (}':ftj6Cj6
//
2.
Contractor
Address Telephone #
"7 rOV ~~/f/t }bel dFi"
~",fvcjM: Ad tJZ-5"50/
$t)<"6 - $~ s-- g ~z:.r-
Print name
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Plans Review Required ....,..., .J ~
~-r.- J-.? I 3'/ 1',("
HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION VO~../
SEPTIC -/ // //7' c: 4 d.. .. ~ . . 7:..1 Z,#'JIpPl"" ~ g, _ CJ ~ /ZA)
..., ..If pi r. - .,4......
, , 7 -,r
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 (^--{ ~4;- Ji ~ \ -- Use Group
Permit Issued 0- '\:) ~l ,,"\
\.
Occupancy Load
::1 60 Census No, /0/
Building ;;;2 / /~
Permit Fee
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of ~O:a~ ~ ~;0.-5---
Certificate of Occupancy
Building Commissioner
'0
m
:0
:j
:!!
o
~
m
o
-n
o
o
o
C
"'tI
)>
Z
o
-<
z
o
-I
:J:
-
en
("')
)>
:D
C
$
c:
(f)
-I
m
m
c
-
CJ)
"'tJ
r-
~
m
c
-
z
)>
("')
o
z
en
"'tJ
-
("')
\, g
c::
en
'tJ
r-
)>
C')
m
o
z
-I
J:
m
'tJ
JJ
m
s:
-
en
m
en
.
OJ
c
r
CJ
z
G">
Z
en
"'tI
m
o
-i
o
:0
"''''0-1
)>m::I:
:O:D(;i
)>~"'O
(/)=1m
:Om:D
mo~
)> -
(/)::I:-I
0)>(1)
zen::I:
)>z)>
mOl
~-II
"'Oool
:oom
>::0
0::0
::1m::
oZm
)>0-
mmz
10<
!'T'o)>
:DC
-0
(I)
zO')
0::
-10
"'Oz
:0-1
O::I:
0(1)
m."
m:D
20
z::
G')
0-1
0::I:
zm
:::10
z~
5m
Co
en."
!<-
-I en
o~
om
0-
::."
"'0-1
I::I:
mm
-I
o:E
zo
)>:0
(/)"
:0)>
mo
Om
C:o
--I
:o_
m."
on
z~
(l)m
~o
0'"
:::10
00
zo
enc
::I: "'0
)>
~z
mO
ol-<
m::E
m-
zF
enOl
(5m
z-
m(l)
o~
)>m
zo
Oc
C"'C
~~
m:o
Om
Ol-l
-<c
-I:D
::I:Z
mo
)>."
"'C-I
"'C::I:
:0-
oen
"'C"'C
:om
-:0
~~
m=i
zO
(/)z
~!<
0)>
-f."
O-f
:om
. :0
)>
I
I
~
0-...
:'.:t"'C-f
-0.,,-1 ::I:
z:op::I: m - OJ
-Iomm :0 en
::I: - "'C ~ "'C
mz- - m
-f )> z m en(/) :0
OZ-l~
::E 0 ::I: 0 ~ 0 ~-I C
zmmz z
o(l)Ol)> ~-I 0
." :0 co' 0 m
Zm-o :0
I I f"\ -I
)> ~ 0 m ll. :"l :n
Z~-"'C ~ - r-
-IZZ:::l m
~G)G)z ~ ~ en
"-loG) ~-I
.~o~g~~~c
)> -I )> (I) \
6ffi~riI ~
-IO~:D
ffi~~~
::(1)-1-1
)>-1)> en
(I):Dz::I:
(l)Co)>
)>0 I
0-1-11
::I:OOO 0 ~
~~-I~O~
m ~ ::I:." Z
~)>mo
(l)z"'C:O
en-l:O::
;:!mO-l
==iZ<O
m)>w-I
Ol~o::I:
~mzm
1)>(/)-1
gzo~
zc.,,~
G>_ en
OZ-l
oen::I:O
c"'Cm."
mm(/)-I
.......o-l::I:
oo-f;x>m
oO-f)>
ozc"'C
~0-f"'C
:o."m,
. (/)-
m 0
c)>~
-z-
500
Z-fZ
G)::I:O
(/)mZ
--<iI!II
z
o
.
o
ffi
n
n
o
~
Sa
n
~
~
.... .
......
~
S.
(1q
H
=
r:n
~
n
g
o
I-t
:r:C
~z
<:D
mm"
~Glm
oUi:D
-.J~rri8
~Ul:DZ
oUlmUl
;::-1 DO
;eOOO
",-IOZ
;:::r:Z-I
GlmJ:J~
rGl~O
~~~::!
"':DOZ
"'~:DGl
~Zcn::E
-ID~
~O:I:
Cz
ZO
D-I
OJ
C
1-1
CO
~
Z Zg
G) O!
.,,~
C~
. Z~
m :t>~
.... Z ~
:J> -I ~
~ Cg
,.AI 0 en
--I"
3:~
m
Z
--I
Z
\C)
-a
m
~
~s:
-o~ ~
~" ~
< ~
~~' --I ~ ~~
~*~-, e.
:x> en
-f
"
m
m
,. -th
..
s:
~
\J
llJ
o
~
, H~~r-~..
. ~--- -v 1:: f\fE D RtCEIVcD L{ ( :s- - (') .:J--
- MAY 0 6 2rm5
'-"t.' BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
NANTUC t APR
BUIL6/NG KEY 2 6 2005
DEPT NANru APPLICATION FOR
ZONING CKE:r BUILDING PERMIT
DE;PT
IMPORTANT. Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
1. OWNERS NAME (print): ;1zJ:-{)'t'te (;fd(A. to ~ LI. C
LOCATION .5"C(.:5J;. Last First Middle. Initial.)
OF _ ___- _~wfcer?JO !?lOge;
BUILDING No, Street '1'1
Assessor's Map No, Assessor's Parcel No, /30
2. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING - All applicants complete Parts A-E
A, TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT B, OWNERSHIP D. DIMENSIONS
~ew Building ~rivate Dimensions of Structure
o Addition o Public First Floor Area: "'Z. ~=15. ::;- r
o Alteration Second Floor Area: z--61'f 5~
o Repair, replacement C,COST Third Floor Area:
o Demolition TOTY,OST OF IMPROVEMENT Total Floor Area: 5S-'ICf 5F
o Moving Full Cellar Area: ~ 'ff-?S- $ P:
, I) '1'15': CJ(!)()
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential Detail scope of work by floor & provide the
~ne Family square footage,
7:;J.yt! I ~ c;brt/ IVoocl frflt7le-
o Studio
o Two or more family - Enter
number of units ~r:~{ - I:;~~ _~+;u{)utP ~)t1 ..
o Hotel, Motel, Dormitory
eriter number of units +-1 Ii.; +1':; U. :5~ Z~ 1/1-r
o Second Dwelling _ Z6 - SF _ -;1 ~ i-t'I/,'5hd/ k5&.,,;~-f-
o Garage
o Pool
o Other - Specify
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING For new buildings and additions, complete Parts D-N
for Demolition, complete onlv Part 1., for all others skip to 4,
F. PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME H, TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL K, ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE
~ood frame o Public No, of fireplaces '=f-
o Other - Specify J(.Private (septic tank, etc,) No, of Wood Stoves
Other:
I. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
G, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING o Public
~Gas o Electricity )(private (well) L RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
GOil o Heat Pump Number of Bedrooms 6'
J, SMOKE DETECTORS r
o Other - Specify ~ Number of Bathrooms
No, of Detectors 6 /
Full Partial -~
See Plan for Location
3. Continued
.
'. , M, ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness
R Value
1fL~~\'~ Z)--t- '....... PJ -/7- ~
Foundation or Floor insulation
Wall Insulation 5"" .kz- // PJ -Iq
Ceiling or Roof Insulation -'i~' 1 - 13~-fI- 8~ ,r/ ('J-?CJ
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass X Double Glass Storm
~
Doors: Insulated Yes X No Weatherstripped: Yes )( No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: /JA3 o~
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, 5 tit P t t'" 10 11 W A /,f.,.?
Foundation '[).k /1' ::iJ:-3
Footing size: / i.f - Footing reinforcing:
Wall material: ~ fS:r ~C Wall thickness: /01, -r
Wall height: {O./ Wall reinforcing: ~'I
Pier or column size: ;. ~I/ lolly Pier or column spacing: Biaft~ VVCt 1)$
Pier or column footing size: L 'bN X t '6/.-' Pier or column reinforcing: $t.(
No, of crawl space vents: S- Crawl space: XFUIl o Partial
3 /J{~ Ig// At'c.:tc/clfn LVL Support Spacing: /1( , "If'
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: .,.0
~~rz. 5" // ' /1'
First Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: I ,.. 0 Maximum Spacing: {6' t? ~
1- X 1"2 L6'" rr 1'/ '
Second Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: - tJ Maximum Spacing: If, o. c..
~x.~ 1 ~ 0/1' J6~r
Ceiling Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: '1." Maximum Spacing: 0, C.
2- )( 10 ~ .~. /6 '",I' (). C.
Roof Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: I ~ - () 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 Department Use) FEE CALCULATIONS
/. n 0 (lQ.D S-/~ -\.......~ :)'y? -Sf'
::; ..) 5;C f?w o.fll0.-v
. ;JLtJ .
'3 J .g7 ~f 4E c/<'.J
~
~
' ) .0<2
. _11b1>~
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, 1"
Zoning Ois'.c' L U S, - ~ T olal Land Acea: I '). 1- > <f tY2- S F -
Frontage on Street: ~ r 6 //' ::t Lot No,: / () .,ti /2-
Plan Book No. and Page: Land Court Plan No.: "3S-e/ "(- C
Oate Lot p",chased: ;? / 'it /0 S- Cert~;cate No.: 2- 0811'1 . . /
Name of Previous Owner: Vl?~ lL C. /!1J, ~
/
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 _ / 1/1' ,/ /t' /' /r / v
Distance from Property Lines: FRONT rt-f5 -5'"1 REAR tOO -tJ LEFT ~-:f - 2 RIGHT Jt() -eJ
.
Distance between Principal and Secondary Dwelling: ' r;/ (12ft, minimum) "'2. 9 Y
Height 01 structure above finish grade: N -z. q / ...~/ E 1.5' - S 't-q/S- W
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed 2- On-site i
GROUND COVER .Z-~ -q-~
Principal Dwelling:
Secondary Dwelling: 65Z/ Total: 323'00
Addition: SF.
Garage: ''2- ?-~ Allowable: ;7 <6 ~<f{ SF.
Accessory Building:
Swimming Pool:
Other:
MISCELLANEOUS
Was a cequesllo "Delermine ApplicabWty of lhe Pcoleclion Acr filed with the Nanlucke' ConseNation 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 JZ :/-
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~
Date: 'S\'J\-S-
\ \ Zoning Officer
5. IDENTIFICATION - To be completed by all applicants
Name
Mailing address - Number, street, city and state
~ ':1- C) l d 50 ",f1r f7 d .:J!:: 6'
4/c; 11 .&c-f-ef; Jf.1
? '=1 tPldl ~u fit fhd' *6"
Aptkckt /fA ert5~-i(
1,
Owner or
Lessee
/r
2,
Contractor
Zip Code Telephone No.
as-S-t.t SO~-$JZS-
t:g<Z2s'-
Builder's License c.> 0;('5''16
Date /1)/JZ/06 SOg-&;ZS''-S
3, ~
Contact Person ~J'II6S
Works Compensation I suranCf:; Certific'dte or Affidavit must be submitted with this application,
oS- (ZJi3-6"5,-5.m:J
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 1~ // - Telephone #
?~ C/tCl' 5bU-M /77d*6'
:apt ~c Ie!; ~ / OcS-.s-y
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Jz:7g''- $2;;- &'2'Z~
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 ~g \ ----- Use Group
Permit Issued . ~ \ -; t\ \.\ ~
, \. Occupancy Load
-1"~Fto ~ Census No, /01
Building
Permit Fee
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of /1 /f~~ 9'/ YO!J---
Certificate of Occupancy
Building Commissioner
(')
m
:0
::!
'TI
o
~
m
o
'TI
o
(')
(')
c:
"'0
~
Z
(')
-<
z
9
-4
J:
-
en
(')
)>
:II
C
~
C
en
-I
m
m
c
--
en
"tJ
....
~
m
c
-
z
)>
(')
o
z
en
"tJ
-
(')
C
o
c:
en
"tJ
....
)>
(')
m
o
z
-I
J:
m
""C
:0
m
S
-
en
m
en
.
"'''''0-1
l>m::r:
:IJ:IJ(j)
:t>~""O
cn~m
:IJm:IJ
mos:
:t> _
cn:I:-I
a:t>cn
Z(/):I:
:t>Z:t>
mOr-
!<-Ir-
""0 Om
:IJOm
:t>s:o
~S:O
_ms:
(')Zm
.....'0
rl'lm-
m Z
r-c<
!"o:t>
:IJC::
-0
(/)
zO>
OS:
-10
""OZ
:IJ-I
O:I:
O(/)
m."
m:II
go
Zs:
G>
0-1
0:I:
zm
::10
Z~
5m
Co
(/)."
~-
-I(/)
o~
om
0-
S:11
""0-1
r-::r:
mm
-I
5:E
ZO
:t>JJ
en"
:03>
m(")
Om
C:c
--I
:o_
m."
0(5
z~
(/)m
~o
0'"
::10
0(")
ZO
(/)C
:I:~
~Z
mO
[[J-<
m:E
m-
zF
(/)m
G5m
Z-
m(/)
o~
:t>m
zo
Oc
0""0
~~
m:c
Om
[[J-I
-<c
-I:II
::r:z
mo
:t>."
""0-1
""O::r:
:IJ-
o(/)
"'C""O
:IJm
-JJ
~s:
m=i
-0
mz
~!:(
C1:t>
-I."
0-1
:om
. JJ
:t>
i"
I
-011-4
Z:Ili=::r:
-Iomm
::r:_ ""0
mz-
-I)>zm
OZ-l:IJ
:Eo::r:~
zmmz
O(/)m)>
.,,:Ilc(')
zm-(')
)>r-r-m
z~2""O
-I-Z-l
cz",-
o G> WI z
"-loG>
mOm-l
.:-I "'C:I:
)>-I)>(j)
z:I::II"'C
om-lm
-IOS::o
::r:oms:
mzz_
s:(/)-I-I
)>-I)>(/)
(/):Ilz:I:
(/)co)>
)>0 I
0:::1-11
:I:OOO
Cz 0
(/)... -Iz Z
mS::I:."
::J)>mo f...
(/) Z "'C:IJ .... ,
(/)-I:IlS:
:;!mO-l
~z<o
m)>(j)-I
m~o::r:
!;;;mzm
1)>(/)-1
!2Z0~
zo."s:
G>_ en
(')Z-I
a(/)::r:o
o""Oml1
mm(/)-I
......O-l::r:
CXI-Il>m
05-1)>
(")zC:""O
s: 0-1 ""0
:D."m,
. cn-
m (")
c:)>~
-z_
loa
o
--IZ
5:1:0
cnmZ
~5!m
:D(j)
S:"'C
-m
~~c:
0-
z-l
-10
om
:II
-I
'~r-
~C
z
G)
""0
:D
o
<
-
o
m
o
-I
::r:
~
z
o
.
G,
o
EB
~
o
~
~
o
Cd
~
.... .
.......
p..
5'
oq
~
t:)
C'I.l
I-tj
o
g
o
I-t
~ "
~m
fllm
*
~ ~~
~\ ~
IC
>z
<:0
mm-o
>G:>m
()cn:O
""~rri~
~Ul:oz
()UlmUl
;:-IO()
:oO()O
--IOZ
[J)IZ-l
;:m-l:O
~G:>52fi
s.~~::!
"':ooZ
~>:o(;)
ZUl~
=<!o:::j
"OI
Cz
Zo
0-1
OJ
c:
1-1
CO
~
Z Zg
G) O~
:E
C ,,~
m Z~
l>~
.... Z ~
~ -I~
.... C ~
.AJ 0 en
-I~
S~
m
Z
-I
s::
~
"0
lU
o
CD
~
,....",- ~ /,
lf11-('t:"IV
" ,.. "'_. ~\,.fJ 11.. ED ~ ~ S9S>-05
~ ~
JUN l. 3 2a05 ~:tr1-A ~ t/ ~ BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
%"6 0
NANTur 6~ 23'
BUILOING,-,KET ~:A APPLICATION FOR
/> /
DEPT / BUILDING PERMIT
....../
IMPORTANT _ Applicant to complete all items in Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
1. OWNERS NAME (print): ~l~:F ~'-J~
LOCATION Last First Middle Initial
OF 59 ~~~t:6'K()
BUILDING No, Street 'Ii{ (Y)(,hO'7
Assessor's Map No, Assessor's Parcel No. I?CJ
I
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.LA ~F
.
o Alteration Second Floor Area:
o Repair, replacement C, COST Third Floor Area:
o Demolition 4.0TAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT Total Floor Area:
o Moving '3a::> _ ooC) -t Full Cellar ArE!a: ~ SF"
,
E. PROPOSED USE
Residential Detail scope of work by floor & provide the
square footage,
o One Family \ <;"1"Oe y
o Studio Co~~~\.'C!T WOOD \=~ tea L-
o Two or more family - Enter Ho~ 2G:.4-sF
number of units Wl1'H
o Hotel, Motel, Dormitory
enter number of units
o Second Dwelling
o Garage
;et-Pool
~ Other - Specify ~ l,.. HtH)~
3. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING For new buildings and additions, complete Parts D-N
for Demolition, comDlete onlv Part 1" for all others skiD to 4.
F, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF FRAME H, TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL K, ACCESSORY HEAT SOURCE
)!f Wood frame o Public No, of fireplaces WA.
o Other - Specify $Private (septic tank, etc,) No, of Wood Stoves
Other:
I. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
G, PRINCIPLE TYPE OF HEATING o Public
o Gas o Electricity l:ii(Private (well) L RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
)!'f Oil o Heat Pump Number of Bedrooms tJ/~
J, SMOKE DETECTORS ,
o Other - Specify \ Number of Bathrooms
No, of Detectors
Full Partial
See Plan for Location
--s ;;-
3. Oontinued
,
M, ENERGY CONSERVATION Type Thickness R Value
Foundation or Floor insulation ~B>' M1T \e:> ." ~-38
Wall Insulation r\~' ~lT S~ ~~
Ceiling or Roof Insulation "Flts- MlT ~ f2.. 50
Window Glazing: Insulated Glass X Double Glass Storm
.
Doors: Insulated Yes ~ No Weatherstripped: Yes X No
Percentage of Window Area to Wall Area: ~-S Ob
N. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING
Applicant is required to submit complete structural framing plans with application due to the complexity of the structure, if the
following information is insufficient for. proper plan review,
Foundation It)'' ~ "2-0 .' ~
Footing size: Footing reinforcing:
Wall material: 8" 6HlJ Wall thickness: !5"
Wall height: "1Lq Wall reinforcing: ~
Pier or column size: ~ Pier or column spacing: ~.. t..
- "3ot~~ l'l. Pier or column reinforcing: ~
Pier or column footing size:
No. of crawl space vents: \ Cray!1 space:){ Full o Partial
FRAMING: Main Carrying members: Size: (-3.') \~ )( ~t HY'k?OUAt1 LY.v Support Spacing: 8 \..0 l' 1:-
First Floor Framing Joist size: "2lC.(2.. Maximum Span: \G,LO" Maximum Spacing: --1(0 l(:)r6
Second Floor Framing Joist size: Maximum Span: . Maximum Spacing:
Q. )C. B \ \: 0" IAt'll' Or-V
Ceiling Fra.m.ing Joist size: Maximum Span: G:,'" Maximum Spacing:
...
Roof Framing Joist size: '2..l' lD Maximum Span: 1"2.-' - C Maximum Spacing: \.\., .... (j .. ~ .
.
Roof Truss Applicant must submit design calculations for all wood trusses stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,
SKETCH OF PROPOSED WORK (minor projects)
NOTES AND DATE (For Deoartment Use) FEE CALCULATIONS
We) 3/05 r
;L6YS'~ ~.:"I- #o./:-$-
j tr"'T .J r /l~(jj4
J 61 .f r /Dit-A.l2c;f?
-----:::-
'7 (, 7/
,/l!ri;o 0
, ~
. e;rJ -? ',,<)L
, 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: lAtb,-3 Total Land Area: l 'Z" 7 f ~lJz.- S-F
Of"'
Frontage on Street: ~(p . ~ ~ . - 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 451..5 LEFT i20 f_O t RIGHT 12S i.4
Distance between Principal and Secondary Dwellin~ ----1S l~S (12ft, minimum) \5\..c(~:t
Height of structure above finish grade: N \S \-9. E lc;\-.9l{. S r~ l 7 Jfi W
Number of off-street parking spaces: Enclosed \-JjA.. On-site
GROUND COVER
Principal Dwelling: 'Z S1S 'S-F
Secondary Dwelling: Co So SP
Addition: Total: 3789 SF.
Garage: Allowable: 35~ SF.
Accessory Building: ZocP4 c;aF
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
Date: lq\ V~\ c; APPROVED BY~
\ \ Zoning Officer
'5. IDENTIFICATION - To be completed by all applicants
Name
Mailing address - Number, street, city and state
1,
Owner or
Lessee
p:f
4/7
Zip Code Telephone No,
2,
Contractor
/1'"
.fC8-gzS"--
OZ y.s-L( 8&,?r-
Builder's License ~M 'l6
3,
Contact Person
//
Date
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.YL-VA,).,l ~t:- ~~
'STe"W~ I \IT c::?S ~ 72.
Telephone # ~2 - '2...~ 3 --4 S c;f
Print name
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
6. PLAN REVIEW RECORD - For Office Use
Plans Review Required
HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION ~6c9'?' .,.~ ;;A,J'"
, r
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 (oj 4 3!D.5-- Use Group
Permit Issued
Occupancy Load
Building I ~ Census No, J~
Permit Fee -.57 7 j)tO(
Approved by:
Date of Issuance of 75.//~ 0y6J~
Certificate of Occupancy BUilding Commfssioner
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Cert, No. 20BB4
Docu, Nos, 103936 & 103937
From TRANSFER Certificate Nos, 1 B172 and 6BB5 Originally Registered
December 19, 1997, arid June 22,1973 in Registration Book 35 Page B5 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 B on plan numbered 35B19-D. drawn by Blackwell and Associates, Inc"
surveyors, dated April 9, 1997, filed with Certificate of Title No, 6BB5 at the Registry District of Nantucket
County,
So much of said land as lies within the limits of the Way, shown on plan numbered
35B19-A filed with Certificate ofTitle,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 1 B,5 of the
General Laws, and that the title of said VBDC, 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; and to 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,
Hecorder
Case # 35B19
Purported Address of Property:
59 SHAWKEMO'ROAD
116 POLPISROAD
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO, 20BB4
I.DTZ 5~ ON PLAN NO.358I'l-P ALEC
WITH CERTIFICATE No. (g~'S HAS
BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND PLAN NO.~E.
SHOWING SUCH CHANGES IS FILED wITH
CERTIFICATE NO ::/, eM!."\
FURTHER CERTIFICATES FOR SAID LOrL-
S+ ~ ON SAID EARLIER PLAN WILL
NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BV
THE COURT. (NOW LOTS '1) 0 J If I- 1'2..)
.,
;j.;
--
MenlOl'anda of EncUnlb1'ances
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Cert No:
20884
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: ~-.--. -;;;to ~
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
Terms: RESTRICTIONS ON LOT 1 PL 35819-B AND LOT 87 PL 5388-Q FOR THE BE~
Signature: "')0--..... --r' Y--:~~
.......... df.. ~;..oc
'7
& OTHERS
53656
Kind: RESTRICTION
In Favor Of: WESTBROOK, ROBERTS-TR
Date of Instr: May 29, 1991
Date of Reg: May 29,1991 Time of Reg: 03:10 PM
Terms: RESTRICTIONS ON UNREGISTERED PARCELS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT
Signature: "')0-- ~ --r' y.~1. .
,#-.. "ICE
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
Terms: BUILDING RESTRICTIONS ON LOT 5 PL 35819-0 TO BENEFIT LOT 8 PL 358
Signature: ~- ~ -;;;to f"ir-*,,"IC~1
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: <::::L-___ --r' Y--: #..
.,..--- #-. . ~ ~'~l
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: ~ -;;;to ~
Page 1 of 3
Memoranda of Encumbrances
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Cert No:
20884
Document Number:
10393B
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: ")0-----. -;;to /-"i~#~'--<1
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: ")0-- -.A-. -;;to ~
110911
Kind: RELEASE
In Favor Of: VBDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 23, 2005
Date of Reg: February 2B, 2005 Time of Reg: 02:30 PM
Terms: RELEASE, TERMINATE, RESCIND & ANNUL THE TERMS & PROVISIONS OF
Signature: ~ -;;to f'<<.~~f
111001
Kind: RESTRICTION
In Favor Of: VBDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 23,2005
Date of Reg: March OB, 2005 Time of Reg: 01:15 PM
Terms: RESTRICTIONS ON LOTS 9, 10 & 12 PL 35B19-E
Signature: ")0-..... . --r y.~~
-...... df. . ~ 'f.
111002
Kind: PARTIAL RELEASE
In Favor Of: VBDC LLC
Date of Instr: February 2B, 2005
Date of Reg: March DB, 2005 Time of Reg: 01 :15 PM
Terms: RELEASE OF LOTS 10 & 12 PL 35819-E FROM DOC 103939
Signature: ")0-...... --r /-"i~#.
-___ df. . ~
f
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: ~ -;;to ~
Page 2 of 3
Cert No:
20884
Mem.ora11.da Of E11.cum,bra11.ces
Book: 00000 Page: 0
Document Number:
111004
Kind: DEED
In Favor Of: ACKQUIRE GROUP LLC
Date of Instr: February 23, 2005
Date of Reg: March 08, 2005 . Time of Reg: 01:15 PM
Tenns: LOTS 10 & 12 ON PLAN 35819-E AND THIS CERTIFICATE CANCELLED AS T
Signature: ~....*-- -;;:r. ~~~f
114869
Kind: RELEASE
In Favor Of: SOUCAI, 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-D from restriction #4 in Doc 79359
Signature: ~- *-- -;;:r. ~,g#"f:.:.
. '7
End of Document_End of Document_End of Document
tIr P ~~. / ~J
I jJ:F(6lJO
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, V ALCQURT, et at.
v,
Crawford N, KIRKPATRICK, 1\1, et at.
Phillip R, MARTELL Y, et at.
v,
Crawford N, KIRKPATRICK, 111, et at.
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 Swan sea by-law's frontage
requirement to Gale Martelly's lot.
11. UNDISPUTED FACTS
Gale Martelly's parcel that is the focus of this case
consists of lots IA 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 A venue, 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 Avenue 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 Avenue,
Mrs, Martelly's separate frontage portions are
connected behind the Carrvolo lot by a forty-foot-wide
L-shaped strip running back from Wilbur Avenue 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 Avenue,
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' appeat. The Board stood by its interpretation
that the bylaw's frontage requirement does not require
contiguous frontage,
111. 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-
<<J 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 81 P, 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 final determination 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," Gatto::i 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
DracZ/t, 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, [FN I]
FN I. 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 terms and consistently with the
purposes of frontage requirements, Section VIII 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 (150) feet." The by-law does not contain a
Page 7
definition 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, S S 17,13--12,18
(1995); A.L Eno & W,V, Hovey, Real Estate Law, S
23,1, et seq, (1995); DA Randall & O,E, Franklin,
Municipal Law and Practice, S 616 (1993); R,M,
Anderson, American Law of Zoning. S 9,65 (3d
ed,I986 and Supp,1992); Annot. 96 A,L.R, 1367
(\ 964 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 ,\femorial Hospital, Inc.
v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Sew 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 NantZ/cket, 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 (\ 982),
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
<<J 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 pennitting
divided frontage, the court concludes that the by-law's
frontage requirement can only be interpreted as
requiring a minimum of ISO feet of frontage running
continuously along a public way or an approved way or
street within the by-law's tenns, 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 Swan sea by-law,
*4 This conclusion is further supported by the lot
width requirement that follows the frontage provision in
the same sentence of Section VII1 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 ISO-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
undennining 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 ISO feet along a street. In the absence of
contrary language in the by-law, the town meeting's
enactment cannot reasonably be construed as pennitting
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 pennit issued
to Phillip R, Martelly on May 8, 1995,
Not Reported In N,E,2d, 1997 WL 100876
(Mass,Super.)
END OF DOCUMENT
(Q 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 [FN I]
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,
Dec ided Oct. 2 I. 1999,
Further Appellate Review Denied lan, 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 l, Hely, l" granted summary judgment in favor
of abutters, Landowners, board and building inspector
appealed, The Appeals Court, Spina, 1., 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
[I] 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, S 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 detennined on all
the evidence with no benefit to the abutter from the
presumption, M,G.L.A,
c,40A.S17,
[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, S 17,
[7] Zoning and Planning ~254
4141<254
Even if town's zoning by-law permitted split frontage to
~ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig, U,5, Govt. Works,
718 N,E.2d 389
(Cite as: 48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, 718 N.E.2d 389)
satisfy minimum frontage requirement of ISO 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 of law, and is to be detennined 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
hannonious whole,
[II] Appeal and Error ~856( I)
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,IO(6)
148k2,10(6)
(Fonnerly 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,LA c, 41, ~ 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, jJ, [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, 1.
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
pennit 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
tenn "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
affinn,
The material facts are not in dispute, Philip's parents
acquired approximately 19,5 acres in Swansea on
December IS, 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,
[I] 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
(D 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
3 8,09 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 Martel1y'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. ~ 81 p, [FN8] On October
12, 1994, the parents conveyed parcel A to Gale
Martel1y, trustee of the Martelly **392 Land Trust. To
date, parcel X has not been conveyed to the parents,
FN5, The Swansea zoning by-law, * \II
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, * III B( I )(b),
prohibits reducing a parcel to the point where
it does not comply with frontage requirements,
Compare Sorenli 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. 4 I. ~ 81 L (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. 4 I. ~ 81 P. does not constitute
approval under the zoning by-law, See
Cricones v. Planning Bd. of DraCllI, 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, ~ 15, 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. tiled within thirty days of the
response to their ~ 7 request for enforcement.
See r 'okes v, Avery W. Lovell, Inc., 18
Mass.App.Ct, 471. 479. 468 N,E.2d 271
(1984),
The Martel1ys 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, [FN 10] The abutters filed a
complaint on November 27, 1995, seeking judicial
review of the board's decision pursuant to G.L. c, 40A,
~ 17,
FN 10, On appeal. neither party has addressed
these issues: they are. therefore. waived. See
Mass.R,A,P. (I6)(a)(4). as amended. 367
Mass, 921 (1975).
[2] I, Standing. The appel1ants 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
ibl2006 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.
[31[4][5] A decision of a zoning board may be
challenged only by a "person aggrieved" within the
meaning of ~ 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, Inc, 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 detennined 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 III,
653 N,E.2d 589; Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v, LaCava,
supra at 215, 326 N,E.2d 348; Barvenik v, Aldermen
ofNe,vton, 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 ~ 17, The challenge
must be supported by evidence, See Watros v, Greater
Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn., 421 Mass, at
III, 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 ~ 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 ~ 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 Redel',
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][ 1 0] The by-law does not define the tenn
"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 detennined 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 Kur: 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 hannonious 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 tenn" "frontage ..,
to mean a single, continuing property line of a lot
running along a public way, an approved way. or a
street that confonns to **394 the by-law," [FN II] We
do not reach the broader issue because the language of
the by-law is dispositive of the issue,
FN II, 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 appellants have cited
no authority which has considered the issue,
See Bobrowski. Massachusetts Land Use and
Planning Law ~ 12,7,2 (1993); Healy.
Massachusetts Zoning Manual ~~ 17,13-17,20
(1995): Eno & Hovey, Real Estate *~ 23,) et
seq, (1995); Randall & Franklin. Municipal
Law and Practice ~ 616 (1993); Anderson.
American Law of Zoning ~ 9,65 (3d ed, 1986
& Supp,1992); AnnoL "a/idity and
Construction of Zoning Regulations
Prescribing a .\1inimum Width or Frontage
for Residence Lots. 96 A.LR,2d 1367.
1367-1392 (1964 & Supp, 1993 & 1999),
[II] Section VIII F of the Swan sea 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 Ke/~v v, Avon Tape, Inc, , 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 appeaL" 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
EHS v, K.ES, 424 Mass, lOll, 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.L c, 41, ~~ 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 \300,
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 I (6 X 5,25 ) Available for Offline Print
END OF DOCUMENT
<<J 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig, U,S, Govt, Works,