HomeMy WebLinkAbout051-899
06 /- T7
��, vANTUCKET
APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
/You ember J/ 1989
File No. .(051-89)
To: Parties in interest and others
Re: Decision in the Application of:
REVISED STIPULATED DECISION - ROBERT E. EPPLE
Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has this
day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk. ,
An appeal from this decision may be taken pursuant to Section 17
of Chapter 40A, Massachu'sbtts General Laws. Any action appealing
the decision must be brought by filing a complaint in court within:
twenty (20) 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.
Wi lia Mherman, C;Yairma`n
cc: Building Commissioner
Planning Board
Town Clerk
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
REVISED STIPULATED DECISION:
At a public hearing duly held on November 3, 1989, at the
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING, FEDERAL and BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET,
the BOARD OF APPEALS made the following REVISED STIPULATED DECISION
upon the application of ROBERT E. EPPLE (051 -80):
1. Applicant requests variance relief under Zoning By -law
Section 139 -16 (Intensity Regulations) to relieve the frontage
requirement (of 50 feet) for his parcels, or in the alternative a
determination that no relief is required (either on the basis
that divergent title histories of his parcels enable conveyance
of each separately, or on the basis that "Sunset Avenue" as shown
upon certain plans constitutes a "street" within the meaning of
the by -law and thus provides frontage to abutting lots), and thus
to enable each parcel to be conveyed into separate ownership,
free from zoning violations. The premises are located at 86
CENTER STREET and 3 KITE HILL LANE (Unregistered land shown as
two lots upon a plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book
20, Page 121, and registered land shown as Lots C and D upon Land
Court Plan 15206 -C), Assessor's Parcels 42.4.4 -25, 26, 64 and 65,
and are situated in the RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC zoning district.
2. The applicant's premises present unique and complex
problems. As shown upon the Compiled Plan by Hart - Blackwell &
Assoc., dated September 15, 1989, a copy of which is attached
hereto (the "Compiled Plan "),.the premises consist of:
(a) A parcel having about 8582 square feet, with 108.02
feet of frontage on Cliff Road, as shown on Plan 20 -121, and
being Assessor's Parcel 42.4.4 -25 (the "House Parcel ") . The
House Parcel is improved with a single - family dwelling, the location
of which is shown upon the Compiled Plan.
(b) A parcel having about 5671 square feet (the "Vacant
Unregistered Parcel ") being shown on Plan 20 -121, and being
Assessor's Parcel 42.4.4 -26. The Vacant Unregistered Parcel is
not improved with any structures.
(c) A parcel having about 9820 square feet, shown as
Lot D upon Land Court Plan 15206 -C ( "Parcel D ") . Parcel D has a
serpentine configuration, and includes a long, narrow corri_dot
extending to Cliff Road and having 16.53 feet of frontage thereon.
Upon Land Court Plan 15206 -C, this corridor is labelled as "Sunset
Avenue", but this plan depicts neither a westerly terminus for
"Sunset Avenue" nor any side lines of "Sunset Avenue" through the
central and westerly portion of Parcel D. A plan by Josiah S.
Barrett dated February 5, 1973, recorded in Plan Book 18, Page
56, shows a "10' Way" continuing through Parcel D to its westerly
boundary with Lot B to the west, and Lot B and 4A as shown upon
me
this plan derive their sole vehicular access from this "10' Way".
Accordingly, Parcel D consists of four portions, as follows:
(i) The portions shown as "10' Way" and as "Sunset
Avenue" upon the plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56 and upon
the Compiled Plan(hereinafter "Kite Hill Lane ").
(ii) The portion lying to the north of Kite Hill
Lane, apparently containing in excess of 5000 square feet and
with over 150 feet fronting on Kite Hill Lane (the "Vacant North
Portion ").
(iii) The portion lying to the south of Kite Ili]]
Lane, consisting of a long, narrow strip of land containing less
than 5000 square feet (the "Strip Portion ").
(d) A parcel having about 5200 square feet, shown as
Lot C upon Land Court Plan 15206 -C ( "Parcel C "). Parcel C is
improved with a three -unit apartment building, which pre- exists
the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket zoning by -law in its present
use and configuration. This structure is nonconforming as to
use, with a maximum of two residential units being a conforming
use under any circumstances; it is also nonconforming as to rear
yard setback (from premises of an abutter), and side yard setback
(from Parcel D) . Parcel C has 53.72 feet of boundary with Kite
Hill Lane.
3. The applicant, Robert E. Epple, has owned the House
Parcel and the Vacant Unregistered Parcel since September 4,
1966, upon which date his uncle, Robert W. Epple, died testate,
devising his Nantucket real estate to the applicant. Robert E.
Epple has owned Parcel C and Parcel D since March 1, 1972, when
he acquired them by purchase. He conveyed the House Parcel and
the Vacant Unregistered Parcel to himself and his wife, Adele S.
Epple, in 1974, and Adele S. Epple reconveyed to Robert E. Epple
in 1988.
4. The applicant comes before us in the context of his
efforts to sell Parcel C, with the improvements thereon, separately
from the remaining land owned by him. He represents that issues
have been raised as to the status of Kite Hill Lane, and therefore
as to whether all of his land is required to be merged together
in order to enable zoning compliance, as to the required 50 feet
of frontage, of the combined parcel. If Kite Hill Lane is deemed
to be a "street" within the definition of the by -law, Parcel C,
the Vacant North Portion and the Vacant Unregistered Parcel each
have frontage sufficient to meet the by -law requirement; if Kite
Hill Lane is not, in this context, a "street ", the entire property
is, for zoning purposes, merged together, and indeed only in this
manner could the frontage requirement be met. (It is to be noted
that no issue as to the separate status of Parcel C and Parcel D
under the Subdivision Control Law can exist, since Land Court
Plan 15206 -C, which shows these lots, was filed in 1940; lots
existing upon a pre -1952 Land Court plan have the same status as
-2-
lots shown upon an approved subdivision plan by virtue of General
Laws, Chapter 41, Section 81FF.) Our by -law defines a "street"
as a public or private way on record at the Registry of Deeds
which affords a principal means of adequate access to abutting
property... ". We decline to find that Kite Hill Lane is a
"street" for zoning purposes under this definition, because of
its inadequate width and dubious status under the Subdivision
Control Law.
5. Although Kite Hill Lane is not a "street ", we acknowledge
that it is and has been used by the owners of Lots B and 4A to
the west, for which it is the sole means of vehicular access. In
order to resolve the unusual issues presented by this case, we
deem it appropriate to grant variance relief from the frontage
requirements of 50 feet for Parcel C under the by -law.
6. The building upon Parcel C lies within the required
five -foot side yard setback from the boundary with Parcel D.
Rather than requiring the applicant to prepare a plan for filing
in Land Court, relocating the boundary between Parcels C and D to
effect compliance with the required side yard setback, we deem it
appropriate to grant a variance from this requirement as to the
existing structure on Parcel C, subject to conditions to which
the applicant has agreed at the public hearing before us.
7. Variance relief hereunder is granted as to frontage and
side yard setback, upon the following conditions:
(a) The House Parcel and the Vacant Unregistered Parcel
and Parcel D shall be deemed to be merged together as one single
lot (the "Merged Lot ") for all purposes under zoning, subdivision
control and other land use laws, by -laws, rules and regulations.
(b) Not more than five dwellings or dwelling units
shall at any time exist upon the premises, of which not more than
two dwellings or dwelling units shall exist upon the Merged Lot,
and not more than three dwelling units shall exist upon Parcel C.
A secondary dwelling may be constructed upon the Merged Lot,
provided that it complies with all dimensional requirements of
the by -law.
(c) No building shall at any time exist upon the Strip
Portion, which shall be permanently kept as open land, nor upon
Kite Hill Lane.
(d) No building shall at any time exist upon the portion
of the Vacant North Portion which lies within ten feet of the
boundary of Parcel C.
(e) No building shall at any time exist upon the portion
of the Vacant North Portion which lies within five feet of the
northerly boundary of Kite Hill Lane, shown as the "10' Way" upon
the plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56.
-3-
8. In our view, variance relief in this matter is justified
in the light of the complex and confused history of subdivision
and ownership of the premises. If the applicant were able to
establish the status of Kite Hill Lane as a "street" for zonincl
purposes, with no conditions being able to be imposed, he could
presumably end up with four separate building lots (the House
Parcel , the Vacant Unregistered Parcel, Parcel C and the Vacant
North Portion). Two dwelling units could be placed on each lot;
with three dwelling units existing in the "grandfathered" structure
on Parcel C, a total of nine dwelling units could exist upon the
premises, rather than the five units which will be the maximum
under the conditions for this decision. Relief from the side
yard setback requirement to enable conveyance of Parcel C separately
from Parcel D, upon the condition that any structure upon the
Vacant North Portion be set back ten feet from the boundary
instead of the five feet required by the by -law, results in an
identical, ten -foot, separation to that which would result from a
new line being drawn and five feet of setback being measured on
each side, and the applicant is spared the expense of an unnecessary
survey plan.
9. Accordingly, we find that, owing to circumstances relating
to the shape and topography of the land and structures upon the
premises (consisting of the peculiar configuration of the parcels
and buildings, particularly the strange shape of Parcel D and the
unusual depiction of Kite Hill Lane upon the record plans) , and
especially affecting the premises but not affecting generally the
zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement
of the provisions of the zoning by -law as to side yard setback
would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to
the applicant (in that litigation would be necessary to determine
the status of the premises) 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 the conditions hereby imposed
actually limit the intensity of development of the premises, and
if we were to determine Kite Hill Lane to constitute a street,
without granting variance relief, no basis for imposition of
conditions would exist).
10. For the reasons stated, and upon the conditions herein
set forth, this Board hereby grants the applicant a VARIANCE from
the frontage and side yard setback and regularity requirements
established by the Intensity Regulations in Zoning By -law Section
139 -16, as to Parcel C, only, by a unanimous vote.
11. The effect of this decision, and the relief hereby
granted, shall be as follows:
(a) The Merged Lot, with the single - family dwelling
thereon, shall constitute a single lot, which may be conveyed
separately from all adjacent land and which conforms to all
dimensional requirements of the by -law, and one secondary dwelling
may be constructed thereon.
-4-
(b) Parcel C may be conveyed into separate ownership
from all adjacent land; it contains in excess of 5,000 square
feet and is relieved from the requirement of 50 feet of frontage
to conform with the by -law. Its rear yard setback violation and
use as three dwelling units are nonconforming, but pre -exist the
applicable zoning requirements. We have granted relief to cure
its side yard setback nonconformity. Accordingly, it, with this
relief in place, may be separately conveyed, and used as three
dwelling units, in its present configuration without violating
the by -law.
Dated: lUaj. 1989
William R. Sherman
balelw. Wai e
V
Linda,'T . Wi l 11a
Peter Dooley
Page 5 of 5
ejw /84 /EPPL & EPPL1
/ I
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
September 22, 1989
File No. 051 -89
To: Parties in interest and others
Re: Decision in the Application of:
ROBERT E. EPPLE
Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has this
day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk.
An appeal from this decision may be taken pursuant to Section 17
of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws. Any action appealing
the decision must be brought by filing a complaint in court within
twenty (20) 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.
cc: Building Commissioner
Planning Board
Town Clerk
Wi lia R. Sherman, C1Kdirrma`n
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
DECISION:
At a public hearing duly held on SEPTEMBER 15, 1989, at the
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING, FEDERAL and BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET,
the BOARD OF APPEALS made the following DEC I S ION upon the application
of ROBERT E. EPPLE (051 -80):
1. Applicant requests variance relief under Zoning By -law
Section 139 -16 (Intensity Regulations) to relieve the frontage
requirement (of 50 feet) for his parcels, or in the alternative a
determination that no relief is required (either on the basis
that divergent title histories of his parcels enable conveyance
of each separately, or on the basis that "Sunset Avenue" as shown
upon certain plans constitutes a "street" within the meaning of
the by -law and thus provides frontage to abutting lots), and thus
to enable each parcel to be conveyed into separate ownership,
free from zoning violations. The premises are located at 86
CENTER STREET and 3 KITE HILL LANE (Unregistered land shown as
two lots upon a plan recorded with Nantucket Deeds in Plan Book
20, Page 121, and registered land shown as Lots-C and D upon Land
Court Plan 15206 -C), Assessor's Parcels 42.4.4 -25, 26, 64 and 65,
and are situated in the RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC zoning district.
2. The applicant's premises present unique and complex
problems. As shown upon the Compiled Plan by Hart - Blackwell &
Assoc., dated September 15, 1989, a copy of which is attached
hereto (the "Compiled Plan "), the premises consist of:
(a) A lot having about 8582 square feet, with 108.02
feet of frontage on Cliff Road, as shown on Plan 20 -121, and
being Assessor's Parcel 42.4.4 -25 (the "House Lot "). The House
Lot is improved with a single - family dwelling, the location of
which is shown upon the Compiled Plan.
(b) A lot having about 5671 square feet, with 65.20
feet of frontage on a way (variously shown upon plans of record
as a "Way" and as "Sunset Avenue ", and now known, and shown upon
the Assessor's records, as "Kite Hill Lane "; for simplicity, we
refer to this way as Kite Hill Lane throughout this decision,
except for references to its designation on specific plans), such
lot (the "Vacant Unregistered Lot ") being shown on Plan 20 -121,
and being Assessor's Parcel 42.4.4 -26. The Vacant Unregistered
Lot is not improved with ahy structures.
(c) A lot having about 9820 square feet, shown as Lot
D upon Land Court Plan 15206 -C ( "Lot D "). Lot D has a serpentine
configuration, and includes a long, narrowcorridor extending to
Cliff Road and having 16.53 feet of frontage thereon. Upon Land
Court Plan 15206 -C, this corridor is labelled as "Sunset Avenue ",
but this plan depicts neither a westerly terminus for "Sunset
Avenue" nor the side lines of "Sunset Avenue" through the central
and westerly portion of Lot D. However, a plan by Josiah S
Barrett dated February 5, 1973, recorded in Plan Book 18, Page
56, shows a "10' Way" continuing through Lot D to its westerly
boundary with Lot B to the west, and Lot B and 4A as shown upon
this plan derive their sole vehicular access from this 1110' Way ".
Accordingly, Lot D consists of three portions, as follows:
(i) The portion shown as 1110' Way" and as "Sunset
Avenue" upon the plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56 (hereinafter
"Kite Hill Lane ").
(ii) The portion lying to the north of Kite Hill
Lane, apparently containing in excess of 5000 square feet and
with over 150 feet of frontage on -Kite Hill Lane (the "Vacant
Registered Lot ").
(iii) The portion lying to the south of Kite Hill
Lane, consisting of a long, narrow strip of land containing less
than 5000 square feet (the "Strip Lot ").
(d) A lot having about 5200 square feet, shown as Lot
C upon Land Court Plan 15206 -C ( "Lot C"). Lot C is improved with
a three -unit apartment building, which pre- exists the 1972 adoption
of the Nantucket zoning by -law in its present use and configuration.
This structure is nonconforming as to use, with a maximum of two
residential units permitted under any circumstances; it is also
nonconforming as to rear yard set back (from premises of an
abutter) , and side yard setback (from Lot D) . Lot C has 53.72
feet of frontage on Kite Hill Lane.
3. The applicant, Robert E. Epple, has owned the House Lot
and the Vacant Unregistered Lot since September 4, 1966, upon
which date his uncle, Robert W. Epp ica died testate, Rob Edevising E has
Nantucket real estate to the app pp
owned Lot C and Lot D since March 1, 1972, when he acquired them
by purchase. He conveyed the House Lot and the Vacant Unregistered
Lot to himself and his wife, Adele S. Epple, in 1974, and Adele
S. Epple reconveyed to Robert E. Epple in 1988.
4. The applicant comes before us in the context of his
efforts to sell Lot C, with the improvements thereon, separately
from the remining land owned by him. He represents that issues
have been raised as to the status of Kite Hill Lane, and therefore
as to whether all of his land is required to be merged together
in order to enable zoning compliance, as to the required 50 feet
of frontage, of the combined parcel. If Kite Hill Lane is a
"street" within the definition of the by -law, Lot C, the Vacant
Registered Lot and the Vacant Unregistered Lot each have frontage
sufficient to meet the by -law requirement; if Kite Hill Lane is
not, in this context, a "street ", the entire property can be
merged together, and indeed only in this manner could the frontage
requirement be met. (It is to be noted that no issue as to the
Page 2 of 5
separate status of Lot C and Lot D under the Subdivision Control
Law can exist, since Land Court Plan 15206 -C, which shows these
lots, was filed in 1940; lots existing upon a pre -1952 Land Court
plan have the same status of lots shown upon an approved subdivision
plan by virtue of General Laws, Chapter 42, Section 81FF.) Our
by -law defines a "street" as "a public or private way on record
at the Registry of Deeds which affords a principal means of
adequate access to abutting property... ". We find that Kite Hill
Lane is a "street" for zoning purposes under this definition,
since it is the only means of vehicular access to Lots B and 4A
to the west.
5. Since we find that Kite Hill Lane is a "street ", each
of the applicant's lots meets the frontage requirements of the
by -law and therefore no variance relief is necessary with regard
to frontage. However, the building upon Lot C lies within the
required five -foot side yard setback from the boundary with Lot
D. Applicant desires to retain the Vacant Registered Lot as a
separate building lot. Rather than requiring the applicant to
prepare a plan for filing in Land Court, relocating the boundary
between Lots C and D to effect compliance wth the required side
yard setback, we deem it appropriate to grant a variance from
this requirement as to the existing structure on Lot C, subject
to conditions to which the applicant has agreed at the public
hearing before us.
6. Variance relief hereunder is granted upon the following
conditions:
(a) The House Lot and the Vacant Unregistered Lot shall
be deemed to be merged together as one single lot for all purposes
under zoning, subdivison control and other land use laws, by -laws,
rules and regulations.
(b) Not more than five dwellings or dwelling units
shall at any time exist upon the premises, of which not more than
one dwelling or dwelling unit shall exist upon the combined House
Lot and Vacant Unregistered Lot; not more than three dwelling
units shall exist upon Lot C; and not more than one dwelling or
dwelling unit shall exist upon the Vacant Registered Lot.
(c) No building shall at any time exist upon the Strip
Lot, which shall be permanently kept as open land.
(d) Only the portion of Lot D which lies to the north
of Kite Hill Lane shall be considered in determining zoning
compliance in connection with any use of the Vacant Registered
Lot.
(e) No building shall at any time exist upon the portion
of the Vacant Registered Lot which lies within ten feet of the
boundary of Lot D.
(f) No building shall at any time exist upon the portion
Page 3 of 5
of the Vacant Registered Lot which lies within five feet of the
northerly boundary of Kite Hill Lane, shown as the "10' Way" upon
the plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56.
7. In our view, variance relief in this matter is justified
in the light of the complex and confused history ant sub able ion
and ownership of the premises. If the app to
establish the status of Kite Hill Lane as a "street" for zoning
purposes, with no conditions being able to be imposed, he could
presumably end up with four separate building lots (the House
Lot, the Vacant Lot Unregistered Lot, Lot C and the Vacant Registered
Lot). Two dwelling units could be placedon each lot; with three
dwelling units existing in the "grandfathered" structure on Lot
C, a total of nine dwelling units could exist upon the premises,
rather than the five units which will be the maximum under the
conditions for this decision. Relief from the side yard setback
requirement to enable conveyance of Lot C separately from Lot D,
upon the condition that any structure upon Lot D be set back ten
feet from the boundary instead of the five feet required by the
by -law, results in an identical, ten -foot, separation to that
which would result from a new line being drawn and five feet of
setback being measured on each side, and the applicant is spared
the expense of an unnecessary survey plan.
8. Accordingly, we find that, owing to circumstances relating
to the shape and topography of the land and structures upon the
premises (consisting of the peculiar configuration of the parcels
and buildings, particularly the strange shape of Lot D and the
unusual depiction of Kite Hill Lane upon the record plans) , and
especially affecting the premises but not affecting generally the
zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement
of the provisions of the zoning by -law as to side yard setback
would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to
the applicant (in that litigation would be necessary to determine
the status of the premises) 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 the conditions hereby imposed
actually limit the intensity of development of the premises, and
if we were to determine Kite Hill Lane to constitute a street,
without granting variance relief, no basis for imposition of
conditions would exist).
9. For the reasons stated, and upon the conditions herein
set forth, this Board hereby grants the appicant a VARIANCE from
the Intensity Regulations established under Zoning By -law Section
139 -16, by a vote of four members in favor and one (Sherman)
opposed.
10. The effect of this decision, and the relief hereby
granted, shall be as follows:
(a) The House Lot and the Vacant Unregistered Lot,
considered together and with the single - family dwelling thereon,
Page 4 of 5
shall constitute a single lot, which may be conveyed separately
from all adjacent land and which conforms to all dimensional
requirements of the by -law; however, no additonal dwellings or
dwelling units may be placed thereon.
(b) Lot C may be conveyed into separate ownership from
all adjacent land; it contains in excess of 5,000 square feet and
has adequate frontage on Kite Hill Lane to comply with the
requirement of the by -law. Its rear yard setback violation and
use as three dwelling units are nonconforming, but pre -exist the
applicable zoning requirements. We have granted relief to cure
its side yard setback nonconformity. Accordingly, it, with this
relief in place, may be separately conveyed, and used as three
dwelling units, in its present configuration without violating
the by -law.
(c) Lot D may be used for construction of one
single - family dwelling upon the Vacant Registered Lot, subject to
the conditions herein imposed. Since Kite Hill Lane is a "street',
and since our by -law defines any portion of a "lot" lying on the
other side of a "street" out of the "lot ", only the portion of
Lot D which is herein referenced as the Vacant Registered Lot may
be considered for zoning compliance, and the Vacant Registered
Lot therefore has frontage for zoning purposes (clearly well in
excess of the required 50 feet) upon Kite Hill Lane.
Dated: September 0*oP, 1989
ejw /84 /EPPL & EPPL1
C `
Page 5 of 5
BOA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS D—D t
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING
NANTUCKET, MA 02554 CASE No-an-
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name(s):
c/o Recede & Alaer P C P 0 Box 2669. Nantucket MA 02584_
Mailing address:
Applicant's name:
Mailing address:
r's map and parcel number 42.4.4 025 064
Location of lot: Assesso
Street address:
c n 152060 Lot C, D;
Registry Land Ct Plan, ni n /probate 3839
Plan Book 20, Page 121 Zoning district ROH
Date lot acquired: __V Deed Ref —,
1966;, Certificate of Title 6464 MCD? No
Uses on lot - commercial: None — or
- number of: dwellings 2 duplex_ apartments 4 rental rooms—
Building date(s): all pre -8/72? Yes or
Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 206
C of O ?—
Case Nos. all BOA applications, lawsuits:
State fully all zoning relief sought and respective Code sections
and subsections, specifically what you propose compared er Section
and what grounds you urge for BOA to make each finding p
139-32A X if Variance, 139 -30A if agSuse). f appeal
if to alter or extend a nonconlormiealede OKltoaattach addendum .
& g , attach decision or order app
Applicant requests variance relief from By -law Section 139 -16.A (Intensity Regulations -
(actual
Frontage), to relieve the requirement of 50 feet of frontage for Lots C and D
thus to enable their conveyance m
frontage is 16 feet on Cliff Road), and
the applicant's adjacent unregistered land. In the alternative, app
determination that Lots C and D have not merged with the adjacent unregistered land because
of their separate title histories, or that "Sunset Avenue" as shown upon Plan 15 and
efin
d
plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56, constitutes a "street" under the By -law definitions
and thus provides frontage to Lots C and D. Lot C is improved t D is vacantthree applicanttsent
building, pre- existing the adoption of zoning in 1972;
unregistered land is improved with a single - family dwelling.
addendum
Items enclosed as part of this Application: ordelanned structures
Locus map x Site plan x showing present P HDC structures
Floor plans present proposed_ elevations ( parking ata_,
Listings lot areal frontage setbacks_ GCRT abelsg2 sets —x
Assessor - certified addressee fist 4 sets a malingca covenant -
200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket proof-'
'cap'
(If fee
appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr's record to BOA.) mitted
I certify that the requested information
owledbe, understheb pains land
y
complete and true to the best of my g
penalties o perjury.
Jr (h) j } moo Attorney/ ' —
SIGNATURE:`
3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority)
FOR BOA ,OFFICE USE
Application copies recd: 4r_.- for BOA on_��7S by
complete? —
C�
One copy filed with Town Clerk on/
by
One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept- /py(yc
waived? —
$200 fee check given Town Treasurer on r u -/
Hearing notice postedzj,,11-;/ mailed I & M
Hearing(s) on__/__/—
cont' d to withdrawn ?_ / —/_
made —� ice— filed TC� —J— mailed _J_
Decision due by_—
See related cases
lawsuits other
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the Board of Appeals will be held on
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989 at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County
Building, Nantucket, on the Application of:
ROBERT C. EPPLE
Board of Appeals File No.: 051 -89
seeking a VARIANCE from the fifty -foot frontage requirement of
SECTION 139 -16A; actual frontage is sixteen feet on Cliff Road;
alternatively seeking a determination that Lots C and D on Land
Court Plan 15206C have not merged with Applicant's adjacent un-
registered land because of their separate title histories, or that
no variance is needed because "Sunset Avenue ", as shown upon Plan
15206 -C and plan recorded in Plan Book 18, Page 56, constitutes a
"street" under the By- Later definitions and thus provides frontage
to Lots C and D. Lot C is improved with a three -unit apartment
building. said to pre- e<cist the adoption of zoning in 1972; Lot
D is vacant; Applicant's unregistered land is improved with a
single- family dwelling.
The premises are at 86 CENTER STREET, and 3 KITE HILL LANE, Assessor's
Parcels 42.4.4 -25 and 64, Land Court Plan 15206 -C, Lots C and D
and Plan Book 20, Page 121, zoned RESIDENTIAL OLD HISTORIC.
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS