HomeMy WebLinkAbout088-88�MJt M �'
11
o�a�NTUC���
F
OgpORAI •,�1
Re: Decisioi
.JCKET
'PEALS
JSETTS 02554
Enclosed is a notice of the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS
which has this day been filed with the Town Clerk.
Any appeal from this action shall be made pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and shall be
filed within twenty (20) days after this date.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS
cc: Building Commissioner
Planning Board
Town Clerk
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
At a public hearing on Friday, November 18, 1988, at
1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on
the Application (088 -88) of DORANN J. CAFARO having an
address at 3 Avenue of 2 Rivers, Rumson, NJ 07760, the
Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following
DECISION:
1. Applicant seeks a Variance from the minimum lot size
requirement of zoning Bylaw Section 139 -16A to render her
Lot 24 buildable. In the alternative, she seeks a
modification or favorable interpretation of the Variance
this Board granted 8/26/75 (and filed 9/17/75) to
predecessors in case No. 026 -75 and the associated
covenant dated 9/9/75, to make such Lot buildable.
2. The premises are located at 47 West Miacomet Road,
Assessor's Parcel 86 -007, Land Court Plan 17368 -I, Lot 24,
zoned in the Moorlands Management District ("MMD").
3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers in
this and prior case 026 -75 including that variance and
covenant, a letter of 8/25/88 with enclosures from the
Nantucket Land Bank Commission, 9/9/88 quitclaim deed to
Lot 26, Building Commissioner's letter of 10/31/88,
Applicant's memorandum of 11/16/88, other correspondence,
copies of Land Court plans, viewings, and representations
and testimony received at our hearings of 8/26/88,
9/23/88, 10/14/88 and 11/18/88.
4. As explained in the Application form, Applicant's Lot
24 has the benefit of the 026 -75 variance (for undersized
frontage of about 1481, but only as hereafter noted, in
conjunction with Lot 26). Lot 24 is subject to the
conditions of the covenant. Arguing that the covenant only
restricts 2 of 4 lots (i.e., 2 of Lots 24, 25, 26 and 27)
against being built upon and that Lots 25 and 27 have been
purchased by the Land Bank and so restricted against
building, Applicant urges that we find her inland Lot 24
to be buildable (without the prior removal of the existing
house on her ocean -front Lot 26).
5. Applicant further asserts equity and hardship arising
from her 10/17/78 purchase of both lots and 8/83 agreement
to sell Lot 26 to the Peacocks, intending to retain Lot 24
as buildable, all without being aware of the restrictive
9/9/75 covenant and 026 -75 variance. Although these
documents were both of record in the Registry of Deeds,
she "believed that she had purchased two buildable lots"
at the time of purchase and until the summer of 1987.
' File No'. 088 -88
6. The Land Bank argues that creation of only 2 buildable
ocean -front lots was accomplished by the variance and
covenant, where the predecessor grantee of the variance
formerly had just one ocean -front and one inland lot. The
covenant was so worded that each owner of an ocean -front
lot could build inland if, but only if, there was no
dwelling on the ocean front, e.g., because of erosion.
Neither owner of an ocean -front lot could build both at
ocean front and inland regardless of what the owner of the
other ocean -front lot did.
7. We find that the Land Bank's reading of the 026 -75
variance and covenant is the correct one. When the
predecesor Cloughs applied for that variance, they owned
ocean -front Lot 17 with some 2.5 acres and 300' frontage
on the south side of unimproved West Miacomet Road. They
also owned inland Lot 11 with 3.5 acres and 296' frontage
on the north side of the road. The reason they gave for
seeking relief was "to subdivide both lots [17 and 11] to
create two (2) [not 4] building lots ". The accompanying
copy of Land Court Plan 17368 -F was marked to show a
north -south subdivision line bisecting Lots 17 and 11 into
respective east and west 'lots' or parcels, each with
ocean frontage. Apparently their counsel did not realize
at the time that, technically, 4 lots might thus be
created because the 2 north -south 'lots' are each crossed
by West Miacomet Road. With then applicable zoning Limited
Use General -2, minimum lot size was 80,000 SF (1.84 acres)
and minimum frontage 1501. As further explained in the
reasons for relief, each of the 2 'lots' (east and west)
to be created would be a few feet short of the required
frontage (i.e., on the north side of the road). Although
each of the 4 lots technically to be created was marked on
that plan as having less than the required 1.84 acres, no
request for lot -size relief was made in that respect. The
notice of 026 -75 hearing similarly limited relief sought
to frontage only.
8. Minutes of the 026 -75 hearing on 8/26/75 (which minutes
also constitute the variance grant and so are of record in
the Registry of Deeds) state that the proposed "two lots,
each lot being divided by the road - -- would be 3.0 acres
more or less --- ". Each of the 2 " -- -lots would be used to
accomodate one single family dwelling unit --- ". "The
purpose of the subdivision is to allow two [3 -acre] lots
with each lot having frontage on the ocean rather than
having one lot on the ocean and one [inland] lot on West
Miacomet Ave [sic]." Hardship was claimed in the about 2'
frontage shortfall resulting from road layout. Counsel for
petitioners stated they would agree to restrict the two
[3 -acre] 'lots' to one house per 'lot'. The Planning
Board's favorable recommendation conformed with this
reading of the minutes /variance grant.
- 2 -
- File No. 088 -88
9. The 9/9/75 covenant is then rightly understood as
conditioning the division of Lots 11 and 17 to " - -- result
in only two (2) buildable lots - - -", i.e., the respective
3 -acre 'lots' extending north -south across West Miacomet
Road (now technically shown as 4 lots). Until delivery of
the 9/9/88 deed, Applicant Cafaro owned the westerly of
these two 3 -acre 'lots', the one consisting of present
Lots 24 and 26. Ocean -front Lot 26 has an existing
single - family dwelling; hence, inland Lot 24 was and is
unbuildable. With Applicant's division of her 3 -acre
north -south parcel (Lots 24 and 26) by 9/9/88 sale of
ocean -front Lot 26 to the Peacocks, Lot 24 (also Lot 26)
was rendered undersized without benefit of variance or
grandfathering and, for that further reason, unbuildable
whether or not any building stands on Lot 26.
10. Applicant, at our 8/26/88 hearing, took the position
that she could have been the first to build on both her
Lots 26 and 24, as she reads the covenant, and the owner
of Lots 25 and 27 would simply be out of luck with neither
lot buildable. The Land Bank's reading of the restriction,
and ours, is the only fair reading of the covenant,
faithful to the original intent. Arguably, the variance
grant is conditioned on Lots 24 and 26 being kept in
common ownership as one 3 -acre 'lot' of the two which were
created; otherwise, neither meets the 1.84 -acre minimum
lot requirement for LUG -2, much less the MMD minimum lot
size requirement.
11. In support of a requested variance to free Lot 24 from
the frontage and minimum lot size requirements of the
intensity regulations, Applicant cites no proper grounds
for our finding a hardship, other than the same grounds on
which the 026 -75 frontage variance was granted. In effect,
she asks that we re -write that earlier variance not only
to allow Lot 24 to be a valid separate lot although less
than 80,000 SF as then required, but also to allow 2
dwellings, not just one, on the westerly parcel (Lots 24
and 26). Clearly, such relief, then and even more so now,
would be in derogation of the purpose and intent of the
zoning Bylaw. Any hardship here is of her own making in
the sense that Lot 24 was validly buildable alternatively
to Lot 26 before she sold Lot 26 out of common ownership.
Nothing is argued as to circumstances of topography, lot
shape or soil conditions of Lot 24 unique in the MMD zone,
a requisite to variance relief. Our granting relief would
clearly nullify the intent and purpose of the zoning
Bylaw, specifically, the intensity regulations.
Substantial detriment to the public good would result,
e.g., to the public purposes of safeguarding the MMD zone
expressed in Section 139 -15A and of the Land Bank which
has been acquiring land in the MMD zone for such public
purposes.
- 3 -
' -Fil,e No. 088 -88
12. Applicant's Lot 24 remains separately marketable
although unbuildable. It may have value especially to an
abutter desiring further open acreage, either as such or
to render an undersized lot more conforming. Any loss of
value as an unbuildable lot is of Applicant's own making.
13. Neighbors including the Land Bank and others expressed
opposition to relief.
14. Accordingly, upon motion to grant the relief requested
in either alternative, the vote of this Board was
unanimous in the NEGATIVE. Relief is, therefore, DENIED.
Dated (kGember .2 , 1988
- 4 -
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
At a public hearing on Friday, November 18, 1988, at
1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on
the Application (088 -88) of DORANN J. CAFARO having an
address ata3 Avenue of 2 Rivers, Rumson, NJ 07760, the
Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following
DECISION:
I. Applicant seeks a Variance from the minimum lot size
requirement of zoning Bylaw Section 139 -16A to render her
Lot 24 buildable. In the alternative, she seeks a
modification or favorable interpretation of the Variance
this Board granted 8/26/75 (and filed 9/17/75) to
predecessors in case No. 026 -75 and the associated
covenant dated 9/9/75, to make such Lot buildable.
2. The premises are located at 47 West Miacomet Road,
Assessor's Parcel 86 -007, Land Court Plan 17368 -I, Lot 24,
zoned in the Moorlands Management District ("MMD").
3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers in
this and prior case 026 -75 including that variance and
covenant, a letter of 8/25/88 with enclosures from the
Nantucket Land Bank Commission, 9/9/88 quitclaim deed to
Lot 26, Building Commissioner's.letter of 10/31/88,
Applicant's memorandum of 11/16/88, other correspondence,
copies of Land Court plans, viewings, and representations
and testimony received at our hearings of 8/26/88,
9/23/88, 10/14/88 and 11/18/88.
4. As explained in the Application form, Applicant's Lot
24 has the benefit of the 026 -75 variance (for undersized
.frontage of about-1481, but only as hereafter noted, in
conjunction with Lot 26). Lot 24 is subject to the
conditions of the covenant. Arguing that the covenant only
restricts 2 of 4 lots (i.e., 2 of Lots 24, 25, 26 and 27)
against being built upon and that Lots 25 and 27 have been
purchased by the Land Bank and so restricted against
building, Applicant urges that we find her inland Lot 24
to be buildable (without the prior removal of the existing
house on her ocean -front Lot 26).
5. Applicant further asserts equity and hardship arising
from her 10/17/78 purchase of both lots and 8/83 agreement
to sell Lot 26 to the Peacocks, intending to retain Lot 24
as buildable, all without being aware of the restrictive
9/9/75 covenant and 026 -75 variance. Although these
documents were both of record in the Registry of Deeds,
she "believed that she had purchased two buildable lots"
at the time of purchase and until the summer of 1987.
File No'. 088 -88
6. The Land Bank argues that creation of only 2 buildable
ocean -front lots was accomplished by the variance and
covenant, where the predecessor grantee of the variance
formerly had just one ocean -front and one inland lot. The
covenant was so worded that each owner of an ocean -front
lot could build inland if, but only if, there was no
dwelling on the ocean front, e.g., because of erosion.
Neither owner of an ocean -front lot could build both at
ocean front-,and inland regardless of what the owner of the
other ocean -front lot did.
7. We find that the Land Bank's reading of the 026 -75
variance and covenant is the correct one. When the
predecesor Cloughs applied for that variance, they owned
ocean -front Lot 17 with some 2.5 acres and 300' frontage
on the south side of unimproved West Miacomet Road. They
also owned inland Lot it with 3.5 acres and 296' frontage
on the north side of the road. The reason they gave for
seeking relief was "to subdivide both lots [17 and 11] to
create two (2) [not 4] building lots ". The accompanying
copy of Land Court Plan 17368 -F was marked to show a
north -south subdivision line bisecting Lots 17 and it into
respective east and west 'lots' or parcels, each with
ocean frontage. Apparently their counsel did not realize
at the time that, technically, 4 lots might thus be
created because the 2 north -south 'lots' are each crossed
by West Miacomet Road. With then applicable zoning Limited
Use General -2, minimum lot size was 80,000 SF (1.84 acres)
and minimum frontage 1501. As further explained in the
reasons for relief, each of the 2 'lots' (east and west)
to be created would be a few feet short of the required
frontage (i.e., on the north side of the road). Although
each of the 4 lots technically to be created was marked on
that plan as having less than the required 1.84 acres, no
request for lot -size relief was made in that respect. The
.notice of 026 -75 hearing similarly limited relief sought
to frontage only.
8. Minutes of the 026 -75 hearing on 8/26/75 (which minutes
also constitute the variance grant and so are of record in
the Registry of Deeds) state that the proposed "two lots,
each lot being divided by the road - -- would be 3.0 acres
more or less --- ". Each of the 2 " -- -lots would be used to
accomodate one single family dwelling unit --- ". "The
purpose of the subdivision is to allow two [3 -acre] lots
with each lot having frontage on the ocean rather than
having one lot on the ocean and one [inland] lot on West
Miacomet Ave [sic]." Hardship was claimed in the about 2'
frontage shortfall resulting from road layout. Counsel for
petitioners stated they would agree to restrict the two
[3 -acre] 'lots' to one house per 'lot'. The Planning
Board's favorable recommendation conformed with this
reading of the minutes /variance grant.
- 2 -
File No. 088 -88
9. The 9/9/75 covenant is then rightly understood as
conditioning the division of Lots 11 and 17 to " - -- result
in only two (2) buildable lots - - -", i.e., the respective
3 -acre 'lots' extending north -south across West Miacomet
Road (now technically shown as 4 lots). Until delivery of
the 9/9/88 deed, Applicant Cafaro owned the westerly of
these two 3 -acre 'lots', the one consisting of present
Lots 24 and 26. Ocean -front Lot 26 has an existing
single - family dwelling; hence, inland Lot 24 was and is
unbuildable. With Applicant's division of her 3 -acre
north -south parcel (Lots 24 and 26) by 9/9/88 sale of
ocean -front Lot 26 to the Peacocks, Lot 24 (also Lot 26)
was rendered undersized without benefit of variance or
grandfathering and, for that further reason, unbuildable
whether or not any building stands on Lot 26.
10. Applicant, at our 8/26/88 hearing, took the position
that she could have been the first to build on both her
Lots 26 and 24, as she reads the covenant, and the owner
of Lots 25 and 27 would simply be out of luck with neither
lot buildable. The Land Bank's reading of the restriction,
and ours, is the only fair reading of the covenant,
faithful to the original intent. Arguably, the variance
grant is conditioned on Lots 24 and 26 being kept in
common ownership as one 3 -acre 'lot' of the two which were
created; otherwise, neither meets the 1.84 -acre minimum
lot requirement for LUG -2, much less the MMD minimum lot
size requirement.
11. In support of a requested variance to free Lot 24 from
the frontage and minimum lot size requirements of the
intensity regulations, Applicant cites no proper grounds
for our finding a hardship, other than the same grounds on
which the 026 -75 frontage variance was granted. In effect,
she asks that we re -write that earlier variance not only
to allow Lot 24 to be a valid separate lot although less
than 80,000 SF as then required, but also to allow 2
dwellings, not just one, on the westerly parcel (Lots 24
and 26). Clearly, such relief, then and even more so now,
would be in derogation of the purpose and intent of the
zoning Bylaw. Any hardship here is of her own making in
the sense that Lot 24 was validly buildable alternatively
to Lot 26 before she sold Lot 26 out of common ownership.
Nothing is argued as to circumstances of topography, lot
shape or soil conditions of Lot 24 unique in the MMD zone,
a requisite to variance relief. Our granting relief would
clearly nullify the intent and purpose of the zoning
Bylaw, specifically, the intensity regulations.
Substantial detriment to the public good would result,
e.g., to the public purposes of safeguarding the MMD zone
expressed in Section 139 -15A and of the Land Bank which
has been acquiring land in the MMD zone for such public
purposes.
- 3 -
File No'. 088 -88
12. Applicant's Lot 24 remains separately marketable
although unbuildable. It may have value especially to an
abutter desiring further open acreage, either as such or
to render an undersized lot more conforming. Any loss of
value as an unbuildable lot is of Applicant's own making.
13. Neighbors including the Land Bank and others expressed
opposition to relief.
14. Accordingly, upon motion to grant the relief requested
in either alternative, the vote of this Board was
unanimous in the NEGATIVE. Relief is, therefore, DENIED.
Dated Ok C.ember �2 , 1988
- 4 -
v 47
1
November
Y , 1988
Mr. William Sherman
Chairman
Town & County Building
Broad Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
R\ Application of Doran Cafaro
088 -88
Lot 24, L. C. P. 17368 -I
West Miacomet Road
Dear Bill: e;eAA -�v��
In accorda/with the Board's request, this letter will confirm that
I, as attorney Cafaro, have assented to the continuance of the
public hearing ove. referenced matter until November 18, 1988 and
to the extensio for making a decision until December 9, 1988. As
I am sure you recall, at the October 14, 1988, hearing the Building Commission
requested the extension in light of evidence of a conveyance of Lot 26, on
L. C. Plan 17368 -I. With my client not being present I, verbally assented to
the request at the hearing. I trust that this writing will be sufficient for
your purpose.
Very truly yours,
David J. Moretti
� * 0 e
BOARD OF APPEALS OF NANTUCKET
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
File No. 088 -88 _
Map 0086 Parcel 007
IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF Dorann J. Cafaro
Upon the request of the Applicant(s) made in writing, hereby to continue
the hearing on the above captioned matter, the Board hereby grants that request
for a continuance until October 14. 1988
In consideration of the Board's granting such continuance at the Applicant's
request, Applicant hereby agrees and does grant to the Board an extension of
time in which the Board must make a decision on this matter from 75 days
after the date of filing of the Application herein as is required under Section
139 -__3,W and Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws, until 96y '� 1
days after the date of filing of the appcation, and further, Applicant waives
all of its rights under Section 139 -3a the Nantucket Zoning By -Law and s
Chapter 40A of the Massachsuetts General Laws to a decision within 75 days
of filing of the application under said Section 139-3W ?and Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A or any other provision of the By -Law to the extent
that it is inconsistent with this agreement and extension.
z9�-- (4404& -
PLICANT #t IfER ATTORNEY:
TIATTTT% T UADVIrMT
I'
4- a3 - ?j
DATE
DATE
DA E
r /"
DATE
DATE
ti
DATE
Patricia A. Cassels
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ss. September 1985
Then personally appeared the above -named PATRICIA A. CASSELS,
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free act and
deed, before me,
My commission expires:
Notary Public
MASSACHUSETTS QUITCLAIM DEED INDIVIDUAL (LONG FORM) 082 ^ i 5 7/
r I, VATRICIA A. CASSELS
of 11 Woodmere Court, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M9A 3Jl]V6UM"p
being unmarried, for consideration paid, and in full consideration of $525,000.00
grant to NM Nantucket Land Bank Commission, a duly elected political
subdivision of the County of Nantucket, Massachusetts
of Town and County Building, Nantucket, MA 02554 with tlutlrlaint rnuenttnls
thelandin the Town and County of Nantucket, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,'
bounded and described as follows:
[Description and encumbrances, if any]
SOUTHERLY by the line of West Miacomet Road, one hundred
forty -seven (147.00) feet;
WESTERLY by Lot 24 on plan hereinafter mentioned, on two
courses, five hundred eighty -four and 45/100
(584.45) feet;
NORTHERLY one hundred twelve and 4/100 (112.04) feet; and
EASTERLY five hundred forty -seven and 71/100 (547.71) feet,
by Lot 23 on said plan.
Said land is shwon as Lot 25 on said plan.
Also, another parcel of land, situate in said Nantucket, bounded and
described as follows:
NORTHERLY by the line of West Miacomet Road, one hundred
fifty (150) feet;
EASTERLY by Lots 13, A -7 and 12 as shown on plan
hereinafter mentioned, about three hundred eighty
(380 +) feet;
SOUTHERLY by the Atlantic Ocean; and
WESTERLY by Lot 26 on said plan, about three hundred
thirty -five (335 +) feet.
Said land is shown as Lot 27 on said plan.
All of said boundaries, except the water lines, are determined by the
Land Court to be located as shown upon plan numbered 17368 -I, drawn
by Josiah S. Barrett, Surveyor, dated January 19, 1976, and filed
with Certificate of Title No. 7605 at the Registry District of
Nantucket County.
Excepting and excluding from said Lots 25 and 27 the fee is West
Miacomet Road adjacent thereto.
Subject to the deed of Lot A -7 to Katherine S. Beale and Harry
Summerhayes, in accordance with stipulation with said Katherine S.
Beale and Harry Summerhayes, in said case, and subject to rights of
way, from said Lot A -7, to said Miacomet Pond and to the Atlantic
Ocean, and also to the Town Way at the North, as set forth in the
decree in said Land Court case.
Subject to and with the benefit of the Town Way running from the
Northerly part of said Lot A -6 as set forth in the Stipulation with
the Town of Nantucket, filed in said case, including the right to
fishing at the Southerly end of said forty (40) foot Town Way.
For my title, see Certificate of Title No. 8023 recorded at the
Nantucket Registry District for the Land Court.
The premises hereby conveyed are to be acquired and held by the
Grantee for the purposes described in Article XLIX of the Amendments
to the Massachusetts Constitution, and all provisions thereof shall
be applicable to the premises.
(*Individual — Joint Tenants — Tenants in Common.)
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
I, PATRICIA A. CASSELS (hereinafter, together with her succes-
sors in title to the Restricted Land, the "Owner ") , being the
owner of the land in Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts,
shown as Lots 25 and 27 upon Land Court Plan 17368 -I (the "Restricted
Land ") by virtue of Certificate of Title No. 8023 at Nantucket
Registry District, hereby grant to NEAL W. O'CONNOR and NANCY T.
O'CONNOR (the "O'Connors ") , being the owner of the land in said
Nantucket shown as Lot 31 upon Land Court Plan 17368 -K (the
"O'Connor Land ") by virtue of Certificate of Title No. 9672 at
Nantucket Registry District, and to DORANN J. CAFARO ( "Cafaro ") ,
as the owner of the land in said Nantucket shown as Lot 26 upon
Land Court Plan 17368 -I (the "Cafaro Land ") by virtue of Certificate
of Title No. 8467 at Nantucket Registry District (the O'Connor
Land and the Cafaro Land being hereinafter referred to as the
"Benefited Land ", and the O'Connors and Cafaro, and their respective
successors in title to the O'Connor Land and Cafaro Land being
hereinafter referred to as the "Benefited Holders "), the right to
enforce the restrictions hereinafter set forth (the "Restrictions ")
upon the Restricted Land:
1. No buildings shall be erected, maintained, used, or
occupied upon the Restricted Land. All existing buildings upon
the Restricted Land shall be removed by the Owner on or before
September 16, 1986, without disturbance to the surrounding vegeta-
tion.
2. The Restricted Land shall remain in its natural state
in all respects; provided, however, that the southerly portion of
Lot 25 on Land Court Plan 17368 -I may be used for parking up to
fifteen (15) cars; and provided further that neither any such
such area used for parking cars, nor any other portion of the
Restricted Land, shall be paved or surfaced with gravel, or other
impervious surface.
The Restrictions may be amended only by written agreement
between the Owner and Benefited Holders.
The Restrictions shall remain in full force and effect and
shall be enforceable for the maximum period permitted under the
laws of Massachusetts from time to time in effect, including any
periods of extension if such extensions are duly made by instruments
duly filed for record at Nantucket Registry District in accordance
with such laws. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of the
O'Connors and their successors in title to the O'Connor Land to
enforce the Restrictions shall terminate at such time as neither
of the O'Connors, nor the spouse of either of them, shall have
any present interest of record in the O'Connor Land, and the
right of Cafaro and her successors in title to the Cafaro Land to
enforce the Restrictions shall terminate at such time as neither
Michael Peacock nor Nancy Peacock (the parties appearing as Buyers
in a certain purchase and sale agreement relating to the Cafaro
Land dated August 5, 1983, filed for record with Nantucket Registry
District as Document No. 27927) shall have any present interest
of record, including rights of purchase under said purchase and
sale agreement, in the Cafaro Land.
Executed and sealed this day of September, 1985.
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
NOTICE.
A public hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be
held on Friday, August 26, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town
and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (Ogg -
-88) of DORANN J. CAFARO seeking modification or
clarification of VARIANCE 026 -75 and covenant of 9/75 to
designate each of Lots 24 and 26 (and not 25 and 27) as
buildable lots; alternatively, a new VARIANCE, from
Section 139 -16A 10 -acre minimum lot size (here 1.6 acres)
and 300 -foot frontage (here 148.551), to render Lot 24
buildable. The premises are at 47 West Miacomet Road,
Assessor's Parcel 86 -007, Land Court Plan 17368 -I, Lot 24,
in the Moorlands Management zoning district.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOA Form 1 -87
ARPEICATION'.•;
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ")
Owner s name(s): Dorann J . •Eafaro
Mailing address: 3 Avenue of' 2 Rivers, Rumson, NJ 07760
,Afplicant' s name Same
Mailing 'address : Same
Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel: Map 0086 Parcel 007
Street address 47 West Miacomet Road, Nantucket, MA
Regi 8X stry LC PL, 8 ��XM 17368 -I Lot 24 Deed tef . e9 67
-Subdivision Endorsed
' ,:Date lot(s) acquired: 10 /07/ 78 Zoning district MMD
Number of dwelling units on lot(s): None Rental guest rooms N/A
Commercial use on lot(s): None MCD?
Building date(s): al-1 pre -'72 zoning? N/A or
Building permit application-Nos'. and.dates N/A C of 0?
Case No(s). or dates all -prior BOA applications: 26 -75
State fully all zoning relief sought together with all respective Code sections
';`and subsections, specifically, what you propose compared with present and
k'what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if
rVariance, -30A if Special Permit,`.. -33A if to alter or extend non - conforming
or to reverse Building Inspector by /Appeal''per -;31A & B:
Locus is subiect to and has'�the benefit of>a VARIANCE and Covenant dated September 1975
which allowed for a redivision of Lots 11 and 17 on L "C Plan 17368 =F into Lots 24, 25,
26 and 27 on L.C. Plan '17368 -I Owing to the circumstances at the time, the Board decided
family dwelling unit may be constructed on "'each of the two (2) lots Since that time,
Lots 25 and 27 have been restricted as against building and shall remain in their natural
state but for a 15 car parking lot and were conveyed to the Land Bank Applicant now
seeks confirmation or modification of the previous variance so as to designate Lots 24 and
26 as the two (2) "buildable" lots. In the alternative, the-Applicant see s
re ie y
t of
-16 n ens y igu a ions..o oAply- aw. Enclosures formng part o t is ication:
Supplement bo above
Site /gSlot pl n( s) with present /proposed structures
Locus map , Floor plans present /proposed Appeal;.record'
Needed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data
Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets)
Fee check for
I certify that
and true to
Signature•
(I not ,
$150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket {'.Cap" covenant M
the requested information submitted is substantially-complete
t est m k owledge• ..under pains'and 'penalties'.of perjur ,
Applicant_ Attorney /Agent
show basis for`authority'tb"aDDI� *.)'.
N
BOA Form 1-87
;Owner's name(s):
Mailing address:
Applicant's name
No;o v
ABPEZCA�ION'.•�
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ")
Dorann J. - Cafaro
3 Avenue of '2 Rivers, Rumson, NJ 07760
Same
•Mailing address: Same
"Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel:_ Hap 0086 Parcel 007
Street address 47 West Miacomet Road, Nantucket, MA
..Registry LC PL, 17368 -I Lot 24 Deed kef . e0 67
:,Subdivision Endorsed/ ANR?
`.'Date Lot(s) acquired: to /07 78 Toning district MMID
Number of dwelling units on lot(s): None Rental guest too N/A
Commercial use on lot(s): None MCD?
Building date(s): al-1 pre -'72 zoning?,- N/ or
Building permit application-Nos. and .dates N/ C of 0?
Case NOW. or dates all prior BOA,•applications: 26 -75
State fully all zoning relief sought. together with all respective Code sections
�and subsections, specifically, what you propose compared with present and
fy,t"'what grounds you urge, for. BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if
W Variance, - 30A'if Special Permit, 33A if to alter or extend non - conforming
,use, or to reverse Building'Inspector.•byyAppeal' per` -;31A & B:
Locus is subiect to and`hhai'�the benefit of 'a VARIANCE and Covenant dated September 1975
which allowed for a redivision of Lots 11 and 17 on L.C. Plan 17368 =F into Lots 24, 25,
26 and 27 on L.C. Plan 17368 =I Owing to the circumstances at the time, the Board decided
and the +Parties covenant e t at on v o 8 'stisii'd`b`e
��rrfable -and -Deer � -l�: ;single
family dwelling unit may be'�const•ructed on`each of the two (2) lots. Since that time,
Lots 25 and 27 have'beeti restricted as against building and shall remain in their natural
4 state but for a 15 car parking'lot and were 'conveyed 'to the Land Bank. Applicant now
`seeks 'confirmation
26 as the two (2)
1.
modification of the Ere vioue variance so as to designate Lots 24 and
ildable 'lots. In the alternative, t e p cant see re e
-16
Enclosures"oraii % g part o `t'`is�App8lcaton: Supplement bo above a
Site /clot pl n(s) X with present /proposed structures
Locus map Floor plans present /proposed Appeal:.reeord'
;.
Needed: areas Frontage setbacks GCR7. parking data________
' >y Assessor's certified addressee list 4'SetB)c
( �, ,• Miii.ing' -iebels?
`Fee check for $150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket Map" covenant
I, certify that the requestedinformation submitted is substantially-complete
and true° to t est` m k owledge•, .,under pains and 'penalties,.of perjur
Signatur • Applicant 'Attornev /A2ent