Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010-77 ~. .', " ~. ,. #. " I J ;7r.: \ ~JL, I ~. " '~-;;-oo.-r- :...---- ~ \OW N (~L~ L::1Lb-T7 I acres in size located at Warren's Landing, The petitioner r \ I Ic intends In the matter of the petition of Fisher's Landing Conserva- tion Trust (010-77): Attorney Richard Glidden appeared for the petitioner. ~1r. Glidden stated that the tract involved is 197 e to develOp the area as an 87-10t subdivision utilizing 27 acres of the total area. Applicable"zoning permits 98 lots,but as a clus- I i- , The area is now un de- i volped except for 20 or 2b ,single family homes in the generalarea\ The relief sought by the petitioner consists of two matters: I I =-'5: I~ ter, the total occupalicy w.ill be 87 lots. to 'abolish the required building set back line. a variance I-:L \ Mr. Glidden presented the basic development plan with several \ overlays to exhibit the locus definitive plan, lot sizes, utility ~ approval of a cluster subdivision by specia.l permit and ~ >. \1 I' I \ easement area, soil limitations for septic tankdevelopment, flood hazard areas, wetlands, drainage, phases of development, p~otected\ ,\ . and reserved areas, traffic flow, and vegetation. The plans were \ t~ reviewed in d",tail by Borord members with Mr. Glidden, Mr. Brainardj \ Trustee, and Mr. Chapman, architect. I Mr. Glidden reviewed the protected and reserve area plans andl \, stated that the Town would receive a ten foot bicycle path to be \ I' II. located along the Madaket Road and a four-acre parcel on the shore \ '\ of Long Pond for recreation and preservation uses. i . \ Mr. Chapman spoke to the Board concerning the aesthetic desig I of the project and the necessity to equate the design with the ViI I \ lage of ~conset. \ its placement in \'1 .' ment of \ Without The success of the project and the importance ofl this undeveloped area requires the random place- \ I structures including the placement on and near street line~ \ this scattering, it is impossible to create the feeling .\ \ \ , \ - I I ! - ----- -..- 0- __".___-----------. ~;;-- . ,~, ;~~u;.~:._:~: ___.. 4__ _,_...,~~.....:___~~~.~c;.~-__::_.;;:::.:. f"""'-' .,. . . ...... " . . . . ,r. '---;-.-1' \ // / . appearance of 'Sconset, and the project, without that benefit, \ or aesthelically. Chapman em-I [ 1Will not be successful econ~ically II phasized the need to be as close to II I was possible I ate. II I I a 'Sconset Village concept as , I I the provisions \ 0 \ \ ~ I Brainard stated that the owner and the Planning Board had entered 1 I into an acceptable covenant which was then presented to the Board i . and is incorporated herein. Ur. Visco, C tRirman of the Planning \ Board, affirmed the acceptability of the covenant and stated that all of the design factors, roads, septic' systems, and the Placemen~ yard set back area, were approved by \"' in order to make t~is project architecturally accur- At the request of Mr. Hyde. the Board reviewed . . Mr. governing the regulating of open areas and reserved lands. )WS: ~ IOf houses within the front I the Planning Board. Mr. William Klein, NP&EDC director. stated that the cluster I I plan and 'ancillary plans had' been reviewed by him and found atcept ,able. He urged favorable treatment of the petitioner's requests. II Mr. Glidden and Mr. Chapman reviewed the restrictions cover- ~ \ I I ing the lot uses and development and discussed the planned land- scaping program including a $5,000.00 lot allowance to purchasers. A resident caretaker will occupy quarters on the site. There were no other speakers. II II was II \ I II \ I. " 1\ The Chairman read the report of the Planning Board. There no additional correspondence. 1\ \ \ I \1 I' i\ \1 \: I \ i I, ~b.&!',_""" ,,_ ......_..,.. .~ I. u-_..'-r- .-~ . " 9 7" // </ ./ I l( /11 r After due deliberatiori ~nd consideration of the report of the Planning Board, the Board found: 1. That the subdivision design promotes the more efficient use of the land area in that it preserves the majority of land c area in a natural state and consolidates building areas and struc-~ tures for ease of road main~enance, fire protection, and security. 2. The preservation of the open areas is vital to the ecolo-- I gical balance in the area particularly concerning the proximity of Long Pond and will insure perpetuation of existing. scenic view, cover for wlldlife, and encourage the growth of natural cover. ows: 3. The design comtemplates adequate treatment of waste mater; ial and protects the existing characteristics of the water table and water supply and enEures.the surrounding areas are safe from pollution. 4. The proposed cluster subdivision is within the intent of the By-Law and promotes bene:fi ts for the inhabitants of the Town by reason of the conserva~ion reservations of open area and the allowed use by the inhabitants of natural areas and access' to Long, Pond. 5. ,I . . I ber of lots is less than ~llowed upon which dwellings could be I The area of the tract is greater than ten acres; the num- constructed under other provisions of.~he by-law; each lot. contain . . , . '. -. '. . ,n excess of 10,000 square feet and has :a frontage of 35' or more; the minimUm front yard of 15' is established subject to the peti- tion for a variance outlined below; and, the remaining provisions of Sec. IV-A. 2B, 7., 8., and 9. are satisfied. 6. The open land restriction as submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Sec. IV;A. 2(10) and (11) are in accord with ':' I I I, ~_..!L-,_.___.___.. -----~ .i:$- ----- ---.. '--'f' \ ,.. :. ..-.:...-...,-,: ,.' .'" .. ,/ ,"// / / l' ~th the By-Law pr~visions in that the open area is conveyed to inhabitants of the Town fnr purposes specified and approved it the By-Law. 7. The report of the Planning Board is acceptable and meets the requirements of Sec. IV-A 2.C. of the By-Law. The plan of design and aesthetic appearance of the projec \ \; I is dependent on the ability to duplicate the aspects of a Nantucke i village similar to the Siasconset area. In order to accompliSh i \ this appearance, the relaxati~n of the set back requirement to al- the front line, near the front line, or at random~ The success of the village concept is )WS: a vital part of the appearance of the project and essential if the \ cluster concept is to be employed and the greater part of the area preserved in a natural state. ~ 9. The By-Law contemplates the neeessity to abandon dimen- ~ sional criteria by specificallY allowing minimum area and frontage \1 relief. Additional relief is allowed by law. I 10. The project of the petitioner is jeopardized if the front! ~ line set back is maintained, and for this hardship,-and for the real ~ sons set out in 8. and 9. above, the set back requirement can be \ 1\\\,\ abandounpeodn' \ 1\ motion of lIr. Hyde, seconded by Mrs. Backus, it was un- \\ animously voted as follows: II I I . , allow1ng a cluster subdiVision pursuant to Sec. IV-A 2. of the By- \ Law is granted; and, I \\ \ 1 I \ 1\ 1\ II '\ \, J\ 8. That the request cf the pe~itioner for a special permit 1. 2. That the relief requested as a variance to require no front yard 3et back or oide yard set off lines is granted. \ "'-~,l. ' ~~ Q.'-4 \ ~I:-~~~ _ G L?/ A1d ~~a_\ \ I '~,.,.~'ft...;< '^\. at" L-\'-a.u:.- ,.-..J . '. .. ,/ .......~~... " ~ . , oj '/ /' / .,7~/" C ERr I F I CAT ION In Re: Petition of Fisher's Landing Conservation Trust On June 2, 1977. the Board of Appeals filed its decision in the above referenced petition with the Nantucket Town Clerk, said decision granting the relief request~d by Petitioners. It has been brought to the attention of the Board of Appeals that there are three clerical errors in said decision, being as follvws: 1) The decision was not dated. The decision was made on "':~~ ~ \ , 197:7. and should have been on the copy of the decision filed with the Town Clerk. 2) The fourth paragraph of Page One of the decision reads as follows: "Mr. Glidden revi.ewed the protected and reserve area plans and stated that the Town would receive a ten foot bicycle path to be located along the ~ladaket Road and a four-acre parcel on the shore of Long Pond for recreation and preservation uses." The paragraph should read as follows: "Mr. Glidden reviewed the protected and reserve area plaps and stated that the Town would receive a ten foot bicycle path to be located along the Madaket Road, and a four acre parcel on the shore of Long Pond is to be conveyed to the Town or is to be conveyed to an appropriate con- servation organization or is to be covered with restrictions insuring that it wi 11 remain open." 3. Paragraph six of the Board's findings reads as follows: "The open land restriction as submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Sec. IV-A. 2(10) and (11) are in accord with the By-Law pro- visions in that the open area is conveyed to the inhabitants of the Town for purposes specified and approved in the By-Law." The paragraph should read as follows: "The open land re~triction as .submi tted by the petitioner in accordance with S~c. IV-A. 2(10) and (11) are in accord with the By-Law pro- visions in that the open area is to be either; a) conveyed to the inhabitants of the Town, or b) conveyeJ to an appropriate conservation organization, or c) covered with appropriate restrictions for recreation and conservation purposes as contemplateO: in the By-Law." ......----..:.=-."'".~:::-c'-;;--_-::_.--~ . ~_. _ C_'_._":'.~;>.'" "..~..__ 'I"" -, . " - .~~ ~. l ".i: ..=,,-\ v These correcti0ns merely cause the record to reflect what the Board of Appeals understands and agrees to be the substance of its decision in the instant petition. These corrections in no manner change the spirit or intent of the decision of'~he Board of Appeals or change the substance of said decision. The Boa~d is satisfied that the restrictions prepared by Petitioners are in order .and make adequate provisions for the protection and preservation of the open lands as contemplated by the By-Law. January ~'5 , 1978 ~Q- lIayne . H 1..... C- airlllll1 - Nantucket Board of Appeals ~ '\ ~-b..~"'" .It-~~~ ~ :....-:'" ~~,\., "\~ "'--~;:s::~. ~-X l ~...:.... ~~ . - . - 2 - ----. .... _c.._~ ". ~.. . ,I O/C)- 77 --:- Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Appeals, July 11, 1978: Present were members Holmes, Hyde, and Bartsch, and alternate mem- ber, Cahoon. In the matter of the Farm at Fisher's Landing (010-77). the Board reviewed an amendment to the covenants originally adopted. The amendment was presented by Attorney Richard J. Glidden in ac- cord with prior discussion. On motion by Mr. Hyde, seconded by Mrs. Bartsch, it was unani mously voted to accept and adopt the amendment and the chairman w authorized to sign a document establishing and incorporating the covenant as a part of the special permit previously granted. The covenant is attached and made a part hereof. ~\~~~~ \ "'- v~...t.. -~-~~ ~\ \~ l ~ ~ \\: ~.~ t-."-... \-_-.~.~ ~.~,~~ ~ ~.- .1 AI JAMES K. GLIDDEN. ESQ. RICHARD J. GLIDDEN. ESQ. 37 CENTRE STREET NANTUCKE1-. MASS. OZllll4 TEl.. (817) U..0771 1 ;~ 'i ll,l~: ~c ;- :', ' . '''~ '..~: i/: "'- COMMONWEAL TIl OF MASSACHUSETTS Nantucket, SSe July 11, 1978 Rc: Fishers Landing Cons~rvation Trust CLARIFICATION ~~D AGREa~mNT RELATIVE TO CLUSTER SUBDIVISION APPROVAL GRANTED BY 'NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS On ~ay 24, 1977. the Nantucket Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Fishers Landing Conservation Trust seeking a special permit to allow an 87 lot cluster subdivision off Warrens Landing Road in the Town and County of Nantucket. .On June 12, 1977, said Board of Appeals voted to grant the requested special permit and a copy of said decision is on file with the Nantucket Town Clerk. Because of the fact that this was the first cluster sub- division approved on Nantucket since the enactment of the Zoning By-Law in 1972. there are ambiguities in tte'Zoning By-Law which arose once the original petitioners made application to the Building Inspector for building permits. The purpose of this document, signed by the petitioners and the Nantucket Board of Appeals, is to clarify those ambiguities in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of the original application and decision. Therefore. it is arreed as follows: 1) Ground Cover - Although the By-Law makes no mention.' of ground cover in cluster subdivisi0ns, the 87 building lots in petitioners plan shall be SUbject to a ground cover limitation of fifty (50%) percent. 2) ~ide Yard Set Backs - Although petitioners were granted a variance from side yard requirements, in order to preserve thei~ village concept, petitioners agree that if allY buildings are buil~ clos~r th~ six fe,t to one another, each building must have a'three-quarter (3/4) hour fire wall rating. ~ . . . ,... " . ~~I' ".',' - 1_ ~ J .:~:" .' .. . .. .~. :,....r.. .. JAMES .K~ GLIOI1E~: E,g, RICHARD J. GLID~EN. ESQ. :17 ClrI"TIUr: 8TftlUET HANTUC'CBT. MA..;.!".... ' ..TBL.. 11171 a.0,0771 .,.1',.,.:. , . 1;, ,.;"'=',~ 3) Dwellings p~r Lot - Th~ By-Law provides that four (4) dwelling ~its per acre are allowed, but petitioners property is limited to a maximum of two (~) dwelling units on each of the 87 building lots and one caretaker~s dwelling'on'the remaining. land. Executed as aseal~d instrument the day and year first above written. FISHERS LANDING CONSE~VATION TRUST ! ~Prf.g' hia~s~ ^--",,- F. -D.~~ · ~ Atwoo , T~~ - NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS By UJ<lli~~_. ~ Wayne F~ olmes, Chairman , )~~~,uC!i Edward Hyde COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Nantucket,' SS. July 1 \ ,1978 ."-. . Then personally appeared the above named Snelling R. Brainard and acknowledged the foregoing. instrlll1ent to be the free act and deed of Fishers Landing Conservation Trust, before me, Nantucket, 55. ~ A" . :.- t " .,; --.. ..," July \, ,1978 \'.' 1" . .'. Than personally appeared! the above named Wayne F. Holmes and ack- . ' .~,~I'", \;~ :t~~ '.' . . . nowledged the forego;n~ instrum.eht t~ b~, the free act and deed of the Nantucket . - Board of Appeals, before me, ........ . ';'.'- ~;" "f'~ ..' .. . ',... .- . ' .' .. , ., ~ JAMES K. GLIDDEN. ESQ. RICHARD J. GLIDDEN. ESQ. 87 QENTRIl 8TREET NANTUQKET. MA88. 0&884 TilL. <8171 228-0771 >I ~":.", ( 'I'~ r' . ~, ~/o ~ 77 COAf.fONWEALTll OF MASSACHUSETTS Nantucket, SS. C E R T I F I CAT ION I, Hadelyne G.. Perry. Town Clerk of the Town of Nantucket, hereby certify as follows: 1. I received and filed in my office a copy of the decision of the Nantucket Board of Appeals relating to the Petition of Fisher's Landing' Conservation Trust on June 2, 1977. 2. Twenty (20) days expired without my receiving any notice of appeal .relative to said decision and in fact, no notice of appeal has .ever been received. 3. At all times during 1977. the duly elected members of the Nantucket Planning Board were: Donald T. Visco Charles J. Gardner Walter S. Barrett W. Marland Rounsville Do~othy McGarvey Dated: January 11, 1978'- ~\-. ...~ ~~ \ \ l\. \ '1. ( ~~~ Madelyne G. Perry