Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout034-88NA] ( T/' T (I T !\TT . In the matter r � � W S. PARKER and PHYLLIS A. PARKER, - TRUST (034 -88), at a meeting of the P.M. or. Monday, July 18, 1986, at the Town and County Building, Nantucket, the Beard enters the following Decision and makes the following findi.las: 1. This is an application for a VARIANCE granting - relief from the off - street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.1. If granted, the Applicants would be relieved from the obligation to provide parking spaces in excess of twelve, in connection with their 18 -unit lodging house, together with two dwelling units, an employer dormitory, and a proposed restaurant all located upon the premises approximately shown on Assessor's Map 55.1.4 as Parcels 34, 35 and 65, shown upon plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book 21, Page 68, located at 60 UNION STREET (8 SALT MARSH WAY), and zoned as RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL. 2. Based upon the application, the plans submitted therewith, a viewing of the premises, and the materials and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Board finds that the premises consist of a parcel of land containing 24,612_ square feet. Prior to the applicants' purchase of the premises in 1985, a structure then used as office space and facilities by the Nantucket Center for Elder Affairs existed thereon; previously, this building had been used as a home, office space and renting of rooms by the prior owner, one Dorothy Souza. Subsequent to the applicants' purchase, they rehabilitated and enlarged the existing structure for use as a lodging house; in addition, a small cottage used for residential purposes exists upon the premises. A building permit for the applicants' work was issued in March, 1985. After the work had progressed substantially toward completion, the Building Inspector issued a stop -work order, and a controversy arose, culminating in litigation between the applicants and the Building Inspector as to the validity of the building permit with regard to certain zoning matters. As set forth in our prior decision in 079 -85, the principal issues in this controversy were (a) whether the project required the issuance by the Planning Board of a special permit for a major commercial development under Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139- 9.B(4), and (b) whether the use of the subject premises for commercial pruposes was prohibited in the absence of street frontage of at least 40 feet. 3. In this litigation, Nantucket Superior Court Docket No. 2075, the Court, by its Interlocutory Order dated July 9, 1985, issued a preliminary injunction, restraining the Building Inspector from preventing the applicants from completing the construction upon the premises in accordance with limitations and restrictions set forth in a covenant dated July, 1985 (which restricted commercial use to activities and uses not triggering the requirement for a special permit under Section 139- 9.B(4), even though the floor area as constructed exceeded 5,000 square feet), and from denying the applicants a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises for a -2- reason other than public health or safety. The Building Inspector entered an interlocutory appeal from the issuance of this preliminary injunction, and the appeal was denied by a single justice of the Appeals Court. This ligitation is still pending and the preliminary injunction is still in force. 4. The street frontage issue was disposed of by a special permit issued by this Board on September 23, 1985, in Case No. 079 -85, which granted relief from the 40 -foot frontage requirement, reducing required frontage to 25 feet in accordance with By -law Section 139 -16.A, as provided in the footnote thereto. 5. The present proceeding before this Board is brought in connection with the reduction of the required off - street parking requirements under the by -law, ancillary to the applicants' application to the Planning Board for a special permit for a major commercial development, to satisfy and eliminate the Building Inspector's concern as to the need for such a special permit as a prerequisite for the building permit, the validity of which is the subject of the pending litigation. In addition, the applicants have requested the Planning Board to permit them to include a restaurant in the premises, together with an employer dormitory. 6. By the Planning Board's count, 32 parking spaces are required by the by -law. The applicant proposes to provide 12 parking spaces, one of which will be shorter than the 20 feet required by the by -law. In support of this request, the applicant has presented us with records of counts of cars parked upon the premises over the past two years, during which the existing lodging house has been in full operation. These records set forth that -3- there have never been more than seven cars parked upon the premises. Applicants state that few of their guests bring cars, and we have frequently noted that parking needed as a practical matter for guest houses is significantly less than the by -law requires. Although the premises are not located in the core or resident parking permit district, in which parking requirements may be reduced by special permit, we note that the premises are located just outside this district. 7. The Planning Board has entered its decision in its Case NO. I -88, issuing a special permit to the applicants for (a) an 18 -room inn, (b) a 24 -seat restaurant, (c) an affordable housing unit under Section 139-9.B(4) (h) , (d) an employer dormitory, and (e) the existing single- family cottage; subject to conditions and limitations therein set forth. The Planning Board's decision is incorporated by reference herein. 8. Based upon the foregoing facts, we find that, owing to circumstances relating to the shape or topography of the land and structures upon the Premises (specifically, the configuration of th existing structures upon the Premises and the unusual shape of the lot, and especially affecting the premises but not affecting generally the zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement of the by -law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise (consisting of the loss of ability to use the structures on the Premises) to the applicants, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the by -law, in that both this Board and the -4- Planning Board find that the parking spaces which the applicants propose to provide will be sufficient to meet the parking needs of the project. 9. The relief hereby granted is conditioned upon the following: (a) The premises shall substantially conform in all respects with the provisions of the Planning Board's special permit in Case No. 1 -88 and the plans referred to therein. (b) 12 parking spaces shall be provided on- site, of which one space nay be subsuandard in length. The applicants shall provide four off -site parking spaces by lease, in accordance with the Planning Board decision, as 4prerequisite for the operation of a restaurant upon the premises. Four off - street parking spaces shall be provided by lease so long as the restaurant upon the premises is in operation. (c) There shall be no restaurant service to the public without further relief from this Board. All restaurant service shall be limited to use by registered guests of the inn and their invited guests only, and shall not be used nor offered to be used by members of the general public. Restaurant business shall not be solicited from the general public in any way, nor shall the restaurant be advertised as open to the general public. only registered guests of the inn upon the premises, and their invited guests, may be served. All charges for meal service shall be included as part of the lodging bill of a guest of the inn. �, �,,j,,.,k 1 Nothing herein shall -�e-rrrr the soliciting or advertising of the inn as a place to stay with meal service available to its registered guests. -5- ea"d 40611�1 49��/ I , . (d) There shall be no change in uses which would require increased parking under the by -law without further relief from the Board. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons and upon the conditions set forth herein, the BOARD OF APPEALS hereby GRANTS the applicants relief from the off - street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.1, reducing the number of on -site parking spaces to be provided to seven (plus one sub- standard, nonconforming space), by VARIANCE, by a UNANIMOUS vote. f William R. Sherman Dated: (i�' -'' ✓� 1988 ��- /j Dale W. Waine M1 1 C. Mar hall Beale April 18, 1991 I, Joanne M. Holdgate, Clerk of the Town of Nantucket, hereby certify pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, s 11, that the foregoing decision filed with me on August 1, 1988 was appealed to Land Court, Case #129- 128 Misc., within the 20 day appeal period and that such appeal has been denied and no appeal was taken from that judgement according to a Certificate from LC Recorder Charles W. Trombly, Jr. (copy attached). / �� ll% COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT Case No. 129 -198 Miscellaneous Michael Bellardo and Martin Buglisi, Plaintiffs VS. William R. Sherman, Dale W. Waine and C. Marshall Beale, as they are members of the Nantucket Board of Appeals and Kenneth I. Parker of'Union Street Realty Trust, Defendants CERTIFICATE This case was filed in the Land Court on August 17, 1988 seeking to annul the grant of a variance to the defendant Parker from certain parking requirements of the Zoning By -laws of the Town of Nantucket for the Tuckernuck Inn, 40 Union Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts (see Nantucket Registry of Deeds, Book 224, Page 225). After due proceedings in the Court, all of which appear of record, judgment for the defendants was entered by the Court on December 14, 1990. There was no appeal from this judgment. In testimony whereof I have this day set my hand and affixed the seal of said Land Court, this nineteenth day of February A.D. 1991. 11 CHARLES W. TROMBLY, JR. Recorder CWT: mm TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: In the matter of the Application of MATTHEW S. PARKER and PHYLLIS A. PARKER, Trustees of UNION STREET REALTY TRUST (034 -88) , at a meeting of the BOARD OF APPEALS held at 1:30 P.M. on Monday, July 18, 1988, at the Town and County Building, Nantucket, the Board enters the following Decision and makes the following findings: 1. This is an application for a VARIANCE granting relief from the off - street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.I. If granted, the Applicants would be relieved from the obligation to provide parking spaces in excess of twelve, in connection with their 18 -unit lodging house, together with two dwelling units, an employer dormitory, and a proposed restaurant all located upon the premises approximately shown on Assessor's Map 55.1.4 as Parcels 34, 35 and 65, shown upon plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book 21, Page 68, located at 60 UNION STREET (8 SALT MARSH WAY), and zoned as RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL. 2. Based upon the application, the plans submitted therewith, a viewing of the premises, and the materials and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Board finds that the premises consist of a parcel of land containing 24,612_ square feet. Prior to the applicants' purchase of the premises in 1985, a structure then used as office space and facilities by the Nantucket Center for Elder Affairs existed thereon; previously, this building had been used as a home, office space and renting of rooms by the prior owner, one Dorothy Souza. Subsequent to the applicants' purchase, they rehabilitated and enlarged the existing structure for use as a lodging house; in addition, a small cottage used for residential purposes exists upon the premises. A building permit for the applicants' work was issued in March, 1985. After the work had progressed substantially toward completion, the Building Inspector issued a stop -work order, and a controversy arose, culminating in litigation between the applicants and the Building Inspector as to the validity of the building permit with regard to certain zoning matters. As set forth in our prior decision in 079 -85, the principal issues in this controversy were (a) whether the project required the issuance by the Planning Board of a special permit for a major commercial development under Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139- 9.B(4), and (b) whether the use of the subject premises for commercial pruposes was prohibited in the absence of street frontage of at least 40 feet. 3. In this litigation, Nantucket Superior Court Docket No. 2075, the Court, by its Interlocutory Order dated July 9, 1985, issued a preliminary injunction, restraining the Building Inspector from preventing the applicants from completing the construction upon the premises in accordance with limitations and restrictions set forth in a covenant dated July, 1985 (which restricted commercial use to activities and uses not triggering the requirement for a special permit under Section 139- 9.B(4), even though the floor area as constructed exceeded 5,000 square feet), and from denying the applicants a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises for a -2- Plannitig.'Board find that the parking spaces which the applicants propose to provide will be sufficient to meet the parking needs of the project. 9. The relief hereby granted is conditioned upon the following: (a) The premises shall substantially conform in all respects with the provisions of the Planning Board's special permit in Case No. 1 -88 and the plans referred to therein. (b) 12 parking spaces shall be provided on -site, of which one space may be substandard in length. The applicants shall provide four off -site parking spaces by lease, in accordance with the Planning Board decision, as prerequisite for the operation of a restaurant upon the premises. Four off - street parking spaces shall be provided by lease so long as the restaurant upon the premises is in operation. (c) There shall be no restaurant service to the public without further relief from this Board. All restaurant service shall be limited to use by registered guests of the inn and their invited guests only, and shall not be used nor offered to be used by members of the general public. Restaurant business shall not be solicited from the general public in any way, nor shall the restaurant be advertised as open to the general public. Only registered guests of the inn upon the premises, and their invited guests, may be served. All charges for meal service shall be included as part of the 1 dging bill of a guest of the inn. Nothing herein shall - the soliciting or advertising of the inn as a place to stay with meal service available to its registered guests. -5- (d) There shall be no change in uses which would require increased parking under the by -law without further relief from the Board. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons and upon the conditions set forth herein, the BOARD OF APPEALS hereby GRANTS the applicants relief from the off- street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.I, reducing the number of on -site parking spaces to be provided to seven (plus one sub - standard, nonconforming space), by VARIANCE, by a UNANIMOUS vote. { �C William R. Sherman Dated: Z 1 1988 Dale W. Waine r i C. Mar hall Beale -� , i�ir THOMAS A. LA TANZI LAWRENCE 0. SPAULDING, JR. DUANE P. LANDRETH HARRY SARKIS TERKANIAN ERIC K. RASMUSSEN DANA A. BERRY JAN M. E. BONE JOHN P. McCORMICK DONALD TWOMEY LISA M. BARR LA TANZI, SPAULDING a LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MASSACHUSETTS 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 TELEFAX: (508) 255 -3786 Deborah J. Patterson Assistant Deputy Clerk Land Court Room 408 Old Courthouse Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Patterson: August 19, 1988 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (508) 228.0555 TELEFAX: (508) 228.0512 ROBERT F. MOONEY, OF COUNSEL WILLIAM H. BROWN It Re: Bellardo /Buglisi v. Nantucket Board of Appeals Misc. No. 129 -198 Enclosed please find plaintiffs' Affidavit of Notice in the above referenced action. Would you kindly file same. Very truly yours, Donald Twomey DT: mfs Enclosures cc: William R. Sherman Dale W. Waine C. Marshall Beale Kenneth I. Parker Messrs. Bellardo and Buglisi 17250 _ ly < i LATANZI, SPAULDING & LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (SOB) 255 -2133 i ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (508) 228 -0555 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH Barnstable, ss LAND COURT DEPARTMENT Civil Action No. ----------------------------- MICHAEL BELLARDO and MARTIN BUGLISI, Plaintiffs VS. COMPLAINT WILLIAM R. SHERMAN, DALE W. WAINE, and C. MARSHALL BEALE as they are members of the NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS and KENNETH I. PARKER, as he is Trustee of UNION STREET REALTY TRUST, Defendants PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Michael Bellardo and Martin Buglisi are the owners of the Elegant Dump Diner and reside at 56 Union Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554. 2. Defendant William R. Sherman is the Chairperson of the Nantucket Board of Appeals (the "Board "), and resides at 31 Nonantum Avenue, Nantucket, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant Dale W. Waine is a member of the Board, and resides at Bishops Rise, Nantucket, Massachusetts. 4. Defendant C. Marshall Beale is a member of the Board and resides at 11 Primrose Lane, Nantucket, Massachusetts. ,�uur�cl du 111,1W Ayrrrl 1A i9 /1-1AVWh LATANZI, SPAULDING &LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 i ,i TELEPHONE: (508) 228 -0555 5. Defendant, Kenneth I. Parker, (hereinafter "Parker ") as Trustee for Union Street Realty Trust, is the owner of The Tuckernuck Inn, which abuts plaintiffs' property, and whose residential and business address is 60 Union Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554. JURISDICTION 6. Appeals by a party aggrieved by a decision of a Board of Appeals may be taken to the Land Court pursuant to Mass. G. L. c.40A §17. The plaintiffs in this matter are parties aggrieved in that they are abutters to the Tuckernuck Inn and are seriously affected by the granting of the variance which is the subject of this dispute. FACTS 7. Defendant Parker is the operator of the Tuckernuck Inn, which property is owned by the Union Street Realty Trust, and is the subject of the variance issued by the Nantucket Board of Appeals in Matter No. 34 -88. A Certified copy of that decision is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". 8. On March 1, 1985, the then acting Building Inspectoz of the Town of Nantucket, Mr. Norman Chaleki issued buildinc permit No. 3982 -85 to Mr. Matthew S. Parker, the son of defendant Kenneth I. Parker, for an addition to the existing one -stork structure, and for the construction of an inn. - 2 - LATANZI, SPAULDING &LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (508) 228-0555 9. On June 24, 1985, Mr. Borchard, then the Building Inspector of the Town of Nantucket, wrote to Mr. Matthew S. Parker to advise him that the issuance of the building permit was issued based on a misrepresentation of material facts made by Mr. Normal Chaleki. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B ". The misrepresentation made by Mr. Chaleki was that the project conformed to the requirements of the zoning code, which was not the case. 10. Under §139-18(A) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Nantucket, no land can be used and no building or structure can be erected, enlarged, or used unless the off - street parking space requirements are provided as specified in the by -law. That section goes on to say that the enlargement of any building shall require the provision of off - street parking for the existing building as if it were newly constructed. 11. The proposal for the Tuckernuck Inn, which converted the former use as a center for elder affairs to the new commercial use resulted in a total requirement of thirty -two (32) parking spaces for the project. 12. Due to the size of the project, defendant Parker was required to apply to the Planning Board for a Special Permit for a major commercial development. With certain modifications - 3 - LATANZI, SPAULDING & LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (508) 228 -0555 of the original proposal, the Special Permit was granted on June 27, 1988. That decision has been appealed by the plaintiffs in this action to the Land Court Department as Civil Action No. 128 -711. That litigation is still pending at the time of filing this complaint. 13. The final proposal which has been approved by the Board of Appeals involves the operation of an eighteen room inn, a twenty -four (24) seat restaurant, and affordable housing unit under §139- 9.B(4)(h), an employer dormitory, and the existing single family cottage. 14. Under the provisions of the Nantucket Zoning By -law, particularly §139- 18(I), which is the Table of Parking Requirements, the number of spaces required for the above - described use can be broken down as follows: A. The eighteen (18) room inn - 20 spaces B. The twenty -four (24) seat restaurant - 6 spaces; C. Affordable housing unit - 1 space; D. Employer dormitory - 3 spaces; E. Single family cottage - 1 space; F. TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES FOR APPROVED PROPOSAL - 31. 15. The plans submitted to the Board of Appeals, and upon which the Board has granted approval, provide for only - 4 - LATANZI, SPAULDING & LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS. MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (505) 226 -0555 eleven spaces which comply with §139- 18(C) , which section regulates dimensions of spaces. 16. The Board has also purported to approve a twelfth space which does not meet dimensional requirements. 17. The Board has also purported to accept an additional four off -site parking spaces which are to be leased by defendant Parker. The defendants represented at the variance hearings that they would lease these spaces from their neighbors, the Nettles. The Board has not considered whether the lease of these spaces will render the Nettles property not in conformity with the parking requirements of the By -law. 18. The Petitioners have not satisfied the statutory requirement for the granting of a variance found in Mass. G. 'L. c.40A §10. Particularly, there are no unique circumstances affecting the Tuckernuck Inn property which would prevent defendant Parker from making use of the property in a manner which conforms to the by -law. There is no particular hardship on Petitioner, in that the existing structure and premises can be operated in a conforming manner. 19. Additionally, the relief purported to be granted by the Board of Appeals causes substantial detriment to the public good and substantially derogates from the intent and purpose of - 5 - LATANZI. SPAULDING & LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 i TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET. MA 02554 TELEPHONE: (508) 226 -0555 the by -law, in that the proposal does not provide parking sufficient for the mandatory requirement of §139 -18 of the by -law that any enlargement or change of use of a premises must result in compliance with the parking requirements. 20. The entire proposal for the Tuckernuck Inn, which proposal is effectively approved by the granting of this variance will be substantially detrimental to the public good and will derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By -laws. 21. The decision of the Board of Appeals granting a variance in matter no. 38 -88 exceeds the authority of the Board and should be annulled. 22. The decision of the Board of Appeals in Matter No. 34 -88 is insufficient on its face and should therefore-be annulled. 23. The decision by the Board of Appeals in Matter No. 34 -88 is arbitrary and capricious and therefore exceeds the authority of the Board. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand: 1. That a decision enter declaring that the vari issued by the Nantucket Board of Appeals for the Tuckernuck Inn, Matter No. 34 -88, exceeds the authority of the Board. 2. That the decision of the Board of Appeals in thi matter be annulled. LATANZI, SPAULDING & LANDRETH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON CAPE COD: P.O. BOX 2300 ORLEANS, MA 02653 TELEPHONE: (508) 255 -2133 ON NANTUCKET: P.O. BOX E 22 FEDERAL STREET NANTUCKET, MA 02554 " TELEPHONE: (508) 228 -0555 3. That the plaintiffs be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys fees. 4. For such other relief as this court deems proper and just. Dated: August 16, 1988 172502s /ms /d Plaintiffs, by their attorney,, John P. McCormick LaTanzi, Spaulding & Landreth P.O. Box 2300 8 Cardinal Lane Orleans, MA 02653 (508) 255 -2133 - 7 - TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: In the matter of the Application of MATTHEW S. PARKER and PHYLLIS A. PARKER, Trustees of UNION STREET REALTY TRUST (034 -88), at a meeting of the BOARD OF APPEALS held at 1:30 P.M. on Monday, July 18, 1988, at the Town and County Building, Nantucket, the Board enters the following Decision and makes the following findings: 1. This is an application for a VARIANCE granting relief from the off - street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.1. If granted, the Applicants would be relieved from the obligation to provide parking spaces in excess of twelve, in connection with their 18 -unit lodging house, together with two dwelling units, an employer dormitory, and a proposed restaurant all located upon the premises approximately shown on Assessor's Map 55.1.4 as Parcels 34, 35 and 65, shown upon plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book 21, Page 68, located at 60 UNION STREET (8 SALT MARSH WAY), and zoned as RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL. 2. Based upon the application, the plans submitted therewith, a viewing of the premises, and the materials and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Board finds that the premises consist of a parcel of land containing 24,612_ square feet. Prior to the applicants' purchase of the premises in 1985, a structure then used as office space and facilities by the Nantucket Center for Elder Affairs existed thereon; previously, this building had been EXHIBIT "A" used as a home, office space and renting of rooms by the prior owner, one Dorothy Souza. Subsequent to the applicants' purchase, they rehabilitated and enlarged the existing structure for use as a lodging house; in addition, a small cottage used for residential purposes exists upon the premises. A building permit for the applicants' work was issued in March, 1985. After the work had progressed substantially toward completion, the Building Inspector issued a stop -work order, and a controversy arose, culminating in litigation between the applicants and the Building Inspector as to the validity of the building permit with regard to certain zoning matters. As set forth in our prior decision in 079 -85, the principal issues in this controversy were (a) whether the project required the issuance by the Planning Board of a special permit for a major commercial development under Nantucket Zoning By -law Section 139- 9.B(4), and (b) whether the use of the subject premises for commercial pruposes was prohibited in the absence of street frontage of at least 40 feet. 3. In this litigation, Nantucket Superior Court Docket No. 2075, the Court, by its Interlocutory Order dated July 9, 1985, issued a preliminary injunction, restraining the Building Inspector from preventing the applicants from completing the construction upon the premises in accordance with limitations and restrictions set forth in a covenant dated July, 1985 (which restricted commercial use to activities and uses not triggering the requirement for a special permit under Section 139- 9.B(4), even though the floor area as constructed exceeded 5,000 square feet), and from denying the applicants a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises for a opm reason other than public health or safety. The Building Inspector entered an interlocutory appeal from the issuance of this preliminary injunction, and the appeal was denied by a single justice of the Appeals Court. This ligitation is still pending and the preliminary injunction is still in force. 4. The street frontage issue was disposed of by a special permit issued by this Board on September 23, 1985, in Case No. 079 -85, which granted relief from the 40 -foot frontage requirement, reducing required frontage to 25 feet in accordance with By -law Section 139 -16.A, as provided in the footnote thereto. 5. The present proceeding before this Board is brought in connection with the reduction of the required off - street parking requirements under the by -law, ancillary to the applicants' application to the Planning Board for a special permit for a major commercial development, to satisfy and eliminate the Building Inspector's concern as to the need for such a special permit as a prerequisite for the building permit, the validity of which is the subject of the pending litigation. In addition, the applicants have requested the Planning Board to permit them to include a restaurant in the premises, together with an employer dormitory. 6. By the Planning Board's count, 32 parking spaces are required by the by -law. The applicant proposes to provide 12 parking- spaces, one of which will be shorter than the 20 feet required by the by -law. In support of this request, the applicant has presented us with records of counts of cars parked upon the premises over the past two years, during which the existing lodging house has been in full operation. These records set forth that -3- there have never been more than seven cars parked upon the premises. Applicants state that few of their guests bring cars, and we have frequently noted that parking needed as a practical matter for guest houses is significantly less than the by -law requires. Although the premises are not located in the core or resident parking permit district, in which parking requirements may be reduced by special permit, we note that the premises are located just outside this district. 7. The Planning Board has entered its decision in its Case No. 1 -88, issuing a special permit to the applicants for (a) an 18 -room inn, (b) a 24 -seat restaurant, (c) an affordable housing unit under Section 139-9.B(4) (h) , (d) an employer dormitory, and (e) the existing single- family cottage; subject to conditions and limitations therein set forth. The Planning Board's decision is incorporated by reference herein. 8. Based upon the foregoing facts, we find that, owing to circumstances relating to the shape or topography of the land and structures upon the Premises (specifically, the configuration of th existing structures upon the Premises and the unusual shape of the lot, and especially affecting the premises but not affecting generally the zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement of the by -law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise (consisting of the loss of ability to use the structures on the Premises) to the applicants, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the by -law, in that both this Board and the -4- • Planning Board find that the parking spaces which the applicants propose to provide will be sufficient to meet the parking needs of the project. 9. The relief hereby granted is conditioned upon the following: (a) The premises shall substantially conform in all respects with the provisions of the Planning Board's special permit in Case No. 1 -88 and the plans referred to therein. (b) 12 parking spaces shall be provided on -site, of which one space may be substandard in length. The applicants shall provide four off -site parking spaces by lease, in accordance with the Planning Board decision, as 4prerequisite for the operation of a restaurant upon the premises. Four off - street parking spaces shall be provided by lease so long as the restaurant upon the premises is in operation. (c) There shall be no restaurant service to the public without further relief from this Board. All restaurant service shall be limited to use by registered guests of the inn and their invited guests only, and shall not be used nor offered to be used by members of the general public. Restaurant business shall not be solicited from the general public in any way, nor shall the restaurant be advertised as open to the general public. Only registered guests of the inn upon the premises, and their invited guests,' may be served. All charges for meal service shall be included as part of the 1 dging bill of a guest of the inn. g g� Nothing herein shall .pQ_r-� the soliciting or advertising of the inn as a place to stay with meal service available to its registered guests. -5- . . (d) There shall be no change in uses which would require increased parking under the by -law without further relief from the Board. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons and upon the conditions set forth herein, the BOARD OF APPEALS hereby GRANTS the applicants relief from the off - street parking requirements of the Nantucket zoning by -law, Section 139 -18.1, reducing the number of on -site parking spaces to be provided to seven (plus one sub - standard, nonconforming space), by VARIANCE, by a UNANIMOUS vote. William R. Sherman Dated: -'r�r 1988 ci Dale W. Waine C. Mar hall Beale v n v+ liRAI allION JILD1NG i, INSPECTOR TOWN BUILDING ANNEX 2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Mathew S. Parker 2 East Chestnut St. Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Mr. Parker: Telephone 228 -0588 Re A True ycp� CV , a�75 June 2� 60 Union Street On March 1, 1985, this office issued you a Building Permit No. 3982 -35. The issuance of this permit was based upon a misrepresentation of material fact made to me by Norman Chaleki., Acting, Building Inspector, the essence of which was that.your application met zoning requirements. The fact was that you did not meet zoning requirements.. ' A review of your file.and a site inspection reveal the following violations: (1) The structure you are erecting is 6,296 square feet in size, and its proposed use, an eighteen (18) room guest house is, as defined by'Section 139 -9(A) 7 of the Codified By -Laws of Nan - tucket (hereafter referred to as "By- Laws ") a commercial use. Section - 139(9) 4, of the By -Laws defines said structure and its use as a major commercial development requiring a Special.Perrilit.:' No such permit has been.applied.for or granted. i (2)' Section '139 -16 (A) of the By -Laws requires all lots in the Residential /Commercial Zone as defined by Section 139 -3 of the Zoning By -Law to have a minimum frontage of forty feet (40'). _ The lot in question as shown on the plan as drawn by Josiah Barrett, R.L.S., dated June 6, 1981, and submitted as part of the application, has only twenty -five feet (25') of frontage on Union Street, and is - therefore non - conforming. Any change or substantial extension of use or structural change, on a non - conforming lot requires relief by Special Permit prior to the issuance of any Building-Permit. (Nantucket Zoning By -Law Section 139 -33; MGL'Ch.•40A, Section 6.) No special Permit granted to this prop- has been applied .for or rty.' note that your counsel claims that frontage is p-rovided by an interior twenty -foot (20') "Way ".shown on.your plan by a dashed line• and which on the ground is unbounded and unimproved. Our By -Law requires _frontage to be on an abutting street. ..The "Way" hin the in my view is not abutting and probably' is not a street wit meaning of the By -Law. _ r "B" , -_y_� * l�, . = '•' %' .. ' EXHIBIT }s,.;- - - ` ... '± 1 5 ••v - �.J _ - n> tt t.+ i 'i + �+ !• 7�i r •1,� �Z #^ ..] _ "mot_ ^••� � ;t � - ��K -r 'a. -�,r -C.. ..•b t r �. 1�L 4„ lsh.C..'_,f :. w-Y `.%%•'� �5 A-� r .'..y� f�` Page 2. Mr. Mathew S. Parker June 24, 1985 Re: 60 Union ElrC« (A) In the event my interpretation that the 20 -foot "Way" _ does not provide frontage is incorrect and, for By -Law purposes, such "Way" is to be treated as as abutting street, the following violations would arise: (1) Parking areas lll, 2, 8 and 9 back into the "Way" in violation of 139 -18, F(1)(b); (2) No screening has been provided or proposed as required by Section 139 -18, F(i)(b); (3) The "Way" as it exists provides unlimited access to the parking area and is therefore in violation of 139 -18, F(1)(c) which requires one driveway no less than twenty feet (20') and no more than twenty -four (24') 00' of 'frontage; and in one hundred feet (1 ) (4) No five -foot (5') wide planting strip has been . provided as required by 139 -18 F(2). (3) Parking: (a) Eight (8) of your twenty -two (22) parking slots are not in compliance with Section 139 - 18(1). Areas designated on the plan as ill -5 are obstructed by an elevated provided parking four :foot (4') wide cement walk way not shown on the plan; (b) Parking area V22 as shown has a shed entry way addition on it that was not shown on the plan; and (c) Parking areas X120 and #21 are obstructed by a patio. � (2) you Based upon the foregoing, (1) your Building Permit is hereby revoked; directed are ordered to cease all work.on.the premises forthwith; and (3) y to apply for and obtain all necessary Special Permits forthwith. Very truly yours, Carl F. Borchert_ Building Inspector `Town of Nantucket Copies to: Board of Selectmen Arthur I. Reade Jr., Esquire Edward Foley Vaughan, Esquire, Town Counsel Norman Chaleki I, SPAULDING �NDRETH iEYS AT LAW APE COD: V X 2300 S, MA 02653 :(508) 255-2133 %.A CKET: FUX E R3 L. STREET _:T, MA 02554 509) 229 -0555 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH Barnstable, ss ---------------------------- MICHAEL BELLARDO and MARTIN BUGLISI, Plaintiffs VS. JOHN D. BROCK, et al, as they are Members of the Nantucket Planning Board; and KENNETH I. PARKER, as he is Trustee of iUNION STREET REALTY TRUST Defendants ------------------ - - - - -- LAND COURT DEPARTMENT Civil Action No. NOTICE TO TOWN CLERK OF NANTUCKET ITo the Clerk of the Town of Nantucket: Notice is hereby served upon you in accordance with the provisions of the Mass. G. L. c. 40A, §17 that the decision of the Nantucket Board of Appeals, a copy of which is attached to the complaint as Exhbit "A ", has been appealed to the Land Courz on August 16, 1988. hereto. 7ated: August 16, 1988 '17250 /ms /d y A copy of the complaint is also attached Respectfully submitted, i John P. McCormick LaTanzi, Spaulding & Landreth P.O. Box 2300 8 Cardinal Lane Orleans, MA 02653 (508) 255 -2133 JKV, _ I30A Form 1 -87 No.- ARPLICATION NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ") Owner's name(s): Matthew S. Parker and Phyllis A. Parker,Trustees of Union Street R.T. Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C. P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584 Applicant's name Mailing address: Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel: 55.1.4 -34,35 & 65 Street address 8 Salt Marsh Way (60 Union St.) Registry bCmi*, PL BK & PC, W9­F4&_ 21 -68 Lot Deed ref. 224 -24 Subdivision no Endorsed _ /_ /_ ANR? Date lot(s) acquired: 2 /1 /85 Zoning district Residential- Commercial Number of dwelling units on lot(s): two Rental guest rooms 18 Commercial use on lot(s): Lodging house MCD ?Applied for Building date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? yes or Building permit application Nos. and dates C of 0? Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications: 079 -85 State fully all zoning relief sought together with all respective Code sections and subsections, specifically, what you propose compared with present and what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if Variance, -30A if Special Permit, -33A if to alter or extend non - conforming use, or to reverse Building Inspector by;Appeal per - 3l'A'& B: Applicant requests a variance from Zoning By -Law Section 139 -18 (Off Street Parking) in connection with a Major Commercial Development application already filed with the Planning Board. A total of 32 parking spaces are required and 12 can be provided on site. See attached copy of letter from Nantucket Surveyors, Inc. to Nantucket Planning Board. / Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement to above Site /)plot plan(s) X with present /proposed structures X Locus map Floor plans present /proposed X Appeal.record' Needed: areas frontage setbacks CCR% parking data Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets) .;X Mailing -labels) (2..s�ts) X Fee check for $150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket X "Cap" covenant I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and tru© to th9liest of m kn ledge, under pains and penalties of perjury.i Signature: Applicant Attorney /agent (If not owner, show basis for authority-•to "apply:). FOR OFFICE USE �j�-- Application copies received: 4(( r o y (�) for BOA /V /��by One copy given Town Clerk y /Ay CA ) Complete? One copy sent to Planning Board and to Bui� /ng Dept. ��y $150.00 check given Town Treasu��r� /C'd►�Y Notices of hearing posted ( /0 O mailed 30 published /LC3/ Hearing(s) held on _ /_ /_ continued to _ /_ / _ /_ /_ withdrawn? Decision made / / filed with Town Clerk _ /_ /_ mailed _/ / See related files: application - litigation - other IV-1 /U7 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT name of development: Tuckernuck Inn owner (s) ' name (s) • Matthew S Parker, Phyllis A Parker Kenneth T. Parker mailing address: • 60 Union Street, Nantucket, Mass. 02554 applicant's name: Union Street Realty Trust iCPnnPth T �arirPr_ mailing address: same engineer/surveyor's name: Nantucket Surveyors, Inc. mailing address • P.O. Box 937 — 149 Orange Street, Nantucket, MA. 02554 location of lots) - -> street address: 60 Union Street - -> Tax Assessor's map and parcel: 55.1.4 34, 35 65 - -> County Registry of Deeds (LC PL, PL BK & PG, PL FL) Deed 224225, P1. B}:. 21, Pg. 68 size of parcel: 24,611.3 square feet zoning district: RC Special Permit sought (check one): ( ) cluster subdivision ( ) use requiring Special - - -> specify all uses section Permit and Zoning Code sections: description ( ) commercial WECS ( ) Moorlands Management District subdivision or construction ( Major Commercial Development - - -> specify all associated Zoning Code relief sought: s1.Wtit'on description fi Relief of parking requirement (Board of An_ ais) Only zoning relief expressly requested above will be considered as part of this application. Specify how the application will comply with Section 139- 9B4(h) of the Zonin By -Law, also known as the Town's Affordable Housing Effort: One (13 employee dormitory unit is to be provided on -site for this nroiect. Any additional requirements by the Board may be discussed during the hearing process. Planning Board filing fee due: 420.90 Engineering Inspection Escrow Deposit due: 455.60 I /we hereby certify that the applicant(s) cited above have been authorized by me /us to file a Special Permit application with the Planning Board on property that I /we own. I /we undersigned, hereby authorize Downer (s) ' s! gn�tuxe (s) ---------- - -- �1-4:1-� L, - -- ------------- - - - - -- applicant's s nature: ------------- - - - - -- the to act as agent(s) on my /our behalf and to make any necessary revisions on this filed application as they may be requested by the Board to meet its governing rules and guidelines. ( owne s)I' signatt -e (s) : r �- - --- - -4,vZ - - -- -------------------- to This application must be accompanied by the requisite Nantucket SURVEYORS INCORPORATED N -1769 Nantucket Planning Board Town Building Anne: 4 North Water Street Nantucket, Mass. 02554 Attn: Mr. Brian Weise, Planner Dear Mr. Weise: P.O. Box 937 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 (617) 228-0240 8 February 1988 Re: Tuckernuck Inn, Maloor Commercial Development Please find enclosed seven sets of our design for the Tuckernucc Inn Major Commercial Development along with all of the necessary filing fees and applications. Also enclosed is one copy of the site development plan and landscaping plan combined onto a 84 "a:11" reduction. The following is a brief outline of Section I of the submission requirements for Major Commercial Developments as it pertains to this project. Using this outline,hopefully will help guide you through your review of this project. 1. Abutters List: Enclosed is a Certified List of Abutters, attested by the Assessor and pre- addressed mailing labels (2 sets)for Certified, Return Receipt, mailers. 2. Filing Fees: - (a) Special Permits: Using Chapter 132, 5 -2, of the Nantucket Code we have computed the gross floor area of this pro- ject to be; INN S.F. TntaIc C_F_ First Floor: 3524 S.F. - Garage (486 s.f.) = 3038 S.F. Second Floor: 3038 S.F. = 3038 S.F. Third Floor: 944 S.F. = 944 S.F. Apartment over garage: 330 S.F. = 330 S.F. Cottage (existing): 882 S.F. = 882 S.F. Cottage (addition): 430 S.F. = 430 S.F. 8,662 S.F. J,0.05 /S.F. :Gross floor area filing fee = $433.10 (b) N/A 3. Engineering Inspection Escrow Deposit: Approx. 347' of the stone driveway will be regraded 347' x $.10 /tft. = $34.70 3/4" stone parking areas total to 4,209 S.F. 4209 x 0.10 It F - $420-90 L Offices at 149 Orange Street Aerial • Construction • Engineering • Geodetic • Hydrographic • Land • Marine • Topographic Surveys Page 2 N -1769 - Tuckernuck Inn. (3) Continued Enclosed is a checic for 1455.60 to be deposited in the Town Treasury for the purpose of Engineering inspections. (4) Plan Submission Req. for M.C.D's: We have provided seven (7) sets of our design along with one (1) copy of a compilation onto a 82 11x11" reduction of the base plan. A. Site Inventory and Resource Analysis All information required under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this submission requirement have been shown on Sheet 1 of 2. B. Site Development Plan (1) All required property line data provided on both sheets. This information is from an actual property survey by Nantucket Surveyors, Inc. (2) Shown on Sheet 1 of 2 (3) This information shown on Sheet 1 of 2 (4) See Sheet 1 of 2 (5) See Sheet 1 of 2 (6) See Sheet 1 of 2 and also drainage analysis supplied in calculation form. (7) Since the projects sanitary sewer is already in ex- istence, no design is proposed. The following is a calculation of sanitary sewer flows, using Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. • Single and multiple dwelling units - per bedroom 110 g.p.d -/ bdrm. x 23 bedrooms == 2,530 g.p.d. • Restaurant, food service establishment - per seat 35 g.p.d. /seat x 36 seats = 1,260 g.p.d. • Restaurant, kitchen flow 15 g.p.d. seat x 36 = 540 g.p.d. Flow from Inn: 4330_g.p.d. (8) Water supply system is in existence and is shown on our plans in an approx. location. (9 ) N/A Offices at 149 Orange Street Aar nl • Construction • Enoineerina • Geodetic • Hydroaraahic • land • Morine • Topographic Surveys Page 3 N -1769 - .Tuckernuck Inn (10) Existing fences are shown and noted on plans. (11) Outdoor lighting and type are indicated on Sheet 1 of 2. (12) N/A (13) Fuel storage tanks (both oil and gas) are shown on Sheet 1 & 2. (14) Electrical services are existing and are indicated as approximate for their locations. (15) An existing free standing sign is located at the entrance of the 25 foot way. (16) Fire protection - An existing fire alarm is in place at the northwest corner of the Inn. Also find enclosed with this submittal, a form letter from the Town of Nantucket Fire Alarm Superintendant, approving fire safety plans for the Inn. (17) All proposed and existing landscaping is shown on Sheet 2 of 2. Landscaping plan was designed by a professional landscaper, retained by the applicant. (18) This project exceeds the minimum 309, open space re- quirement. (See our calculations submitted with this project). (19). Proposed grading, both contour and spot elevations are shown on Sheet 1 of 2. C. Detailed Drawings: W_ Since all lighting is in existence, project reviewer(s) can make inspection of lighting during their field inspection of project. (2) Typical cross - sections are shown for both driveway and parking area on Sheet 1 of 2. (3) Since no drainage structures other than graded berms (shown on our typical cross - sections) these details are not required. (4) Since an approved sanitary sewer system is already in place, no detail for this is shown. It should be noted that any sewer system hook -up to the Towns sanitary sewer had to be installed by a licensed plumber, approved by the State and the local D.P.W. Otfices at 149 Orange Street Aarinl • C'nnstniction • Fnnineerino • Geodetic • Hvdrooroohic • Land • Marine • Topoaraahic Surveys Page 4 . N -1769 - Tuckernuck Inn (5) Again, water system is in place and this system was also required to be installed by a plumber licensed to do so. D. Application for M.C.D's A complete application required for submission, has been pro- vided. Ground Cover Calculations Total Lot Area: 24,611.3 Sq. Ft. Inn Footprint : 3,524 Sq. Ft. Cottage (w /Addition): 1,312 Sq. Ft. Existing Shed: 30.3 Sq. Ft. Total Buildings: 4,866.3 Sq. Ft. = 19.77% Concrete Patio 688 Sq. Ft. = 2.80'6 Brick Walks/ Brick Parking Spot 2,051 Sq. Ft. = 8.33%6 Greenspace Lawn /Plantings 6,995 Sq. Ft. = 28.42% '� 36.75% Stone Driveway /Parking: 10,011 Sq. Ft. = 40.6810 10-0.00%6 * All the brick walkways are being considered as a percentage of the green - space requirement even though 1.58% of bricked areas are required to attain the 3096. Building Usages and Calculation of Required Parking Spaces. Required Parking Spaces 18 guest rooms + 2 spaces = 19 1 -4 room residential unit (3rd flr.)= 1 1- employee dorm unit (over garage) = 1 1- existing residential unit (cottage)= 1 Offices at 149 Orange Street Awini • Construction • Enoineerina • Geodetic • Hvdroaraphic • Land • Marine • Topoprophic Surveys Paqe 5 , N -1769 - Tuckernuck Inn Building Usages and Calculation of REquired Parking Spaces - Continued Required Parking Spaces 1- employees (3 employees req.) = 1 36- seat restaurant (outside core n 1 space /4 seats) -- 9 Parking Spaces Required = 32 Parking Space Provided 12 Number of spaces requiring a variance by Board of Appeals = 20 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at my office. Respectfully Submitted, Leo-C. Asadoorian XC Arthur i2Eade, Esquire Kenneth Parker q 5ato M�l Ego SUMMO M-1 OF SEEMS,. I - UP 10 IS OR V MOP Offices at 1149 .. Aerial 9 Construction * Engineering e Geociefic: * Hydrographic 0 Land a Marine * Topographic Surveys Nantucket (617) 228 -0240 SURVEYORS F 0. Box 937 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 PK= X4.1 t 1W- wik Ya 014n. 7 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE Z 8 b CHECKED BY DATE tf oral F�� ►/�`�li�i'i' PK= X4.1 t 1W- wik Ya 014n. JDa —:�uoN / N -179 Nantucket (617) 228-0240 SHEET NO. OF • m ,IRVEYORS CALCULATED BY i, - A Jm4 DATE �Neow�owwT�o P.O. BOX 937 - - Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 e., n.TV IN Nantucket - (617) 228.0240 SURVEYORS P.O. Box 937 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 SHEET N0. OF— CALCULATED BYI. V7& DATE CHECKED BY DATE ® It WK MW 01471. roe ✓GKE3�r ✓aK- �r.aas NJ toHantacket ' (817) 228-0240 SHEET NO. OF SURVEYORS CALCULATED BY �' DATE IaeowPowAT80 P.O. Box 937 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 CHECKED BY DATE , SCALE D9'l -4NA** A*JA4,!(5I S 0 CQi N= 2WI� r4 omk w: maL Nantucket c617> 228-0240 SURVEYORS P.O. Box 937 Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 ,oB::� T,,,, / W -1 ?G9 SHEET NO. is OF �? CALCULATED BY' - ° A SdCAWIZ!A6§2 DATE CHECKED BY DATE 204.1 ® W— Taal ra 0147L Bruce L. Watts CHIEF NANTUCKET FIRE DEPARTMENT Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 FIRE ALARM DIVISION TO: Nantucket Planning Board FROM: Nantucket Fire Department RE: fire safety plans Dear Board members: Timothy M. Soverino SUPERINTENDENT of FIRE ALARM date: • January 7, 1988 Please accept this as notification that the Fire Department approves the fire safety provisions for the subdivision /development named Tuckernuck Inn. located Union Street. Acceptance has been based on X review of site plans drawn by and dated/ revised X on -site inspection on -site testing review of equipment This approval refers to the following components of the safety plan: X fire hydrants X fire alarm boxes other: Yours very truly, Timothy Soverino Fire Alarm Superintendent