HomeMy WebLinkAbout115-88I15-S�
MANTUCRET SONIXG
BOARD OF APP=ALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACRUBBTTa 02554
febfLD� JQ 198C1
File No. ( IS-- gg,
To: Parties in interest and others
Re: Decision in the Application of
W t e tf t+ EL 6A))D N4A)0- 9 PE64-Cocck
Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has
this day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk.
An appeal from this decisionf may ba taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A,,Massachusetts General Laws. Any
action appealing the decision must be brought by filing a
complaint in court within twenty (2b) days after this
date. Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint
and certified copy of the decision must be given to the
Town Clerk so as to be received within such twenty (20)
days.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
cc: Building Commissioner
Planning Board
Town Clerk
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET., MASSACHUSETTS 02554
At a public hearing on Friday, February 10, 1989, at
1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on
the Application (115 -88) of MICHAEL and NANCY PEACOCK
having an address at 6416 Shadow Road, Chevy Chase, MD
20815, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the
following DECISION:
1. Applicants seek reversal of the October 31, 1988 order
or decision of the Building Commissioner by an appeal
pursuant to zoning Bylaw Sections 139 -31A and B. In that
order or decision, the Commissioner gave Applicants notice
that their use of the building [their summer home] at 47
West Miacomet Road is a violation of Section 139 -16A
because the area of their lot is less than the applicable
minimum lot size - 80,000 SF. They were ordered to cease
and desist and notified of a fine of up to $100 /day for
continued violation.
2. In the alternative, Applicants seek a Variance from the
minimum lot size requirement of Section 139 -16A to
validate their Lot 26 and its use for a single - family
residence. If the requested relief were granted them in
either alternative, they would accept the condition that
no secondary dwelling or other dwelling unit be permitted
on their Lot 26.
3. The premises are at 47 West Miacomet Road, Assessor's
Parcel 86 -006, Lot 26 on Land Court Plan 17683 -I, in the
Moorlands Management zoning district
4. Our findings are based upon the Application papers
including the Building Commissioner's letter of 10/31/88,
1/19/76 subdivision plan endorsed ANR, Clough deeds dated
1/31/76 and 12/23/76, and 9/19/88 plot plan of Lot 26,
representations and testimony received at our hearing of
January 13, 1989 along with their counsel's outline of
argument and mark -up of our 12/2/88 decision in 088 -88,
also the public record in the related zoning applications
026 -75, 027 -76 and 088 -88.
5. Much of the factual background for this proceeding is
set forth in that 088 -88 decision of record in the Town
Clerk's office; hence, reference to it will be useful. As
counsel noted, a threshold question concerns the effect of
the 8/26/75 conditional variance and 9/9/75 covenant in
application 026 -75. As elaborated in the 088 -88 decision,
the 026 -75 variance was granted in response to predecessor
Cloughs' application for relief to subdivide both their
2.5 -acre ocean -side Lot 17 fronting on the south side of
File No. 115 -88
West Miacomet Road and their inland Lot 11 fronting on its
north side. They desired, according to the 8/26/75
minutes /variance grant:
" - -- to re- structure the two lots so as to make two
lots, each lot being divided by the road. Each lot
would be 3.0 acres more or less.
"The purpose of the subdivision is to allow two lots
with each lot having frontage on the ocean rather than
having one on the ocean and one [inland] lot on West
Miacomet Ave. [sic]
"In the event the variance is granted and the covenant
accepted, the total allowed living units will be two."
[i.e., one on each of the 3.0 -acre lots which, when
created, will be divided by the road.]
6. While the variance request was footed on a shortfall of
frontage on the north side of the road, the Board simply
"voted to grant the variance" subject to the covenant
restricting the new 3.0 -acre lots to one dwelling each.
7. Counsel argues that no variance was needed with respect
to frontage since the shortfall on the north side of the
road arose from a taking of the road which did not conform
to the curvature shown on Land Court Plan 17368 as placed
in 1969. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a
frontage variance was not required, either because a
taking would not render Lot 11 nonconforming or because
the two new lots would have the required frontage on the
south side of the road, the variance is necessarily
understood as granting relief from the provision, cited by
counsel, that bars creation of a lot divided by a road or
street. On the other hand, the variance cannot be
understood as lifting the 80,000 -SF minimum lot size
requirement. The Board expressly characterized each of the
divided lots as 3.0 acres, i.e., oversized.
8. If Applicants now owned the entire 3.0 -acre westerly
lot [divided by the road] which their predecessors were
permitted to create, equitable considerations would likely
enable them to retain and use their summer home sited on
the southerly [Lot 26] portion of that lot. The 026 -75
decision, as noted above, expressly validates a "living
unit" on the lot with grant of the variance. The
definition of "lot" in M.G.L. c. 41, Sec. 81L, apparently
sanctions such a divided lot, requiring only that it have
definite boundaries and one ownership as a building site.
- 2 -
File No. 115 -88
9. Applicants' predecessors the Cloughs, however, were
apparently not content with two 3.0 -acre ocean -front lots
but undertook to have the Planning Board endorse a
subdivision plan on 1/19/76 with four lots, each
undersized (unless Lot 25 has 80,000 SF and not just 1.80
acres). After obtaining Land Court approval of the 4 -lot
subdivision on Plan 17368I of 1/22/76, they transferred
the two easterly Lots 25 and 27 on 1/31/76 to Michael
Cassells as two separate parcels. We are told that those
two lots have remained in common ownership, with the
Nantucket Land Bank the current owner. By deed of
12/23/76, the Cloughs transferred the two westerly Lots 24
and 26 to J. Barry Morrissey as two separate parcels.
10. One might, at this point, argue that the 026 -75
variance lapsed for failure to exercise the rights
authorized, i.e., to proceed with creation of just two
3.0 -acre lots, each with ocean -front and interior portions
divided by the road. If the variance lapsed or was
otherwise not protective of the lots transferred by the
Cloughs, the undersized Lots 26 and 27 violated the zoning
Bylaw when split from former Lot 17 by transfer into
separate ownership. This split occured with the first
transfer 1/31/76 prior to any variance lapse, the second
transfer 12/23/76 occuring more than one year after the
026 -75 variance grant.
11. On 12/20/76, the Cloughs filed application 027 -76 with
this Board seeking variance relief for Lot 26, treated as
a separate lot without any evident reference to Lot 24 or
the prior 026 -75 variance. The requested variance for
relief from the 30 -foot front -yard setback requirement was
granted 1/19/76 (but mistakenly granted according to the
9/19/88 plot plan showing actual setback greater than 30
feet). Finding this variance grant in the Registry of
Deeds, one might reasonably argue that no claim of
protection for Lot 26 was made or available under the
026 -75 variance as of 1/19/76, confirming the zoning
violation. No argument has been made nor evidence offered
that the 027 -76 variance cured the Lot 26 undersized area
violation.
12. On 10/7/78 (with Certificate of Title 10/17/78), the
two westerly lots were transferred to Applicants'
immediate predecessor, Dorann Cafaro, the applicant in
088 -88. Pursuant to a purchase agreement dated 8/83, she
sold Lot 26 to Applicants by instrument dated 9/9/88. Even
if an undersized area violation had not previously
commenced, it did so as of the date that last transfer was
effected. The violation did not arise as a breach of a
condition of common ownership of Lots 24 and 26 implied in
the 026 -75 variance grant, as counsel argues, but by the
negation of any claim that Lot 24 with Lot 26 together
- 3 -
File No. 115 -88
constituted the 3.0 -acre lot divided by the road and
authorized by the 026 -75 variance. An owner may not sell
off an undersized portion of one conforming lot and claim
entitlement do so just because M.G.L. c. 40A forbids
conditioning variance relief based upon continued
ownership. Either Lots 24 and 26 when owned by Cafaro
still constituted the one divided 'lot' sanctioned by the
026 -75 variance, or they did not and the violation had
commenced years previously.
13. Since Applicants' Lot 26 area is smaller than the
required 80,000 -SF minimum lot size, we must sustain the
Building Commissioner's 10/31/88 finding that their summer
home and their residential use of it constitute a
violation of the zoning Bylaw, namely, Section 139 -16A.
14. Counsel urges, however, that Chapter 481 of the Acts
of 1987, which came into force last year, is a Statute of
Limitations barring the Building Commissioner from
requiring removal of the building and, inferentially, from
ordering them to cease and desist their residential use
and from imposing a fine for their failure to do so. That
amendment to the Zoning Act, M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 7,
bars any
"action - -- to compel the removal - -- of any
structure by reason of the alleged violation of - --
any - -- [zoning] by -law adopted [under c. 40A], or the
conditions of any variance - - -, unless such action - --
is commenced - -- within ten years next after the
commencement of the alleged violation." [] material
added.
15. As noted above, the violation charged commenced when
Lot 26 was not in contiguous ownership with Lot 27 (as it
was when, with Lot 27, it formed prior Lot 17) and also
was not protected by the 026 -75 variance as part of the
one 3.0 -acre lot divided by the road. Counsel argues that
the violation occured no latter than the October 1978
transfer of separate Lots 24 and 26 to Cafaro, unprotected
by the 026 -75 variance. Otherwise, we must find that the
violation occured with Applicants' 9/9/88 purchase of Lot
26 from Cafaro.
16. That question is a close one. On equitable grounds, a
successor in ownership of the two Lots 24 and 26 would be
sustained in a claim to continued residential use of the
house on Lot 26 after some 15 years, rather than evicted
on technical grounds that Lots 24 and 26 were accorded
separate status in the Registry record since 1976. But the
same equities which support that hypothetical case also
support an opposing use of those technical grounds in
preserving to the Applicants here their continued
enjoyment of that house based upon the new Statute of
- 4 -
File No. 115 -88
Limitations, notwithstanding the zoning violation.
17. We recognize that the new Statute can be read narrowly
in the context of the preceeding provisions expressly
protecting use of improvements, after 6 years, if in
accordance with a building permit. But counsel, we
believe, correctly argues a legislative intent not only to
bar actions [in court or administrative] to remove a house
but also actions which would prevent any occupancy of the
house. The Statute is too recent for our decision to be
governed by case law interpretation. Because of the legal
uncertainty, Applicants would be well advised to cure the
zoning violation, although we find the Statute of
Limitations applicable here.
18. Applicants alternatively seek a Variance to validate
their undersized lot. No reasonable grounds for relief are
offered, however. Their hardship does not arise from lot
shape, topography or soil condition but from the zoning
violation resulting from their predecessors' actions.
Relief would be in direct derogation of the Section
139 -16A proscription against changing a lot's shape or
size without conforming to the requirements as to minimum
lot size. Applicants' willingness to have variance relief
conditioned on no secondary dwelling does not tip the
scales. Only the existing house but no additional
structure is insulated from the zoning violation by the
Statute of Limitations. Moreover, the 026 -75 covenant
against a further dwelling was supported by consideration
and continues in effect, applicable to the land formerly
within Lots 11 and 17 and thus to Lot 26.
19. Accordingly, this Board by unanimous vote sustains the
Building Commissioner's 10/31/88 finding that undersized
Lot 26 violates zoning Bylaw Section 139 -16A but reverses
his cease and desist order and bars imposition of the
corresponding fine, based upon the Statute of Limitations
c. 481 of the Acts of 1987.
Dated Februaryl0, 1989
- 5 -
LAG? Form 1 -87
No. M -
ARPEICATION"
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ")
Owner's name(s): Michael & Nancy Peacock
Mailing address: 6416 Shadow Road, Chevy .Chase, MD 20815
Applicant's name : Same
Mailing address: Same
Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel: 86/006
Street address 46 West Miacomet Road
Registry LC PL Pb-- Bid - mpg; --+- -17683 -I Lot 26 Deed ref. 13,80E
Subdivision Endorsed /_ /_ ANR?
Date lot(s) acquired: 10/14/_8 Zoning district LUG -2 (1975)
Number of dwelling units on lot(s): one (1) Rental guest rooms No
Commercial use on lot(s): None MCD? No
Building date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? or 1973
Building permit application-Nos. and dates241 on 3/26/73 C of 0? NQ,
Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications: 026 -75; 027 -76
State fully all zoning relief sought together with all respective Code section
and subsections, specifically, what you propose compared with present and
what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -12a. if
Variance, -30A if Special Permit, -33A if to alter or extend non- confcrMin2
use, or to reverse Building Inspector by,-Appeal per -31A & B:
Applicants received a letter dated 10131/88 from the Nantucket
Commissioner notifying them that their dwelling was on a.lot not m tirg
t_ he applicable 80,000 sq ft area requirement of an LUG -2 zone secticn
139 -1G. (A) of the Zoning By -Law and o of-a.-'e-and degis
fmm the al l t-gPd
violation. Applicants appeal this decision pursuant to Section 139 -31 (A),
(B) of said By -Law and in the alternative request a Variance as to to P
under Section 139 -32 of said .B -Law.
Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement bo above X
Site /plot plan(s) X with present /pcapame:d structures X
Locus map X Floor plans present /proposed Appeal record X
Needed: areas X frontage X setbacks X GCR% X parking data
Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets
$200.00 ) X Mail ing labels (2 •.spts)X_
Fee check for MM -)Q Payable to Town of Nantucket � .
X 'Cap" covenant No
I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete
and true to the best of my knowledge, under pairs and penalties of perjury,
Signature: Applicant Attorney / X
(If not owner, show basis for Ju o � ppxy;):
FOR QFFIC� z.1,JS,Ef
FROM PEACOCK BUICK VA 11/11/88 11:53 P. 1.
BUI
?qA
MENT
x
r
11iii-i life 01 %1611 IN 11"
'ext, .23.0.
October 31,
V 40-7`,084 207
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Peacock
1*7 West Miaoomet Road
Nantucket, MA 02554
Re; Zoninz violation at.
Deap ak"
This shall constitute notice:4tO YOu"theit you are in violation of
the Nantucket Zoning By-Laws with -respect to the above-designated
PrOPOrtY- SPOCifleally, a buil4in,
I g that - ,exists and is being used on
this property, notwithstarxding,,,,�,h
Ok.::th*. ,20.t'.Iis lose than 80,000 square
feet. know, the.-lot,,
eat. As
Atl-Xhs at_ the relevant
t
antucket"
'of
Z ime, ':& Lbtit6d Use "1 AT the Nantucket
.
V or land,- or any
Zoning By-L''' provides that 11,,,
Part thereof, shall be used ... unless in..,co, folity'with the [minimum lot
size] r0qui:60menta set forth bd-66V�` equitement's therefore provide
that the 4pplicable minimum 16.21" f�':!-
Pursuant to section 139-25,.,( . 6'): of'the Zoning By-Laws, you are
directed to immediately cease and. ',des.i'otIrom this zoning violation.
Please be advised that, under"49081tion 1-34"-251 (0) (1) of the Zoning
BY-Laws, a violation is puniA iblpro"'��_-"W`111'1
f: UP to #100.00 for each
day the Violation .-continues,
If You have any questions;,Please feel free to contact me
directly at (508) 228-7222. ThiLnk yo 6va
Ace for Your CooperatiQn-
Very truly
Q
IM ft.
Ronald J. Santos
Building Commissioner
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
RET RECEIP REQUESTED
n
41
WAYNE F. HOLMES
WILLIAM H. HAYS =
LAW OFFICES
HOLMES AND HAYS
3S CENTER STREET
NANTUCKET, MASS. 02SS4
September 25, 1975
Mr. Charles Clark Coffin
Town Clerk
Town of Nantucket
Nantucket, MA 02554
Dear Clark:
Enclosed please find a cony of the Board of Appeals
mintues of the meeting of August 26, 1975 covering the
petition of Charles I. Clough 026 -75 and the petition of
Alan Toole 027 -75, and decisions for both.
Thank you.
WFH /pr
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
i �.
Wayne F. Holmes Z
r � �
AREA COOS 817
228 -0052
Minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting, August 26, 1975.
Present were members, Holmes, Backus and Hyde.
In the matter of the petition of Charles I. Clough 026 -75.
Attorney Robert Mooney appeared for the petitioner and stated
the Cloughs' now own Lot 11 & 17, off West Miacomet Road. Lot
17 is a waterfront lot of 2.5 acres more or less and Lot 11
is situated across a way and consists of 3.5 acres. Each lot
may be used as one single family dwelling. The petitioner
desires to re- structure the two lots so as to make two lots,each
lot being divided by the road. Each lot would be 3.0 acres
more or less.
Mr. Mooney stated the lots would be used to accomodate one
single family dwelling unit. The purpose of the subdivision is
to allow two lots with each lot having frontage on the ocean
rather than having one lot on the ocean and one loL on West
Miacomet Ave.
Mr. Mooney stated that each new lot would have 147.78' of
frontage and would be 2.22' short of the required frontage. He
stated that the Town in placing West Miacomet Ave. through the
property did not follow the original curved line but rather used
a straight line path. Mr. Mooney presented a copy of L.C. Plan
17368A showing the original curved line for the center of West
Miacomet Ave. as placed in 1969. Had that curved line been
followed, the required frontage would exist for each lot. This
error, Mr. Mooney stated, constitutes a hardship from which the
petitioners have no appeal except to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mooney stated the petitioners would agree to restrict
the two lots to one house per lot if the variance is granted.
He stated there will be no increase in the number of allowed
dwellings but rather the number may be decreased by such a
covenant. Each lot may now be used for one single family dwellin
plus one other cottage or garage apartment making a total of
four dwelling units.- In the event the variance is granted and
the covenant accepted, the total allowed living units will be
two.
No other person spoke in favor of the petition.
Ms. Elizabeth Little spoke in opposition.
She stated she was the owner of Lot A7 and was concerned
about the development of this area and opposed additional
homes in the area. She stated additional houses would spoil
the view and generally contribute to the deterioration of the
area. She stated that if new houses are to be built, she hopes
they will be built where they cannot be seen.
The Chairman read a letter received from the Planning Board
recommending the subdivision be allowed.
After due deliberation, the Board found:
1. The subdivision could be allowed without damage to the
surrounding area;
2. The covenant by the owner to restrict the lots to one
dwelling each would be beneficial in that it decreases the
number of potential dwelling units;
3. The petitioner does suffer from the incorrect installation
of West Miacomet Ave., and would otherwise have been able to sub-
divide;
4. The granting'of the variance will not derogate from the
intent of the zoning by -law.
On motion of Mrs. Backus, seconded by Mr. Hyde, it was
voted to grant the variance subject to the petitioners' making
executing and delivering to the Board of Appeals a written
agreement in recordable form restricting the use of each to
one single family dwelling unit;
WIIEREFORE, the variance is conditionally granted.
f
-2-
14 12:29 READEX,.ALGLR
P. E%= "-:
1.-.4
0* -mom "W .mow .Wmftw am
. 41
.0004mw--
c
11 rim 2 19 X I & i
tq
�LJf�9 c
� 8f1 f gffe t�
1[�85S�P Ulf �. F f . rr
M n P f p
or
Uf
CEje.
p
{t�
i�
4p
1
8
l
e
fill
free
b
rE�ee�
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NANTUCKET
Ctrr OR TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
, SEPTEMBER 17 I9 75
,« ..................... .............................
NOTICE OF VARIANCE
Conditional zxxbhnftmk Variance
(General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended)
Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted
To...' Charles I. Clough and Gloria L. Clough
................. .. ...... ..... ... .. . . ... .... .... . .... ... ....... .............. ... .. ..... ....... ..........
...........................
Owner or Petitioner
Addr 220 Old Pickard Rd., Concord, Mass.
ess.... .. ....... ............................... - - ......... ............_.................- ............
Subject to the terms and conditions of a covenant recorded herewit
City'or Town ..---...---••--• ...................•-•-•-••--...........---......................•----------•--•--• •....-- •.......................
affectinE- _..Lot 11 and 12, West Miacomet Ave, Land Court Plan 17368 F
. - --.............................................. ........................•--...............------.........• .........- •- ...................
�T + Identify Land Affected
............... Nim 41reke t............................-----._.....-•-............................---••........ _..........._..................
X"3cx
by the Town of ...................Naatueket ..................................... Board of Appeals affecting the
rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on.
same as above
..---...--•---....-•---• .......................................................•----......-----..........---............ ...............................
Street City or Town
the record title standing in the name of
Charles I. Clough and Gloria L. Clough
............. .........................--•-•-•-----•.......................................-•--•-.............. ...............................
whose address is ...... same as above
......-• ..........................................•---...................... ...............................
Street City or Town State
by a deed duly recorded in the ............... .........................County Registry of Deeds in Book
- •---- •.. ...... Page ................................. ............................... .....Registry District of the Land Court
Certificate No ............ ......................Book ................ Page ................
The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No..-02-6- 75 .....
44Y Nantucket
inthe office of the Town Clerk ..............•.-----.....----._....__.._..._..._............._........-- •-- ..--- ._._........_.........
\ Certified this ....17trAay 0f ..... September
........................................... 19 %5
Board of Appeals:
.....•---- • ................. ---- --------------------------------------- Chairman
Board of Appeals
..................................................... .............. •- •... - -• - -• .Clerk
Board of Appeals
------------------------------------------------ 19........ at ...... ....... .o'clock and ................................ minutes ....M.
Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of ........... ...............................
Book........................ Page ........................
ATTEST
...................................... ...............................
Register of Deeds
Notice to be recorded by Land. Owner.
FORM 1094 HOBBS S WARREN. INC., REV15 E0 CHAPrER 212.1962
t
(' OI T' ' RT A AMI
We, the undersigned owners of property on West Miacomet
Road in the Town and County of Nantucket, shown as Lot 11 and
Lot 17 on Land Court Plan No. 17368 -F, Sheet 2, hereby covenant
and agree with the Board of Appeals of the Town of Nantucket,
that in consideration of the variance requested in Case`No. _..._....,"""�
Q26 -75 , the further division of the said two lots will
result in only two (2) buildable lots as defined by the present
zoning By -Law of the Town of Nantucket, as amended through
August, 1974, and further covenant that only one single family
dwelling unit will be constructed on each lot.
Dated: September 1975
r
Nantucket, ss.
1 Then personally appeared the abppve -named Charles I. Clough
and acknowledged the foregoing to b�,his re act" nd deed,
before me,
Notary Pub1i
Accepted: Boar of Appeals
Town" Nanttiek t
By: "_~L�\
Chairman
�
�.
.�
\
(
2 % d
$ 2
[
2
■
, § § � f
■ �
�
\
§
®f
q
k
r
� «
%
�
� E
a
�
c,
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
................ NAN. TUCIS>:; T.................................. I ........ I .............. I......
CITY OR TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
........_Janikgx ....1. ......................1 17
NOTICE OF VARIANCE
Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit
(General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended)
Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted
Charles T. Clough & Gloria Clough
To............................. ............................... ...... ..................................... ...............................
220 Old Pickard Rd onner or Petitioner
Address.......................................................................................................... ...............................
Concord, Mass. 01742
Cityor Town ...............................••------•••-----.................................................... .............................•-
.......... Lot. ..26....L.C.-- Plan..17368.-I.,. Ulest. Miacomet Road .. ...............................
..... .... ......... .. ....... .. ............................... . ..
Nantucket
Identity Land Affected
.... .................................................................................................................... ...............................
max Nantucket
by the Town of ..................... ............................... ..........................Board of Appeals affecting the
rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on.
West Miacomet Road Nantucket
........-• .............................................................................................................. ...............................
Street city or T.
the record title standing in the name of
.................. Charles ... I.. ..• Clough & Gloria Clough
................---•-
whose address is.......$Slne as above ............... .. ........ ............................... .............
.Street City or Towu State
by a deed duly recorded in the ............... .........................County Registry of Deeds in Book
................ Page ................. ............................. .......................Registry District of the Land Court
Certificate No ....... ...........................Book ................ Page ................
The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No..027 -76
Mx
in the office of the Town Clerk ................ Nantucket......_........................... ....--- ........................
Certified this ... l9 .... day of......... January .....................19 77
Board of Appeals:
... .... ............w..... ....................................................... Chairman
Board of Appeals
. ...................... ............................... ..........................Clerk
Board of Appeals
........--••-• ............. .1._.........•- ••....19..••.... at .............. o'clock and ................................ minutes ....M.
Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of ........... ...............................
Book....................••.. Page ........................
ATTEST
........ ................................ ...............................
Register of Deeds
Notice to be recorded by Land-Own er.
FORM 1094 HOBBS & WARREN. INC.. RZVI6EC CHAPTER 212.1962
r
C) 0
ci
rri
co
1 -tom
Vml
CC
rrl
r
C) 0
ci
rri
co
1 -tom
Vml
CC
Minutes of u meeting of the Board of Appeals, January 18, 197
,,Attending were members Holmes, Backus, and Hyde.
In the matter of the petition of Charles I. Clough et ux
(027 -7G):
Attorney Richard Glidden representing the petitioner appeared
and stated that the petitioner owns Lot-2G, L. C. Plan No, 17368 -1
situated on West Atlacomet Road. The petitioner improved the lot
by constructing a single family residence. At the time the re-
sidence was built, the contractor mealmured the set -back line at
30' and used the evident roadway line. A later survey verificatic
showed the lines of West mhm met Hund to be othor than the tra-
velled way and, in fact, the dwelling huuse is 25' from the line
of the right of way. Thu 25' set -buck is not in accord with cur -
rent zoning 'laws.
The myner requires a variance to clear his title and believe:
the inadvertent cuntructur's error is sufficient hardsh1 p in light
of the alternative - to move thu housu back 51.
No person appeared is t•avur of ur in opposition to the peti-
tiun.
After due deliberation it was found:
1. The evidence presented shows a unique situation affecting
this parcul alone, and this situatiun developed and exisjA through
no fault of thu petitioner.
2. Thu area is sparsely settled with no other dwelling unite
in the urou. The variance can bp ,ranted without Infringing on an
adjacent prupurly uujuymenL and without injury to the general
neighborhood.
Upon motion of Hr. Hyde, seconded by Airs. Backus, it was unan
imously voted t< grant the puti Lion untl, therolbru, 00 variance is
granted.
to :3 s A•�''� .� C� l � _W ea � .,, (i ,�•. , ,, '
xG..`L.L.. ORIGINAL
Application and Permit to Build or Alter
TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET:
The applicant agrees that u juts permit Is granted, enw buildings W141 ue Wmaructed In conformity with the detailed statement
and the plane herewith submitted and approved, and that all Massachusetts stale laws, by -laws and ordinances of the Town of Nantucket and
ruiea, rogWatlons and orders of any board, body or department, es far as the'some may be pertinent, will be compiled with.
The applient further agrees to furnish any additional Information, pare, apsmin tione or satemsnta, if raqulred by the
Building tnsPsctor.
1. Caner's name end address .... q%"W lgx..... /Q,
�.� ................:.......... .. sett.. .........
2. Builder's name and address .. H.G12/.pt.r.w.... /..??.,. K.e % /.�!�:•.�r,•,��°- pc. N. a//h /. /�
fF�,,y
S. Location of proposed work: House NopfA.Yl. /.C. �✓. al Qlfl ... d r /owl r'�K a -A—let-
... ............. zone .............
4. Else of Wt: Front ... N-5. . Rear ...S „3 /rCt
...y...... Depin....�............ BgaJi P..teei or sag.. • ...�! sett.: F..J' sett....
S. Classify work to be done: New Residence... X... Addition.,....... Ommmi Remodeling........... Interior Alterations ...........
Replacement ........ Repairs......... Enclosed Porch........... Accessory Building.......... Mevmg to another Location .........
Demolishing......... Other: .................................... .r ....... /......f ...`................. ..........:. sett. sett
6. State also of Buildings or additions: _ gain building: Width. �Y�.DSpth „(�(�. Hel ht..........
(Give overall dimensions)
Addition: Width.......... Depth.......... Height .......... Stories. .........
t
Height estimated from the average level of finished grade adjacent to building to the highest point of main reef.
7. Ground Cover Area (Based upon exterior dimeslne)..... Me. I7.. ........ sq. Ft. Floor Area, Gross... ZKr..� � n.
S. General description of building or tion: YOU two story.... ... Story and half.. ................ One Story...............
Rod: Gable.... .....ehe� ..... Gambrel .......... Otbri .......... ...............................
Fomdation: Materials...! ... Height..... /..... Thlckesss......R........ Footings :.... l%sett...
Bawmeat:. Slab .......... 'Cra /w1::.T......FuH.......... Below Grade .......... At Grade.......... Falshed: yes... m...
structural sett'WO dframe....Y...^�,. r riot............ CladerBlod[ ............. Other:... ...............................
St.. of Door - atera..14. �
..f ./ .. Lolkgsat EPan.... /�.
Slue of cutting joi.Iv it(,spadeg on 0eeters.. `1 /J.... Longestt
Else of main raft— Y,�tR��.lgpaclog on oeKara.. lest.... Longest span.... �... Pitch .....
Stan, of dormer raftere.t7c. rgpaa on OBntora..0 �... Longest Span.... ..Pitch .......l.F /...........
Exterior • Clapboard ............ Shingled ... K...... Brick ............ Other.: .......................................
9. Will gerage or any other lamasery building be attached to remidenn......... �t,,nnri%^^. //. y^ ........ ...............................
10. Purpose of building or addition: lfa dwelling, for how many famlHs.......... N(.i. ;...H In • residential sow will business of
any kind be conducted ............... State wises of this beat........................... ...............................
H in a business cow and for business purposes. sate =to- of beat on. .................. ...............................
11. Location of —1. building on lot: Fast of open .pane between the building and front lie of lot ..........:7.J7
Feet of open spam between the building and rear lice of lot...... ...17..'+ /sett ..................
Fast of open .Pam between the building and side Imes of lot: (Facing front of lot) Right aide. �.7 f�Laft aid.. 3. =.�..
19. Estimated vest: Mina budding g .................... Aoosa -W......
W. Fees: (Shull accompany this application) Fee g ......:'�.. tY,. •,`, ,,�-
INSTRUCTIONS
TERM OF PERMIT. All building permits am good for o. year only from date of Issuance, but may be remwed upon further application.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: This permit Is for construction only. Upon completion application for a Certlflette of Occupancy most be
made.
PInn,: This Permit must be nlled out and accompanied by lot nlam drawn to sral . Plan moat Mow the location of proposed building or alar-
stlon w Iot. A pan and appliwdon most be filed with the Department of Public Works. for Septic Tank or Sewer Connection permit. as re-
quired by the Board of Health. Approwd Sewer or Septic Tank permit meet accompany this aonli tl
IMPORTANT: BE SURE TO CET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AFTER COMPLETION.
PERCOLATION TEST FORM: Approved by Board of Health must accompany applications for new, buildings •
IMPORTANT: BE SURE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AFTER COMPLETION
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
GARAGES OR OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS NOT ATTACHED TO MAIN RESIDENCE.
1. Answer questions at top of &VpUwtmal 1- 2 -9-4-5 -8-19 Fm # .........................
2. Sate sae of building or addition: Accessory; Width .......... Depth .......... Height.......... Stories..........
9. Area of Ground Cowr of saw accessory building ............... sq. ft.; of any existing buildings ............ sq. R.; Tout ......
...
1. If • Prase. for how many car ............................
S. If taco ssory building is located 1. aide yard, give distance from main building .................... ...............................
distance from We property Jim ..... ...............................
5. Location of accessory building on rear lot: Number of feat distance from rear line of lot ............. ...............................
Number of feet distance from right aide lire of lot .............................. : No. of feet distant from left elate Jim of lot ......
No. of feet distant from rear of main building ..... ...............................
DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS
1. Answer questions at top of application: 1- 2- 9 -5 -19. Fee $..........
2. Glue a gemrel description of building. or Portion of buildings to be demolished .... ............................... ......... sett. ..
To the But ding Inspector - Town Building
Application Is hereby made to the Building Impactor of the Town of Nantucket to approve the detailed statements and pans here-
tied. and for a permit to erect, site mow or dem�ol•i�sh, buildings herein crihed or for the erection o(a sign.
/ - L yI \ems_ /
Approwd Blgnstort...HouniC ` 4?h.. ;y?[��J
and Permits s- _ /J /) _1• • • • ..........
Granted !/ 18 Address . ��%lr. {•. �^, ..xQ . ..s
Town of Nantucket, Subject to all the req4tafflept. of the Zo Ordinance of;
Building lnspeco. sett. sett.. . ✓. ,,,.,. -`� Telephone 228 -0588