Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0035 PENELOPE LANE 1 , � ,� , �, I� _ _ t r oj�,.& Z,50 40 co( i � 'I TOWN OF BARNSTABLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ( PARCEL ID 039 040 GEOBASE ID 2319 ADDRESS 35 PENELOPE LANE PHONE COTUIT ZIP - LOT 56 BLOCK LOT SIZE DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CT ..fi PERMIT 38062 DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BLDG PER 33560) PERMIT TYPE BCOO TITLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY � I CONTRACTORS: Department of Health, Safety ARCHITECTS: and Environmental Services , TOTAL FEES: BOND - $ 0o �tNE CONSTRUCTION COSTS $.00 �7 753 MISC. NOT CODED ELSEWHERE ; * B"NSTABM • MASS. 039. BUILDS 'I I N BY Z _ DATE ISSUED 04/28/1999 EXPIRATION DATE TOWN 09 BARN8TABLU C ERTIFLCATE OF OCCUPANCY PARCEL ID 039 040 "GHOBA SE ID . 2319 ADDRESS 35 PENELOPE LANE PRONE COTUIT ? P- LOT 56 BLOCS LOT SIZE DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CT � PENT 38062 DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BU FFER 33560) PERMIT TYPE BCOO TITLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANC; CONTRACTORS :Department of Healtl%Safety ARei11ITECTS and Environmental Services TOTAL FEES:AND, Ox THE $:off CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 00 �+ .M sc. �Ov cobED ELSEWR RE . iARTtnABIA + . - w BUILDING IV SIOO 1 BY ' 7A'l'E ISSUED 04/ /1999 EX0IAWTjQt.4DATE E THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY.EN- CROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS.. MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SEPARATE 1.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS THIS CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR HAS BEEN MADE.WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- 2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECH- (READY TO LATH). PANCY IS REQUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE gNICAL INSTALLATIONS. 3.INSULATION. OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN;MADE. 4.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. VISIBLE BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS 2 2 2 3 1.;' HEATING INSPECTION APPROVALS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2 BOARD OF HEALTH OTHER: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL PERMIT WILL-BECOME NULL AND VOID IF'CON- INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS THE INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE . STRUCTION WORK-1S NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX. CARD..CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUC- MONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT IS-ISSUED AS TELEPHONE OR WRITTEN NOTIFICA- TION. NOTED ABOVE. TION; BUILDING � PERMIT TOWN Xi1d`F.S.`J.'t"S..Ci.LE' n „r..r� - r�.-.�.�-_'• BFJIL_ PERMIT. PARCEL ID 039 0'40 CEOBA'SF ID 2319 L ADDY FI}•S 35 PPNI,?I::OL}F IANE PRONE COTUIT - ZIP x - LOT 53 x' I L,Ocy, LOT SIZE MA � S A< DEVELOPMENT DI3TRI,C`I ,CT 'PER Irl DESCRI:PTLO 33R/2.58A/FULL .QAPE/VULL DORM/ICAR{SEW198625) PEw1I`.X' TYPE BUILD TITLA NEW RESIDENTIAL DLD PINT CONT CTORS: ROY E. S'IMMONS ARCHITECTS Department of-Health,_Safety , and_Environmental Services TOTAL FEES . `$443.3C) .BOND �� $-00 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $143,000.00 Qi► -101. N'GDE ,P 'ROME .-'DETAC HED, :L ... PRIVATE. P104'?I6 ' * BARNSTABM' • 1639. Ilk .i I BY IyVIS O°N S t NwLR`�hL. DATE ISSUED 99j24/p98 ,E,V—PIATION DAT.H a � THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET, ALLEYrOR,SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY. EN- CROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAYBE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OFTHIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: APPROVED,PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SEPARATE `THIS CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION 1.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS ' HAS BEEN MADE.WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR 2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECH- (READY TO LATH). PANCY IS.REQUIRED,, BUILDING SHALL NOT BE ANICAL INSTALLATIONS. 3.INSULATION. OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. 4.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. , POST THI-S"CARD ® IT Is VISIBLE BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS ft)VA �? mFALA 3 1 HEAT MG INS EC ION AP11ROVALS GINEERING DEPARTMENT 2 BOARD OF HEALTH _ dw OTHER: SITE AN VIEW APPROVAL O�/9 71-1 WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CON.- INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS THE INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE STRUCTION WORK IS °aT STARTED WITHIN SIX CARD CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY II VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUC- MONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AS TELEPHONE ORWRITTEN NOTIFICA- TION. NOTED ABOVE. TION. . r r io ti 7 r.r. r Map Parcel OyAloe f Permit# Conservation Offide(4th floor)(8:30-9:30/1:00- 2:00) as _S 12te Is,' ued g` 2q R Board of Health(3rd floor)(8:15 -9:30/1:00-4:45) Planning.Dept.(1st floor/School Admin. Bldg.) --- • '" '' `;' ST BE Definit, p ved by Planning Board '=fib- 19"o �, 2e{ems ed 8(7/gip 6�NS AILE LIANCE TOWN OF,BARNSTABL ViRONMENTAL WiTH CODE AND BuildingTermit Application TOWN RE ULATiONS Project Street Address O 2>:�J Village C©f it Owner l�b,b i"7�/�O�Z j'YJ(,L.{� Address 9,6r d-eba r-4 A ye•PLo Inb o4 E 4;7359 Telephone Permit Request C;6116� CL.GYL/01�Ij First Floor ! �� square feet Second Floor `0 square feet Estimated Project Cost $ J-41,060+ ®O Zoning District Flood Plain Water Protection Lot Size 1 6g �%�` Grandfathered ? `J Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization Recorded Current Use V ac ati land Proposed Use S%f� e y(LGd'Jil Construction Type d Commercial Residential Dwelling Type: Single Family X Two Family Multi-Family Age of Existing Structure Basement Type: Finished Historic House h p Unfinished 3( Old King's Highway no Number of Baths o2 i Jr No. of Bedrooms Total Room Count(not including baths) 69 First Floor Heat Type and Fuel hofw Central Air Fireplaces , Garage: Detached Other Detached Structures: Pool Attached 1)) I cay, Barn None Sheds Other Builder Information Name���/�/D f a/ -Telephone Number j 0 -y3;Z_ Address ���./ �Q&Ifa 7 License# AV t�Q 6 f #-a%w/GA,�� O� [� `T� Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation# V0 3 Jc 44 0Z/15 NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS REQUIRE A SITE PLAN(AS BUILT)SHOWING EXISTING,AS WELL AS PROPOSED STRUCTURES ON THE LOT. ALL CONSTRU TI EBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BETAKEN TO TO 601) d drh s-11- >4a SIGNA DATE ill I G PER T IED FOR OLLOWING REASON(S) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY P MIT NO. SCo ITE it ISSUED ti gq P/PARCEL NO. • ,gyp ADDRESS VILLAGE ' OWNER DATE OF INSPECTION: FOUNDATION (�_ FRAME ` -- INSULATION FIREP�'CE ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING:. ROUGH '"� FINAL GAS: ROUGH 'In n ! FINAL FINAL BUILDING ) x ca t ear V DATE CLOSED OUT = = m_ ' ) :3 ' ASSOCIATION PLAN NO r 41 F 165. 79. co aj W z 70.3'±. c 70.1'±: F O c coo W��, 3 w" U I I. oz �w UoH LOT 56 - 25,888 +-S.F. F (0.59 ± AC.) JOB #98-138 CERTIFIED PLOT -PLAN PREPARED- FOR' . LOCATION : CASES MAP OTUIT MA 9 PAR 40 PENELOPE'LAN Er£ PATRIOT BUILDERS SCALE : 1" = 40'• } REFERENCE : LOT.56" LAND COURT CASE #22824D SHEET 1 OF Ss9 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT-THE' STRUCTURE Z N SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATED.ON THE ST,JR• GROUND AS SHOWN HEREON. o N0.3EZ59 y J P su DEMAREST—McLELLAN ENGINEERING 24 SCHOOL STREET P.O. BOX 463 NOVEMBER 20, 1998 WEST DENNIS, MA. 02670-0463 (508) 398-7710 DATE P O ES AL LAND SURV Y R dF� The Town of Barnstable MAM• sr►axsr�ra. t 1� Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 _ Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner PLAN REVIEW_ Owner: Map/Parcel: 03 9 , 040 3 r S Project Address' J ��1� Builder: The following items were noted on reviewing: Z Jre U .3 8 tJ� y Please call 508 862-4038 for re-inspection. brA by: Date: / 8 q:buildinglomis n view .✓le OEPARIMERI OF PUKE SA 'Ty CO`�S(R!1C(ION SJPERF".12 4u3hpr: Ezires: CS 065014 04/06/1000 t Restricted (0: )� ROY E SIMMONS 11 MCELWAY OR NAR ICN, I 02 45 ' TE ,' i 'j"�lk... L iAJ�I 1 LLIL` Li��7.1rLL IIi'�1L`�u't�c�.iJ_i"'C71'i."ta���1.L2Y.�'"I1L71."T�'iLll'� ��I i1L.7 i3 L`—�`J-`�r.Y31� T�tf rL17 Y-11 A�ti l 1 a 1 1 1 1 u A IJ IJ_t 1 1 t IL L 1 1 J. L 1rLt LJYI<L II' tLG to 1u lI i, 1�(/y1 f ld Ti L 1 L l L11 ' 1' tr�i ,. L i T - i I if Tjjl { L_rJ-1.I IL LL t Ci 11, 1 ' Ilj '�C4 t5- � I' t L a—1 1 y lLrttl51.. _ 7 t f 1 r 1 11 11.1 1 L ll-1 1 1, i LL yL II�L` ` yll �1 IL l [�L� J� i L 1 uu iL `LLLt'LTII JA ` L :tl (f I t y1 lJ 1 f ll a 1(1 LL T 1 71-aL 11T rl a rA 1� 1 I, 1J I, L�j 1 t 1 t Y Y 1 1Lt�7.1 l 11t L L L I l L1 tL i ��j�11 C,1_1/yL_1,.IJ 11 1 a 1 [L T4 1•L it L [ 1 [L 1`I�I�111 t'l I Itt-J L u 1,i�1.1J1 .' C I I11']!' i 1Ct! Tel Lr iiY 1 I�tt4i11tJL 11f[It�1`7Lt lr[Lrl t11L1..�`7l,[I11A,i-11111"Li1l `ili`Y Ll�'L 1`J�ft 1�74�1 Li1 i.11 jlA.{tl itll Tt`fyll J1`tl l l:": .. , tlyl 1 1. I -I L L LL.LI.'1 7 I L I 11_A [ L 1 L l 1 11 .,JL I J la 1 .1 1 L.1 i 1 11 1 II � 1. t ;�a,l'. tlu.ilr Tlf.ir��LY.0`1L11�1111�!,�1 ` IIt1,1�Ll.,ici�ullGI�I I�i11A 11�11 . t1iI Lr1�.lIT'-1, ;ui lu i1L1� l .. .c ---- -- -'-- --- - -- - t'J - = — — ELEVATION 0 0 — - FKONT N �;z;�• _ -- _- - 00 __ -- - - -_= DODO _ ASPHALT ROOF SWNSLES t - - FALSE RME BU. PEAK ELEVATION rm EDEI �..r.*,.n.. �a Lot 40 Penelope Lane,Gotuit 71W 1/4.._ ,._U.. nat� 5/20/W PATRIOT DUILDER5 r �5 ELEVATIONS Al OF 5 6l;YX CFIIMIEY--j 1i 2" �59/16" 12"F Ww1E CLVAR 5MFC:lE5 12" 59/15' -29 12.KrX1 f tUTA.D.fl'1.EV 151 PM£F.�` _I X(i GlLAK n5a4e"cc: 2X 10 PAFTE95 ATTIC a la,QC(iw.) ) `6E rOu, ' \\ M wrE.UV- 51*K-AFS ---15a P/•FEF. 5"70VAAr)Cf 2 X P ,>✓•rF. __ I K.11 AUX.� _..vi YWJ Inv a 10"OC_(nP.) rm i')Y!"iN. 21 WVN;1FVL BG°J'LL�Me. "----:. �P,l'H I`IPJ_I_ I mas H, - <-..._..-a Ir;'oc.(;w.) Um LUIIS IS 6Gu_--i. I F1012'£NN,M brv.P STEP -_._.� Il2'GDX FLY.-- CiYPJKrNELL F . RIGHT ELEVATION KIrcHFN 2 X 4 X 7'4" fl�-L —7,f?IfliU. - WP115T1D5 _ a I FP c1C (rYP.) y4t&6 PL 1VP.\ 2%I05r5.&16"OL. 2 X 10.ki Mr&,,YMV F-'"--BPJCK"NEY - f:19 mu.. 12' .. UMfI'P.G (3)'2 X 12 W41. EE CW6"ZE GO'LTY _ f)M./fNGF :.£ir1G' ® ,..5fP•JkNlELL ba(hv UWE e"X7'G' J I/2 CG.(r,F.)--_ FpkD.(r4°) vwz 4'UtC.FLGJP. - 12 Nh %OwirAE5 �12'• W"X9"CCt C.FtCf. v)°%IGYCCA M.FTC. Arr.cl WXE1°WAY(TY- _._(nP.)L-X19'r abFNA - 517'V.:.EE FGIFU.FVfJ I XSCG'N:R 1X6 FAKE W/IXT. tirM}'(}tt1P.) WWL cF.V.^J:>I wN�ll5 MaM M71FD - a 5'r0 MATFE'P, LLU WI IIn2(Foli: CR055�EV 1 ION E.IWIGI L5 � .. All 1 " r Lot 40 Penelope Lane,Cotuit EWYY 5TEP v.,w: s/zc.•l�Js PATRIOT BULPFR5 LEFT ELEVATION P ELEV.& 5ECTION . A2 OF 5 f?Ecr. ``✓x3'7 Ah ,D SIAG:E LkiEC(CA,SMCIlEOErEQGE N IOr0 P1ECrl'IC ( i 112- P.'C vz 2:I0 t rb uw Y II CHEN O( ° 4'MW FI.e..w1 i?INIfJ;i I2'43 x 1p'1 O 10 t 2"(trQfT(lVV 12'S::131'7 - - _ 6G no,nn,�ecrr,u i.+«5.nl rElL Pi •- - L�cu v wxoev .. I c Ct=Af ar at1.;r _ zz.z E I12'X9"sR,RIM"I.11E e WP5rA4' ).E)6CLiS ra IU. LIVING DEN/bEPRM. I I I# 15'5x t'7 16'P,x 737 � . _ tGn. s'g 2Yi Ira Ll 7'111Y111 DI'. I F �a'S I I I FIRST FLOOR PLAN Lot 40 Penelope Lane,Cotuit .kale: 114 = L,i," ly uau: 872c,7 r; f ATRIOT BUILDERS R sa3 FIR5T FLOOR A3 OF 5 50' - WAN/. TYFI: F.()LJCl I OfENINO I✓2 9'4 13'Fi 545 1 001131E I tU11G 2446 'Z.'-6 Ik3"X 4'-91/4" _ 2 CCV3I.E"AC, 2446')_ 4'II 13/16"X 4'-9114" INA.G 24 310 Z'-E-I/b"X.4'-1 1/4" 4 CAGEMENr Q4235 :'-51/4"XZ--=53/b" BAl li 5 [xi.E.HUNG 3046 V,2 1/b"X 4'-5 I/4" H DGf.E'.HUIJG 304.:•Z 31:506"X4'.y I/4" C 7 rx;I.E.IYING 2432 2 4'-1 1 13/16"X 3'-5 1/4" C VEKFI'AI.1.MEA6.UI F971) H. 5TUPY 1xDROOM 2. M.DEDMOOM N 12'9.1W _ I- — _BALL I H— F 1,`i 1 Y.19'7 - DKS. IYFF. SIZE F:(JUTA1(A'ENING f IA _ 9'..4'6 _E I R 7 4 N �TJ N so O y i I II A ?TEFL DOCk, '!i O"%6'$" 3=21/2"Xn-101/2." ' B 9LITE 5TL.UK. C!'%6`b" 3=21 rZ'X 6'-101/2" II " nr;.n row C STt..i`IrtE 0OCR 2'�6"X�5.3" 2'-b 1/2"X6,10 11,". 157 ',F ✓.. -2'a 'I D F'AIIO SWYJ(i FNAY:iF�ff H'-0"%6'-b" II______ __________ I: HPAI In.LIMC 2 - ..Fi e/' b 1/2"Xu-101 2" F 6 F!'1'If'l SNMIIi ''/_'0"h H'b" 2''Z.1/2"Xi�=101/2" N _ G FAIILL<_YlJJ( 1 X b" 1 1/L'X6-IU 1/2' I . 101 k '.' ti' kH.lt Ir7 - III I.IfN r1G:[f lllvllr if UV�FI ,f ilr(.I F(1.D 6'0 Xl•Y�' - , I/2},i%11 I/i'• "'•r N O �••_ u-• ATTICSi(A:`GE f; FLA>r.aNG. 31121 XF;-11" 1. IITr.pol_5PNI(i n'8.•x¢+"-Y;' 4'10112"X 6-10 1IL' I M FI11.P(Na t F.kTk"I.b'.5" 25 112").�:4" 14 N A.TlI(:ACM,5 'L'-H":5 2 dl A!lC:rTGf',•(iE AT(IC SforKti O -a SM(KEGEIFfrW. eSMGE(1E(ECWR 1'Hofo FiELiKC w y I4' SECOND FLOOK PLAN Lot 40 Penelope Lane,Cotuit „/20/913 FATRIOT BULDERS c:.-',w),sas SECOND FLOOR JA4 OF 5 :r I J b"AI.f C-Cc FgIhD. 7. 6'. iL'1E.RUA,bTS.W'/ I MOIL 16 9 FfUb N AE(P1 FVNC>I=.!'S I!/%t ((M. DDIE RIM.f TSW/ UDlE.b/5.®PAKTIMkb RUNFW'6 1 PDD+E(Fw, kErA IV I I FN',41II" br,A GPb1E Y.0.1 PD(NE MN D.(11V.) ,6r5.(iR.-50.D ew.6m4' v`A I or-Fx iL"I jG POF�5((W.) ` I LJAI'f 5A.H W4A3tE + 0 Q ru+,6r.P8;MiIrrP,) FIALBASEMENT � I (Sp[%t2 I I XT$ NC CO .FC111U. (1 I rn]:fF (kl 16'X5"FT(i5. 6'J�.,.�6' G'10 6'II�Q771 -W/L;CIWP,YIPR.) 2'4 � 10C - (2) W X W'X 12'UXC. rrC,.N/3"1/2-ca5((P.) I C��E F1U5 W/4'CU,FOR DM I r In I � I rv..11nrtu I I o I I mj I> a 4'C(NRF.(E ROC4'v,CNFK I L .. � �: (fA.T ffil:V 5CM5 I —'/•i/,=//.,=//i/.: IO � I UK.17'Iti"FfI:(NRID.UR. 1&2 1'/'10 2J 95 I'5 14' Y FOUNDATION PLAN Lot 40 Penelope Lane,Gotuit na :: e/2o/av PATRIOT 13UILDFR5 FOUNDATION A5 OF 5 SEP-13-1998 16:13 R05ERS & GRHY, ORLEANS P.01 s RGGERS & GRAY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. P.O. BOX 309 ORLEANS, MA 02853 508-240-3905 508-240.1827 (FAX) DATE: September 18, 1998 TO: The Town of Barnstable Building Division ATTN: Louise FAX#: 1-508-790-6230 #OF PAGES: 2 FROM: Donna Pearse RE: Road Bond Mere is a copy of the Road Bond for Patriot Builders, Inc. The original bond is being mailed directly to Patriot Builders. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Donna Pearse SE?-18-1998 15:54 ROGERS & GRAYS ORLEANS P.02 IR 0 fu I. Western Surety Company a nl i u e LICENSE AND PERMIT BOND For County,City, Town or Village Only-Not Valid for Bonds Required by the State. Not Valid for Contract, Performance,Maintenance,Subdivision,Agent to Sell Hunting and Fishing Licenses or Utility Guarantee Bond. r• , , KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: BOND No. L&P•6 0 3 4 4 9 0 4 " ` That we, n of the raw n of , State of as Principal, and WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, a Corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of , as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the State of Town Of Fiarn a{�ah1 p , ,Obligee,in the amount (Valid only when a County,City,Town or Village Is named as Obligee) of F A ($",Q Q- ) DOLLARS. (NOT VALID FOR MORE THAN$25,000) lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said obligee, for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves and our legal representatives,jointly and severally. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That whereas, the Principal has been licensed — Rtti iriinrr rnni-rmctar j by the Obligee. NOW THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully perform the duties and comply with the laws and ordinances (including all, amendments), pertaining to the license or permit, then this obligation to be void, other w -w'&remain in full force and effect for a period commencing on the ...18th day of , 19�8 and ending on the_ i t day Of 1S12—, unless renewed by continuation certificate. °'F#}s laond'lgy. a terminated at any time by the Surety upon sending notice in writing to the Obligee and to hiincipal,in`earaf the Obligee or at such other address as the Surety deems reasonable, and at the expira tior,Of; thirty five (3 )'days from the mailing of notice or as soon thereafter as permitted by applicable law, ifcliever=1s Tatar;,rt'is'bond shall terminate and the Surety shall be relieved from any liability for any subsequent s:4'1;he Principal. R t i, day of_ 19$�. Principal Principal i g CounteOei , GRAY INBUR ,CB AGENCY INC,W E S T E R : U 0 M P A N Y n �G8 ^ � n r By —2p el By ' Pres* ent ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF St ETY STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 1 (Corporate Officer) County of Minnehaha � a On this day of , 19�,.._,before me,the undersigned officer,personally P.K appeared—_.. Joeirbv ,who acknowledged himself to be the aforesaid officer of WESTERN 1 SURETY COMPANY,a corporation,and that he as such officer, being authorized so to do,executed the foregoing instrument for the purpose therein contained, by signing the name of the corporation by himself as such officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official s 5' c,MYERS Al UIA W NOTARY PUBLIC s$"J sOVTH DAKOTA r;A.; ;1 Notary ublic, South Dakota Ky Commiacinn P:a,>{rNF 5;5-78 � � Form d49—t•01 �}kc�a�:sus•e:+�e'..�e:e:e��:s,:.�:s�.,:��.+ TOTAL P.;32 f - SEP-18-1993 15:54 ROGERS '& GRRY, ORLERNS P.01 ROGERS A GRAY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. P.O. BOX 309 ORLEANS, NIA 02653 508-240.3905 508-240-1827(FAX) DATE: September 18, 1998 TO: The Town of Barnstable Building Division ATTN: Louise FAX#: 1-508-790-6230 #OF PAGES: 2 FROM: Donna Pearse RE: Road Bond Here is a copy of the Road Bond for Patriot Builders, Inc. The original bond is being mailed directly to Patriot Builders. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, r, Donna Pearse r SEP 17 198 03:01PM P„ The Town of Barnstable MA W Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services Building Division 567 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-1033 Ralph Crossen Pax: 509490-�i230 Building Commissioner August 6, 1998 Attorney Martin 1.O'Malley,Jr. 330 South Street Hya uds,MA 02601 . f Re: 35 Penelope Lane,Cotuit,MA(lot 56) Map/parcel 039/040 Dear Attorney O'Malley; Lot 56 Hackberry Road in Cotuit Commons is a buildable lot from a coning standpoint Ibis-conclusion is based ou$recent Zoning Board of Appeals decision and the deed history of your tot, If you need any further assistance,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Ralf h M.Crossen Building Commissioner TtMi,/km Q98(806A1 OWNER: Map Lot DATE.: The Commonwealth of iWassachuseits Department of Industrial Accidents Mes st/A YM 992900S -/:. 6001 Washington Street Boston,Mass. 02111 Workers' Compensation Insurance Atridavit location- 14�)- i L(1 -a-Lie cicv nhon ❑ I am a homeowner performing all work myself. [1 f am a sole proprietor and have no one working in any capacity [I I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job. ( �J comoaavna.me: �'1"l l�. U R G1� e, .tr C i address: `.1 i\ (�`,0L1`J LO !') k' ( } Jt t �f (!' t!� f nhone i#- c� 171 7 t , insttr_aneeco. t^ti�ii{ Y� �� noiiev \:1 C. I am a sole proprietors Deneral contraet`or;or homeowner(circle oneJ and have hired the contractors listed below who have the following workers' compensation polices. comonnv name: l� 1 C, Li lddress:J Rie ttvr Ij Ain, ['' nhoncf, -7 insurance-co f 1 t1 L �-1 iz,.�l C•( �� oolicv# L PC comoanV name: address, :� �� 116rO i t`(\ �[ ) �Cl i` (`�� cirv. phone nsurnnceco._ _.- � �' �� (-� �.� tLiicv#: ��F��`�•r� `J --)G - coca Fstilure to secure coverage as required under section 25A of b1GL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine up to SU00.00 and/or one years'imprisonm t as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a fine ofS100.00 a day against me. I understand that.a copy of this state ent m y be forwarded to the Omce of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verification. l do hereby terrify n the pains aA enalties of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct Signature Dare Print name '�1. �') ! ;' (r ( I 7) _ '`� r`.. Phone# Cf,ral use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town official or town: permidlicensel rIBuildinq DepartmentLicensing Boardeck irimmediate response is required Selectmen's Otlice.ct person honed ❑Health Department P C30ther k' U!I!L'rr r!!lurv�uytsud sr� 600 Washingro,t Sneer Boyron, hfnss 0.2111 - Workers' C_onipcnsatlon lnsurnnce Afridarit � 1 tutor .� ... .-•- . � -- -••�-_�' ���:.`��K`'•. ' ..: :..�::_.... .• .� 11j�i�Sti llQ _1TI 1�11J /))�)Qn. (E ((/' 7a i 0 1 am a homeowner performing all work myself. [:j l aai n sola proprietor and hd a no one working in any capnily (] l nni as emplo.er ()ro-idin;workers'compensation far my eniplayees working on this job. • '• ace, l� bl` � .I LrfTtJ 17 r^c( � C� huiitl:fr«C.� ZZ j/. L S T J C t ant a sale propri tar.general contractor 'lio mea�rncr(circle nnr� and have hired fir contractors lisfs,'d Moss, rho haw Ihr follotting iso ' ' i0 nsauon polices: city: V Act {�,tIP. _.. .. <' .�5:. L:1:..0 .. ....�Titi'•J.15.•1'+7.•�`�3M.1ti: M.n n r y.Il;1.me: ra ' ZX dkT"13efFI as t}iture to s<turt tos�crage a required under Sccdoa 25x o!MGL 152 call kad to the imposition of tel Penalties of a Cat sp to$I 04Ao aad/oI one years'Imprison.n+e wet,a tiril penalties is jut fordo of s STOP WORK ORDER and a It ae o�5100.00 tI day ap;alpat ma 1 Ilodenand that. copy or this ttittraint Zeta+' a forweratd the rr of Inrestigattoas of the DLt for coverage vcriflcadoa. I do hereby terrify'ursder the pains a,rd persrtl es of perjuq'that the information prosvdtd abore is true and correct. l ; Signature t to Print name Crr l r/ Phone A � r i a utli<iot ust onl, do nat*rltt in Ibis arts to tyt eomplered by city or town oMtial ti or town; _• — _^ per mitt kcnu p _ —Bulldleg Department t7 ouctming Boatel 0 clec4 if lrnmedi,te response is rcquirt4 ❑Sektltaca'i O{llce 01teallu Npartmcnt phoned <On fact ptfto": ;,.7, Ue .wd 1 0�r141 { �r• •i, P „y Ld i•Id9P:F-0 L661 60 .dz,S C9TS SV6+ 'Chi Sl•IOHcl WUH1hHD =0 NVI01 WOdA I PATRIOT BUILDERS SUBCONTRACTORS INSURANCE Patriot Builders 1421 Route 39,E. Harwich,MA 02645 Legion Insurance#WC335-974, 1 Phone: 508432-5100 Excavator: Hickey Construction Company 38 Rosary Lane,Hyannis,MA 02601 Phone: 508-771-4128 Traveler's#WCV0028023 Foundation: A&E Forms, Inc. 32 General Holway Road, South Yarmouth,MA 02664 Phone: 800-339-9046 Savers Property&Casualty#WC0000530 Framer: Bruce Wilcox Construction 2 Stonefield Drive,East Sandwich,MA 02537 Phone: 508-888-2528 Savers Property&Casualty#WC0000525-01 Insulators: Summit Insulation P.O. Box 1337,Harwich,MA 02645 ' Phone: 508-430-8144 Travelers Insurance#UB78K981 Mason: Boyne Masonry CS 006748 10 Fleetwood Path,Marstons Mills,MA 02648 Phone: 508-428-8360 Northland Insurance#OP008108 Plumber: E. F. Winslow Plumbing&Heating MP 7939 8 Reardon Circle, South Yarmouth,MA 02664 Phone: 508-394-7778 Hartford Insurance#077WZCS1489 Electrician: Peter M. Rodin Electric Sequattom Road,Harwich,MA 02645 Phone: 508-432-3030 Cigna Insurance#C4157035-0 Water Service: Robert B. Our,Inc. Great Western Road,North Harwich,MA 02645 Phone: 508-432-0530 US Fidelity&Guaranty#,7715216-96-8 Hardwood Floors: More Than Floors 8 Race Road, West Yarmouth,MA 02673 Phone: 508-771-4920 Maryland Casualty#SCP29646073 Painting: Tom Scanlon Painting 57 Scholl Avenue,West Yarmouth,MA 02673 Phone: 508-771-6505 Fitchburg Mutual#367-IL6001408 Plaster: Bloomer Plastering 23 Snow Brook Road, West Yarmouth,MA 02673 Phone: 508-760-3852 Legion Insurance#WC2-120790 Driveway: Green Acres Contracting,Inc. 120 Great Western Road South Dennis.MA 02660 Eastern Casualty Insurance#WC95557015 Drawings: George Russas P.O. Box 569, East Dennis,MA 02641 Phone: 508-385-8765 N/A I MAScheck COMPLIANCE REPORT I Massachusetts Energy Code I Permit # MAScheck Software Version 2 . 01 I I Checked by/Date i I CITY: Barnstable STATE: Massachusetts HDD: 6137 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1 or 2 Family, Detached HEATING SYSTEM TYPE: Other (Non-Electric Resistance) DATE: 8-20-1998 TITLE: Lot 40 Penelope Lane, Cotuit. PROJECT INFORMATION: 36 ' x 28 ' Cape style new home. Andersen HP windows . COMPLIANCE: PASSES Required UA'= 337` Your Home = 337' Area or Cavity Cont. Glazing/Door Perimeter R-Value R-Value U-Value UA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CEILINGS : Raised Truss 1435 30 . 0 0 . 0 46 WALLS : Wood Frame, 16" O.C. 1593 .11 . 0 0 . 0 142 GLAZING: Windows or Doors 273 0 . 310 85 DOORS 40 0 . 067 3 FLOORS : Over Unconditioned Space 1297 19. 0 0 . 0 62 HVAC EQUIPMENT: Boiler, 80 . 0 AFUE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: The proposed building design described here is consistent with the building plans, specifications, and other calculations submitted with the permit application. The proposed building has been designed to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts Energy Code. The heating load for this building, and the cooling load if appropriate, has been determined using the applicable Standard Design Conditions found in the Code. The HVAC,,e- pment selected to heat or cool the building shall be no greater,, rz 1 50 of'the esign load as specified in Sections 780CMR 1310 and J . 4 ./ Builder/Designe Date I - l MAScheck INSPECTION CHECKLIST Massachusetts Energy Code MAScheck Software Version 2 . 01 Lot 40 Penelope Lane, Cotuit . DATE: 8-20-1998 Bldg. l Dept. l Use I CEILINGS : [ ] I 1 . Raised Truss, R-30 I Comments/Location I Insulation must achieve full height over the exterior wall. I WALLS : [ ] I 1 . Wood Frame, i6" O.C. , R-11 Comments/Location I WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS : [ ) I 1 . U-value: 0 . 31 I For windows without labeled U-values, describe features : # Panes Frame Type Thermal Break? ] Yes [ ] No Comments/Location I I DOORS : [ ] I 1 . U-value: 0 . 067 Comments/Location FLOORS : [ ] I 1 . Over Unconditioned Space, R-19 I Comments/Location I HVAC EQUIPMENT: [ ] I 1 . Boiler, 80 . 0 AFUE I AIR LEAKAGE: [ ] I Joints, penetrations, and all other such openings in the building envelope that are sources of air leakage must be sealed. When I installed in the building envelope, recessed lighting fixtures I shall meet one of the following requirements : I 1 . Type IC rated, manufactured with no penetrations between the I inside of the recessed fixture and ceiling cavity and sealed or I gasketed to prevent air leakage into the unconditioned space. I 2 . Type IC rated, in accordance with Standard ASTM E 283, with no I more than 2 . 0 cfm (0 . 944 L/s) air movement from the the I conditioned space to the ceiling cavity._ The lighting fixture I shall have been tested at 75 PA or 1 . 57 lbs/ft2 pressure I difference and shall be labeled. I VAPOR RETARDER: r i Insulate circulating hot water pipes to the following levels (in. ) : PIPE SIZES (in. ) I NON-CIRCULATING I CIRCULATING MAINS & RUNOUTS I HEATED WATER TEMP (F) : RUNOUTS 0-1" 0-1 .25" 1 .5-2 . 0" 2 . 0+" I 170-180 0 . 5 I 1 . 0 1 .5 2 . 0 I 140-160 0 . 5 I 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 5 100-130 0 . 5 I 0 . 5 0. 5 1 . 0 I ----NOTES TO FIELD (Building Department Use Only) ------------------------- oFTME . . ; The Town of Barnstable MAM » sasivsr,►B�, • ! ,0�' Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services '�En rr►o+" Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner August 6, 1998 Attorney Martin J.O'Malley,Jr. 336 South Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Re: 35 Penelope Lane,Cotuit,MA(lot 56) Map/parcel 039/040 Dear Attorney O'Malley: Lot 56 Hackberry Road in Cotuit Commons is a buildable lot from a zoning standpoint. This conclusion is based on a recent Zoning Board of Appeals decision and the deed history of your lot. If you need any further assistance,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Ralph M.Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/km Q980806A r QUERY PROPERTY: QUERY END QUERY PROPERTY € PENTAMATION----------------------------------------------------------- 08/06/98 PARCEL ID 039 040 GEO ID 2319 LOT/BLOCK 56 DBA PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER HOLZMAN 35 PENELOPE LANE ROBERT & MADELINEJ COTUIT 8 BRAEBURN AVE PEMBROKE MA 02359 PHONE DISTRICT CT DEVELOPMENT STATUS C ASSESSOR'S CODE CAPACITY(NOTES) ZONING DIST/ZOC RF SEWER SYSTEM FLOOD PLN/ELEV. WATER SYSTEM OKH? # BEDROOMS ZBA DECISION FAMILY APT LOT SIZE 25700. 4 OPER/MGR NAME WET LANDS MULT ADDRESS USE 130 PROTECT DIST GP (N) EXT / (P) REVIOUS / NO(T) ES / PER(M) ITS / (V) IOLATIONS / (G) EOBASE / (E)XIT This value is not among the valid possibilities Martin J. O'Malley, Jr. Attorney at Law 336 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Telephone No. (508) 775-7100 Fax No. (508) 790-0072 Email momalley@capecod.net August 6, 1998 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF BUILDABLITY Lot 56, Hackberry Road (nka Penelope Lane), Cotuit Commons, LCP 22824-D Sheet 1, Assessors Map Parcel No. Dear Mr. Crossen: My client, Mark J. Hirsch, has entered into an agreement to purchase the above vacant lot. Prior to purchasing he or his agent intends to submit an application for a 3 bedroom, 2 full baths, single family residence with two car attached garage. The builder will submit the required documents and perk test results in pursuance of the permit. The purpose of this letter is seek a written determination of buildablity. Lot 56 was part of an approved subdivision (approval required) dating back to February 1968. The lot has 125 foot of frontage on an approved way. The Covenant that was recorded filed as land Court Document No. 123,196 was released as to all lots on August 9, 1979, see Document No. 528,652 attached herewith. The current square footage of the lot is undersized. The original zoning was RD-2 and this was changed by Article 159 of 1973, on 3/29/1973 to one acre, RF zone. This lot was approved in 1968, had 7 year protection. The lot during the period of protection was conveyed into single lot ownership status. However, on 11/22/1978, title was acquired by foreclosure and vested in Bass River Savings Bank...with adjoining lots 50-60. Thereafter the lot was conveyed to the current owner, Robert C. Holzman et ux on June 4, 1979. Since that time the lot has continued in single lot ownership, no contiguous lots being owned by the Holzmans. In 1979, an opinion, by then town counsel, was rendered to the Building Inspector setting forth the basis upon which the town could recognize the preservation of single lot status. A copy of this decision is attached. Finally, I am enclosing a copy of the pertinent portions of the Board of Appeals records in Appeal number 1996-161 which upheld the town policy of single lot protection in the Cotuit Commons subdivision. Please at your convenience issue your opinion so that I can forward the determination to my client. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Martin J. O Malley, 91111DIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN BARNSTABLE D Charles N. Savory Inc., Surveyors 2 2 82 4 February 12, 1968 SHEET 12 Srr S%arrf'2 N61�91 Zoe 3 W ctlJ N n O N V 61 n ,O // O a lA �(1 N.N 5L 55 .�iw3•hxsf P iW : N 62. " Cp E 0 �1 `Kc1 31 20¢ b r��s5�5G--'3' 165.80 � 49.�3'i 'U p,��9•Z �i o rCAPfd N O_ �56 V * 'radia r- � o p 1f! 6? �} V1jj �i �` s► 60 t�� N 65 l0 O b�' v'�451 9$, °R� v, tes is " F 3J1T d N �o 'A�'�6� O FLfCT d n1 e1C �N 58 97 40E �5E EOM P 1 a 4'88.30 m \2'1•Zh` a40� \. �sr'`✓�_e cga� Kr k O �i °c 0 9 fi o •N N 57 v)' �s '`'� 66 �� 50 �.O m�, 59 �S, µse s>'4se ` ,10 s� \9� u �� �R 4 �24382 p ��l �,• 51*1 ,`abl s iNV, O > +8 p �) AA a spa vn7 d�� 6 jai ill 58 `�" 1162 1G 9Oc 1 19 29�.eo '3 49 'fir Z��,°� ` �i i 7 °o M' o� y• �y�� � ` 37 'Qe �Qo c. IR ' N4' `r`q 44 l i 35 ? (V 34 1�c N aQ 5 f 01 y�6ur •13 ,0'�i o I� (U 33AI x ILI oleo ; J S p NCO N 0 'Q. a 3 2 0'� .. IV m 3oF d JQcD u 92 r�i� Subdivision of Lot o , ` 0 Shown on Plan 22824 Sh.• 2&3 i, Filed with Cert. of Title No. .26783._. Registry Di'striet of Barnstable County Separate certificet s of title mey,he issued for land — --- shown hemm� pteS.b�efgz�;�_r?f By the Court. Ilkd Jn--- LAND /tllSMAT/ON 01AM � Gd/tT 6,/rP6id Stele of Phis Alen/6*0 feet te on inp�i AUGUST 6�i9GB """" Cor C.M.Andersav�,Hipheerl6Cburt . . , is -• . FORM 0 . iCcrvenorN Approval Asleatfa) y 9 19- t Barnttabie, Massochusetu, ,.� u8t••�•••••••• 7i• The undersigned, being a majority of the Nanninq C:cvd of Bor,-ttob!e, /.+.atsnchose?+f, hereby " . codify that the requirements for work on the £rnund called for by th;.t Covenont dated AUI.y..1.6........... , t;k i 1?...G$, and recorded In .....BArnZtabl.0................. 'uric? Deeds, Book ..............., Pogo ...................., t 1 (or registered on Cortifrcote of T111e No. ................... In Reg!wo110-JUV'2 albJi23-kS e ) }, have been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Bcord at to the following enumerated lots Shawn • .�.F F} '; I x _ t rr on Plan entitled ............................................................ recorded with said Deeds, Pion Book .................., , i ? Plan ............. . (or registered to sold land Registry District, Plan bOdX zZEi24D plan ................. ) 9} t and sold loft ore hereby relented from tha reOrlctions of to solo and bviiding speOned thereon. ;r lots designotcri on said Plan as foilowtt } ........ThO. ant.1rA..1uWYAS.1.anA....,.....................•.... ......................•........ ..................•.........4. ...........................................•,................,.,:..................,........................................................................................... Jt�rJ 1r ' s .......,..•......:........................................:....... ........................... . P,vth0 riz1�Of the ............................ annrnq (bard !t ............... ....: ...........................,.. .. of the.To Barnstablo. wn of u r t .................... ...r.:..•..:............................................ ..............d...:.......... CC)WAON'rYEALTH Cr,,'AAStACHUSETTS eni,L�T"n5 W��� •i.,t:• ^�,!.. ,�:�\:..`i hirh�'..•.'�::��'�" •:i r ;,.. :ryas. Y y=..;y�..,r c'; :i _L;•: :;,' d�!t9� .C.:.9.:............ a Then personally..uppearadCi�i'f :z.r l�iZ7�l ro+a4 th®above nomad ma ribers of the Planning S 800rd of.'tla Town af'lkrnstoblor".' aisochusa}fs and ac�Cri�wledgod,!he foregoing inatrumont !o be the' free an and datsd of"sald .�icrrilri ` •.`i.,r.P q Boa�dr;adrti rttef Sy '.�• '!- ,'::t ly.,�" b•;Y14t /� ±'�„' ��i• :4'�::'.' ., iJ.......... ..................... t.. �. ., Notary;Publlc .; • :4. ; t ,(•.;, r . r� v•..rrt�Y,.1N��r ���Sti h My pmmfsilon'ozpirest .. 1 '�.:A.� After re' cordin reCurnrto' , ? `' �•1�L°Mlle~ �uS r1.,�,, ,. �'.. ' ;',:?,a , •t, ,. •.r"i•.�'' -„ '!'•,;{' t.j•>'A �d r 111 Y' ,ram�:t ,...�t Y,,. •j '^' 1 . tY ,t;t�;'•i;, ?, S.,• .. , ylt. •_;� .�:'M1 ?gry g��•p 2��rp @* �'�t'lRbN{ ,.r 2 ) t e� S4I' La'�31�67L8: P'i.�47 ta1'd`374Y�.. J •'rt51':�:} 5F•n'7�J; Sj!�vC�,_[\,�.Y'`r i•�')'. �' '.,��1, ���. �� : d �!•< r\r'',,+�1n.jc_�dr.�r F��,.� "�4• `r•• �:,:'�j''jt�:. �R�. ��;. .�:; f rlt�r,' n a iYt ..r j,' ! for r�� � r€ v' il.t' �N- .. i ., � "9r�' i( Ac. —•�.�:.i 1� 1` 1 S � ��yy{�"�.+,.4"J° %'F... "�1•+�'..'t4 ro "ra�`�f��..,x°.. +tea: �+�u�a�#�J'.: 't. . a ° �L. x '� f e a c r^ � "'3 ` 'P���"b..��-�e' •c'�? �.�,�-.rv"��c.x� �•F y ��yr x°h' 4��'�,��,�� t � ��'c��',^'� �x � �,. :-yr�,�; r 'd x -Pti�:. ..-7 .._........................................................................ ........... ................................................................. ............... tea. ?Acs: ;s+tts, h_reinnfter cal; the „Covenanter,,, having sub � �r•y ra �� �,- ~ ern^7 ire, a defnr,ive pion of subdivision, entitled TI*A..9Z..TA=d.... 3,%—`a3ta�bla la:3,3 , 3a3Mg 3 3- mbx 1-73.1on of Pel 2 shoWn on —... dated % d_ L. !no... 't area i!-^ ..ssd :7=ninq Boa-d and °hq successors in office of said Board, ..+....._ .�•U... .e_._ _..,._. � .i�i, ��C= -.�i1L�, ..., ,^.T^??^C_'�Pd, tf?Ct: r• Ne ^vzrer ='rd c7i arcrni e ncvvn on said plan; and ..nc �:._ b ndi;g on tie :executors, administrator, heirs, r t + aad sucsscr, title to the_ premise; shown on said plan; — _ _, •L^ +e*' arc .-e nt' , _..C'n nuniCipCi se^iices shall ue provided to serve Rules ^nd Regulations of ;aid Board before such lot ay _crigage eed; provided that a mortgagee who ernises --y -crcc!csu-e or otherwise and any succeeding owner =. 'he*ecf w.•.cy :.eii any such lot, subject -•ly to that portion of st ' _ '�•--r<, n=.:��•c v� � .��ct -)-a-)-a ;ct so .,c!d si all be built upon until such ways and ser- ..�<`•c .' 'ems ?Jr�a.d •a S.trt•� SY :of,• - c _ nveyonce sub',ect to this covenant by a single :-^at = .anr yhcw^ on ')e r'divi:icn oian a, of all lots not previously =nn,rrg_ vi`•h-Ld ,.IrQvid,nr, such ways and services. eFef! _ °,--l? rcvcl all :aid plan; -e ein,ereJ. ;:on saki p i a n and this covenant shall be recorded i ... ...! _.^:P_ .:'r�' .r"N_�' _.»_.s1si.:,i�iLgaRlt..,✓.s...?f.>:�f.1w�i.b.......... .... .. ... ..... ....................................... - - -- - ..__._.._.........................................:... .......:..........................:............. wife, i u_h as , we, may ha•.e in said premises shall be subject to m____;ary release cll rights of hf '.i�� ,z,3. ...... / of /.....�Z q...�i . , 9 ......................zu1.y:.1.6., 19...68 .......................................................... ............... be ....hi3...-...-....free act and deed, �f i s�Cld N*X- YCOCi4Jotary Public '0 4� Town of Barnstable R Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Notice Appeal Number 1995-161 -Apog Variance Section 3-1.4(5) Bulk Regulations, Minimum :dt Area ' Summary Withdrawn Without Prejudice Applicant: Vera M.Apog h o I Property Address: Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit, MA Assessor's Map/Parcel 39/42 Area 0.74 Acres Zoning: RF, Residential-F Zoning District Appeal No 95-161: Variance to Section 3-1.4(5)Bulk Regulations, Minimum Lot Area. Background Information: ' The Applicant is-seeking a Variance from Bulk-regulations Section 3-1.4(5) because the lot is under 1 acre. This appeal was made concurrently with Appeal No. 1995-160, which was an Appeal of an Administrative Official. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 1. 1995. A Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The Hearing was opened on November 29, 1995, and continued to January 24, 1996 at which time the applicant requested and the Board permitted the Appeal to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. Board Members hearing these appeals on November 29, 1995 were Emmett Glynn, Ron Jansson, Gene Burman, Tom DeRiemer, and Chairman Gail Nightingale.At the hearing of January 24, 1996,Alternate Member Elizabeth Nilsson,who was present for the initial hearing replaced Ron Jansson who was not present at the opening of the continuance. Hearing Summary: Attorney Albert Schulz represented the applicant in this appeal. He presented his case as related to Appeal No. 1996-160, an appeal of the decision of the Building Commissioner to not issue a building permit for the locus. In that appeal the Board found to overrule the Building Commissioner's Decision .Attorney Albert Schulz then requested the Board to allow Appeal No. 1995-161 to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice as the Variance would no longer be necessary. Decision: A motion was duly made and seconded to allow Appeal No. 1995-161 to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. The vote was as follows: AYE: Tom DeRiemer, Emmett Glynn, Eugene Burman, Elizabeth Nilsson and Chairman Gail Nightingale. NAY: None. Order: Appeal Number 1995-161 has been Withdrawn Without Prejudice. Appeals,of this decision, if any, shall be made to the Barnstable Superior Court pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days after the date of the filing of this decision in the office of the Town Cle G 1996 Gai ightingale, hairrr;a Date Si ned I Linda Leppanen, Clerk of the Town oftamstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty (20) days have elapsed since the Zoning,Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the Town CI er . Signed and sealed this_ day o u s Ejnd penalties of perjury. Linda Leppanen, Town Clerk AM As To: Art Traczyk From: Bob Smith Subject: Apog Answer ., Date: 12/26/95 _- A couple of weeks ago, you sent me the appended memo. I did not want any further time to go by before I got back to you on this, because I may be reading_ your questions incorrectly, and I wanted to allow time to reframe them, if need be, ' into a form more susceptible to being answered in a legally meaningful way. Please get back to me if the following doesn't do the job: There are, as I see it, four questions:.:°the three numbered ones and the one which composes the following) paragraph: 1. the recent"Tsagronis Case and Decision" Is the new Non conformities Section 4- 4.2(4)contradictory to that decision? Z. MGL Chapter 40 A, Section 6-Is Section 4-4.2 (4),.consistent with state law as related to non-conforming lots and common ownership? 3. Is Section 4-4.2 (4), legally defensible it terms of the Mass General Law Chapter 40 A and in light of the recent'Tsagronis Decision"? As related to this particular case, and Section 4-4.2 (4)can-a developer now checkerboard all the undersized lots in a subdivision and than later bring them all back under one control and still retain buildable lots'under zoning? If it is borne in mind that the very purpose undertaken by the "zoning subcommittee" in its rewrite of section 4-4.2 was to adapt the Barnstable zoning ordinance to the constraints of the "Tsagronis'- decision, the three numbered questions are.most appropriately answered by the statement that it is within the power of the Town, acting through its legislative body, to adapt its °grandfathering" provisions (as it did here, as recommended by a consortium from its land use.boards and specifically on recommendation of the planning board) in the manner it determines will strike the most appropriate and fair balance of the interests involved, so long as it does not ✓��✓ impinge upon rights preserved by the Constitutions of the United States and the,- Commonwealth, or the General Laws to individual property owners. No such rights are implicated here. The action of the Town Council more nearly harmonized, rather than rendered contradictory,/the zoning bylaw as it was interpreted prior to the-holding in the Tsagronis case with that holding. It is completely consistent with and defensible under the cognate provisions of the statutes on zoning. . Finally, the unnumbered question, relating to whether or not a developer could "checkerboard" under section 4-4.2 (4), seems to fail to grasp that the sale of the lots must be into "separate ownership and control" in order to achieve the protection in the first place. As I understand the term "checkerboard", it denotes a retention of actual'control of contiguous lots, even though the legal title might be in a different name. In other words, the answer to that question is "no." s Town of Barnstable i Planning Department December 13, 1995 - - - To: Robert Smith, Town Attorney Ruth Weil, Assistant Town Attorney From: - Art-Traczyk, Principal Planner file M-131295.doc Subject: Appeal Number 1995-160 &161-Apog-Boards request to review an issue as related to recent amended Section 4-4-Nonconformities. At the November 29, 1995, hearing of the above referenced appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals expressed concern for the recently amended non-conformities section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board is requesting that your office review the new Section 4-4.2, Nonconforming Lots, Paragraph (4), specifically the phrase; "Any legally created lot with a recorded release from covenant of the Planning Board that has been sold or transferred into separate ownership and control from any adjoining lots within 8 years from the endorsement of the original subdivision plan shall be exempt from any dimensional or bulk zoning changes and shall not lose its status as a single buildable lot under zoning. The Board was concerned with the implication of the new Zoning Ordinance, Section 4-4.2, Nonconforming Lots, Paragraph (�),with regards to: 1. the recent"Tsagronis Case and Decision"-Is the new Nonconformities Section 4 4.2(4)contradictory to that decision? 2. MGL Chapter 40 A, Section 6-Is Section 4-4.2(4), consistent with state la_w as related to non-conforming lots and common ownership? 3. Is Section 4-4.2(4), legally defensible it terms of the Mass.General Law Chapter 40 A and in light of the recent'Tsagronis Decision"? As related to this particular case, and Section 4-4.2 (4)can a developer now checkerboard all the undersized lots in a subdivision and than later bring them all back under one control and still retain buildable lots under zoning? The Board has continued the appeals to January 24, 1996, for your input. If you should need any additional information do not hesitate to call me. Thank You. Attached:-Copy of Minutes-Apog Copy of Staff Report A yr•... - - - - . .... -, _ - - - __---_copy-of Minutes-Apog Attorney Albert Schulz represented the applicant in this-appeal. He submitted a map highlighting the sale of the lots in the subdivision of the locus. As background, on February 19, 1968 the.,subdivision was approved for Robert Haden. At that time the properly was in an RD 2 district whicp required 20,000 sq. ft. of upland per lot. In March 1973,the zoning was changed to RF and a 43,560 sq.ft. requirement. Philip Gogan and William Butler purchased most of the lots in 1973. Mr. Gogan transferred half of the lots to himself and half of the lots to Mr. Butler, which was within the 7 year protection period. On October 27, 1977,the bank foreclosed on all the lots. The locus has been in separate ownership since 1977. In 1979, a decision by Attorney Gilmore,who was the Town ' Attorney at that time, stated the lots were buildable and the then Building Commissioner issued building permits to all the lots and approximately 46 tots were sold. Attorney Schulz continued and stated that his lot is grandfathered since Town Council for the Town of Barnstable recently passed an amendment to,Section 4-2(4). This amendment states that any change in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to any land submitted and endorsed within 8 years from the date of endorsement and shall not lose its status as a single buildable lot under zoning. In the case of locus, the covenant was not released until 1979, but the subdivision was completed in 1973. Public comment: Speaking.in favor was Bob Holzman, an abutter, who owes the vacant lot north of locus. No one spoke in opposition. Attorney Schulz stated that the"new bylaw[ordinance]"was passed for lots such as his and should be grandfathered. Ralph Crossen is in agreement that the checkerboarding was sufficient; however, he feels the foreclosure puts the lot back into common ownership.which is the reason why he denied a building permit. There are only a few scattered lots undeveloped in the subdivision, and a Variance condition may exist, but Mr. Crossen found it to be common ownership. Attorney Schulz stated next that this was an involuntary merger and not voluntary because there was a foreclosure and should be distinguished as such. The Board was concerned with the implication of the new Zoning Ordinance with regards to Tsagronis which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Is our new Zoning-Ordinance contradictory to the Tsagronis Case? Does the new Non-Conformities Amendment override the State Supreme Courts decision?- These were some of the concerns the Board expressed and wanted an opinion from Town Attorney Robert Smith: Appeal Number 1995-160 and Appeal Number 1995-161 were continued to January 24, 1996 at 7:00 PM to allow the Board the opportunity to seeK,an opinion from the Town Attorney. Copy of Staff Report Town of Barnstable Planning Department Staff Reportt Appeal No. 160 -Appeal of Administrative Officials Decision Appeal No. 161 -Variance Section 3-1.4(5) Bulk Regulations,Minimum Lot Area Apog Date: November 17' 1995 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: - Robert P: Schemig, Director Art Traczyk Principle Planner Anna Brigham,Associate Planner' Applicant: Vera M.Apog Property Address: Lot 57 Penelope Lane,Cotuit,MA --- -.7 - Assessor's Map/Parcel 39/42 Area 0.74 Acres J Zoning: RF, Residential-F Zoning District r Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District 1 Appeal No.95-160: Appealing an Administrative Officials Decision the November 1, 1995 decision of the Building Commissioner to deny a building permit for Lot 57. This appeal-is in accordance with Section 5-3.2(1). - Appeal No 95-161: Variance to Section 3-1.4(5)Bulk Regulations,Minimum Lot Area. Filed November 1. 1995; Public Hearing November 29,1995. Decision Due January 29,1996 Background: The locus of this appeal is a vacant lot known as Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit, MA in an RF, Residential-F Zoning District. The surrounding lots are generally 1/2 to 3/4 acre lotslwith a few scattered 1 acre lots-.- The neighborhood is,-residential in character. The Applicant is seeking an Appeal of an Administrative Official. On November 1, 1995, the Building Commissioner denied a building permit to the Applicant due to the fact that this lot was held in common ownership with an adjoining lot after the critical ordinance change in 1973 and therefore is not grandfathered under 40A. The new Nonconformities Section 4-4.2 (4)-Subdivision Plan Protection should be applied in reviewing this appeal. The Applicant is also seeking a Variance from Bulk regulations Section 3-1.4(5) because the lot is under 1 acre as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant states that in 1977, Bass River Savings Bank foreclosed upon 72 lots in this subdivision resulting in common ownership of all lots in the subdivision. The applicant has cited that the locus has been held in separate ownership since 1977. Given that the lot was not released until 1979 the applicant should provide proof of this transfer into separate ownership. History: Subdivision #92"Bearberry Bank a.k.a. Cotuit Commons"was approved on February 19, 1968. The Town Clerk signed the plan March 14, 1968. At the time of approval, the zoning was RD-2 which required 20,000 sq. ft. Section 6 of MGL Chapter 40A gives a 7 year grandfathering protection for the subdivision plan which would have ceased on February 19, 1975. r A Certificate of Performance released all securities held for the subdivision as being completed on October 15, 1973. However the release of the lots was not requested until 1979 all of the remaining lots, including the subject Lot No. 57 were released from covenant on August 9, 1979. Zoning in this area of Barnstable changed to one acre in 1973 by rezoning to RF. Variance: In consideration for the Variance, the applicant must substantiate those conditions unique to this lot that justify the granting of the relief being sought. Attachments: Applications Assessor Map •- Plan Reduction copies: Applicant/Petitioner Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable Planning Department Staff Report - - Appeal No. 160-Appeal of Administrative Officials Decision Appeal No. 161 -Variance Section 3-1.4(5) Bulk Regulations, Minimum Lot Area Apog Date: November 17, 1995 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Robert P. Schernig, Director Art Traczyk Principle Planner •Anna Brigham,Associate Planner Applicant: Vera M.Apog Property Address: Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit,MA Assessor's Map/Parcel 39/42 Area 0.74 Acres Zoning: RF, Residential-F Zoning District Groundwater Overlay: GP Groundwater Protection District Appeal No. 95-160: . Appealing an Administrative Officials Decision the November 1, 1995 decision of the Building Commissioner to deny a building permit for Lot 57. This appeal is in accordance with Section 5-3.2(1). Appeal No 95-161: Variance to Section 3-1.4(5) Bulk Regulations, Minimum Lot Area. Filed November 1. 1995; Public Hearing November 29, 1995. Decision Due January 29, 1996 Background: The locus of this appeal is a vacant lot known as Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit, MA in an RF, Residential-F Zoning District. The surrounding lots are generally 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots with a few scattered 1 acre lots. The neighborhood is residential in character. The Applicant is seeking an Appeal of an Administrative Official. On November 1, 1995, the Building Commissioner denied a building permit to the Applicant due to the fact that this lot was held in common ownership with an adjoining lot after the critical ordinance change in 1973 and therefore is not grandfathered under 40A. The view Nonconformities Section 4-4.2 (4)-Subdivision Plan Protection should be applied in reviewing this appeal. ' The Applicant is also seeking a Variance from Bulk regulations Section 3-1.4(5) because the lot is under 1 acre as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant states that in 1977, Bass River Savings Bank foreclosed upon 72 lots in this subdivision resulting in common ownership of all lots in the subdivision. The applicant has cited that the locus has been held in separate ownership since 1977. Given that the lot was not released until 1979 the applicant should provide proof of this transfer into separate ownership. History: Subdivision #92"Bearberry Bank a.k.a. Cotuit Commons"was approved on February 19, 1968. The Town Clerk signed the plan March 14, 1968. .At the time of approval, the zoning was RD-2 which required 20,000 sq. ft. Section 6 of MGL Chapter 40A gives a 7 year grandfathenng protection for the subdivision plan which would have ceased on February 19, 1975. A Certificate of Performance released all securities held for the subdivision as being completed on October 15, 1973. However the release of the lots was not requested until 1979 all of the remaining lots, including the subject Lot No. 57 were released from covenant on August 9, 1979. Zoning in this area of Barnstable changed to one acre in 1973 by rezoning to RF. Variance: In consideration for the Variance, the applicant must substantiate those conditions.unique to this lot that justify the granting of the relief being sought. Attachments: Applications Assessor Map Plan Reduction copies: Applicant/Petitioner Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of A r ppeals Decision and Notice - Appeal Number 1995-160-Apog Appeal of Administrative Officials Decision __ Summary Overruled the Building Commissioner's Decision - s' Applicant: Vera M.Apog Property Address: Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit, MA Assessor's Map/Parcel 39/42 Area 0.74 Acres Zoning:. _ RE_Residential-F Zoning District Appeal No.95-160: Appealing an Administrative Officials Decision The November 1, 1995 decision of the Building Commissioner to deny a building permit for Lot 57. This appeal is in accordance with Section 5-3.2 0). Background Information: The Applicant is seeking an Appeal of an Administrative Official. On November 1, 1995, the Building Commissioner denied a building permit to the Applicant due to the fact that this lot was held in common ownership with an adjoining lot after the critical ordinance change to one acre lots in 1973 and therefore is not grandfathered under MGL Chapter 40A. The Nonconformities Section 4-4.2 (4) -Subdivision Plan Protection was applied in this appeal. Procedural Summary: This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 1, 1995. A Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notices sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The Hearing was opened on November 29, 1995, and continued to January 24, 1996 at which time the Board found to Overrule the Building Commissioners Decision. Board Members hearing these appeals on November 29, 1995 were Emmett Glynn, Ron Jansson, Gene Burman, Tom DeRiemer, and Chairman Gail Nightingale. At the hearing of January 24, 1996,Alternate Member Elizabeth Nilsson, who was present for the initial hearing replaced Ron Jansson who was not present at the opening of the continuance. Hearing Summary: Attorney Albert Schulz represented the applicant in this appeal. He presented the history of the lot, citing that on February 19, 1968 a subdivision of the land for Robert Haden (known as"Cotuit Commonsl was approved by the Planning Board. At that time the property was zoned RD-2 which required 20,000 sq. ft. of upland.per lot. In March 1973, the zoning was changed to RF and a 43,560 sq.ft. minimum lot area was required. Philip Gogan and William Butler purchased most of the lots in 1973. Mr. Gogan transferred half of the lots to himself and half of the lots to Mr. Butler,which was within the 7 year protection period afforded a Subdivision Plan under MGL Chapter 40A. On October 27, 1977, the bank foreclosed on all the lots. The locus has been in separate ownership since 1977. In 1979, a decision by then Town Attorney Gilmore,stated the lots were buildable and notified the Building Commissioner Office to issue building permits to all the lots. Approximately 46 lots were sold and the building permits issued. Attorney Schulz stated that his lot is grandfathered as a developable non-conforming undersized lot due to the recently passed Zoning Ordinance amendment"Nonconformities", specifically Section 4.4.2 (4) "Subdivision Plan Protection". This amendment states that any change in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to any land submitted and endorsed within 8 years from the date of endorsement and shall not lose its status as a single buildable lot under zoning. In the case of locus, the covenant was not released until 1979, but the subdivision was completed in 1973 and the Planning Board files document this completion of the Subdivision and release of all securities authorized. Ralph Crossen is in agreement that the early checkerboarding was sufficient to protect the lots; however, he feels the foreclosure reunited the lot into common ownership which is the reason why he denied a building permit. Attorney Schulz stated that this was an involuntary merger and not voluntary because of the foreclosure and should be distinguished as such. The Board was concerned with the implication of the new Zoning Ordinance text with regards to the recent"Tsagronis Supreme Court Decision"and requested the opinion from Town Attorney Robert Smith as to the legality of the text. The Hearing was continued to January 24, 1996, for review of the case by the Board Members and to seek legal opinion of specifically Section 4.4.2 (4)"Subdivision Plan Protection". Zoning Board of Appeals Decision and Notice Appeal No.'1995-160-Apog-Appeal of Administrative Official qt the January 24, 1996 continuance,Attorney Schultz cited the main issue is the implied merger of the lots under a bank foreclosure. He reiterated that it was an involuntary merger and that the new ordinance[Section 4-4.2(4)]was passed for just such lots-to eliveate the hardship resulting from the Tsagronis decision. ;The public was asked to comment. Speaking in favor was Bob Holzman, an abutter,who owes the vacant lot north of locus and Madeline Holzman, who owns an abutting lot in Cotuit Commons. The Board Members asked the Building Commissioner to discuss his reasoning in this appeal. Mr. Crossen stated that the question of buildability under zoning rests with the lot going into separate ownership within the 8 year freeze. If so, then the lot is grandfathered under the new ordinance. In this case, the lots(the entire subdivision) in question were sold to two developers and it needs to be decided whether or not there was separate:or common control by the two developers in this subdivision. If there was separate ownership then it was protected ieven though the bank took it through foreclosure_ If it did go into separate control then it is grandfathered. According to Attomey Schulz, in 1973,when the Town went to one acre zoning,the lot in issue was in separate ownership as both Mr. Gogan and Mr. Butler had separated both ownership and control. The applicant,the Apogs, are the owner today of a single lot in this development. Other vacant lots in Cotuit Commons,the subdivision,will have to be handled individually. Lots were sold separately from the bank and each lot will,continue to be treated individually as now separate people own the remaining lots. .Finding of Facts: Based upon the testimony given during the findings of fact: _public hearing on this appeal, the Board unanimously found the following 1. The petitioner is appealing an Administrative Official's Decision, dated November 1, 1995 that denied a Building Permit for Lot 57 Penelope Lane, Cotuit, MA. The lot is located as Assessor's Map 39, Parcel 42 in an RF Residential F Zoning District and a GP Groundwater Protection District. 2. The undersized lot was put into separate ownership during the 8 year subdivision protection period provided for in MGL Ch. 40A, Section 6. 3. There has been no evidence presented to this Board that this lot was under voluntary common control or ownership with any abutting lots after the 8 year period afforded the subdivision. 4. Similar lots in the area have been built upon during this 8 year freeze period and built upon after such time and this has established a precedent. Decision: Based on the findings.a motion was duly made and seconded to Overrule the Building Commissioner in Appeal 'Number 1995-160. The vote was as follows: AYE: Tom DeRiemer, Emmett Glynn, Eugene Bu NAY: None. rman, Elizabeth Nilsson and Chairman Gail Nightingale. Order: In Appeal No. 1995-160, the Board has Overruled the Building Commissioner. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall be made to the Barnstable Superior Court pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17,within twenty(20)days after the date of the filing of this decision in the office of the Town Clerk j• 1996 jGaiightingale, hairrltan 4Sig I Linda Leppanen,C erk of the Tcv-n.Of Barnstable,Barnstable County,Massachusetts,hereby certify that twenty(20)days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeais filed this decision and that no 8 pe of the decisio7n has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk. Signed and seared this��"—day of unde a d pen o rjury. Linda Leppanen,Town Clerk Cf THE T� , TOWN OF BARNSTABLE - BAR STABL = _ OFFICE OF TOWN COUNSEL p 3639. 367 MAIN STREET .a oYAY�' HYANNIS. MASSACHUSETTS 02601 r i BRUCE P. GILMORE TEL. 1617>-775- 1 120 ROBERT D. SMITH EXT. 128 NIGHT LINE AFTER 4 P.M. December 14', 1979 1 (617)-675-7570 TO: MR. JOSEPH DaLUZ -FROM: ROBERT D. SMITH and BRUCE P. GILMORE, TOWN COUNSEL RE: REFUSAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE TO ISSUE BUILDI967PERMITS FOR LOTS LOCATED IN COTUIT COMMONS (SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON LAND COURT PLAN NO. 22824-A (SHEETS 2 and 3) As a result of questions raised at meetings and correspondence among this office, yourself, Chairman and Staff of the Board of -Appeals, and a member of the Planning Board and the Bass River Savings Bank and its law firm Ardito, .Sweeney and Stusse regard- ing the above matter, -we hereby advise you as follows, based on the assumption that the following factual history, taken largely from, a memorandum of law by the aforementioned law firm; is accurate: 1 On February 19, 1968, the Planning Board of the Town of Barnstable approved the final subdivision plan for the subdivision known as Cotuit Commons. The owners and developers of said sub- division at the time .of its approval were William F. Butler and Philip F. Gogan:. At, the time of the approval of the subdivision plan, zoning- for the district-wa-s RD-2, which- requix-ed__a minimum_ of 20,000 square feet for each building lot. The plan conformed --- : _ _ 2. — to the then zoning requirements in all respects. , On or about March 24, 1973, the zoning by-law was amended in i the underlying district to increase the minimum lot size from 20,.00O square feet to 43,560 square feet. The district is now , classified as an RF District. The lots on said plan numbered 16-25 which have frontage on Route 28 are in a BL-C District and conform to present zoning requirements. On or about November 5, 1973, the Bass River Savings Bank. was granted a blanket mortgage on most of the lots in the sub- division by .the owners/developers, Gogan and Butler. On February 18, 1975, the owners/developers, Gogan and Butler , checkerboarded their subdivision; they caused their remaining contiguous lots in the subdivision to be .placed into separate ownership. (See Certificate of Title No. 63878 and Certificate of Title No. 63879) . On October 27, 1977 the Bass River Savings Bank foreclosed its .mortgage and by deed to itself dated November 7, 1977 became the fee owner of the remaining lots in the subdivision that had not previously been released from the mortgage given by Gogan and Butler to the Bass River Savings Bank. It is of substantial significance that this deed described the grant thus: "the land with any buildings thereon situation in Barnstable (Cotuit) , Barnstable County,. Massachusetts described as follows: Being LOTS .4, 7,8,9 ,13,14,15,16,1-7,18,19 ,20, 21,22, 24, 28,29 , 30, 31, 32, 33, 34-, 35, 36, 37 , 38, 39 ,40, 41, 42,43, 44 , 45, 46, 47,48, 49 ,50,,51,52,53,.54, 55 , 56, 57,58,59, 60,61, 62,63,64,65 ,66.,67,68,69 , 7'1,'72, 73', 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,79 , 851-86, 87,88,91 a.nd 92, as shown on Land Court Subdi- vision Plan No. 22824D (Sheets 1, 2 and 3) , filed at 3. Land Court in Boston, a copy of. which is filed ' in the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds in the Land Registration Office with Certificate of Title No. 26183. 11 On November 5, 1977, the November Annual Town Meeting adopted the following "Grandfather"Amendment as an addition to ' Section G of the Town Zoning By-laws: "E. -Any lot lawfully laid out by a plan or deed duly recorded, as defined in section eighty-one L. of chapter forty-one, or any lot shown on a plan endorsed with the words "approval under the subdivision control law not required" or words of similar import, pursuant to section eighty-one of chapter forty-one, which com- plies at the time of such recording or such endorsement, whichever is earlier, with the 'minimum area, frontage, width, and depth requirements, if any, of the zoning ordinance or by-law in the -town imposing minimum area, frontage, . width, depth, or'yard requirements, or more than one such requirement in excess of those in effect at the time of such recording or endorsement. (1) . may thereafter be built upon for residential use if, at the time of the adoption of such requirements 'or increased requirements or while building on such lot was other- wise permitted, whichever occurs later, such lot was held in 'ownership separate from that of adjoining land located in the same residential district, or (2) may be built upon for residential use for a period of five year.sfrom the date of such recording or such endorse- ment, whichever is earlier; if, at the time of the ' adoption of such requirements, such lot was held in common ownership with that of adjoining. land located in the same- residential district; and further provided, in either -instance, at the time of building (a) such lot has an area of 7,500 seventy-five hundred) square feet or more and a frontage of twenty feet or more, is in a district zoned -for residential use, and con- forms except as to area, frontage, width and depth with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance or by-law in effect in the town and (b) any proposed structure is to be located on such lot so as to conform with the minimum requirements •of front, side and rear setbacks, if any, in effect at the 'time of such recording or such endorsement,. .whichever is_. earlier,_and__to._all. __ other requirements for such structure in effect at the time of building. " . Under section 5 of chapter 40A of the General._ Laws,as- amended y by chapter 808 of the acts of 1975, this vote was effective when taken. *Prior to the effective date of this icy-law, the operative grandfather provision in the Town was the virtually. identical language of section SA .of chapter 40A of the "old" zoning enabling act, prior to chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975, andi section 7A of that chapter. Subsequent to its foreclosure, Bass River Savings Bank caused its lots in the subdivison to be registered with the Office of Interstate Land Sales of the. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment. . After registering the subdivision with HUD, Bass River Savings Bank began marketing its lots. Bass River Savings Bank . has been dealing with the Planning Board of the Town of Barnstable throughout the period of its involvement in this subdivision. The covenants running from Bass River Savings Bank to the Planning Board were released 'in June -of 1979 at which time a bond by way . of a savings passbook was returned to the bank. Bass River Savings Bank has sold some forty-one (41) of its lots in Cotuit Commons. Many others are presently under agreement to be sold. These sales were made in reliance upon assurances from town officials that the owners of the lots could obtain building permits. Indeed, many building permits have been issued . for lots in Cotuit Commons as is evidenced by the number of homes in the subdivision. *It should be noted that we deem the effective date of amendments to be a procedural matter; one of the ob j ectives of.-chapter -808 was. to standardize_procedures among the several cities and towns of the Common- wealth. See section 2A of chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. On or about October 29 , 1979, upon the application of Richard i i Racicot, the owner of Lot 53, the office of the Building Inspector questioned whether the lots in the subdivision still qualified for the granting of building permits, raising the issue now before US. Thus, the question before you is whether theland in Cotuit — Commons subdivision owned now or formerly by the Bass River Savings Bank is protected by the above grandfather provision of the by-law. There is no dispute that the -lots were protected from the increased requirements between their adoption in 1973, to the February, 1975 checkerboarding, by the seven (7) year grandfather provision of old section 7A of chapter 40A. Likewise, there is . no question that they were protected after the 1975 checkerboard- ing by the first, or "separate ownership" provisions of section 5A of that chapter until the November 5, 1977 adoption of the by-law, and that protection would have continued indefinitely under the. by-law had the necessity of foreclosure not arisen. This derives from a reading of the by-law's applicable language: "Any lot lawfully laid out by a plan or deed duly recorded as defined in section eighty-one L of chapter forty-one. . .which complies at the time of such recording. . .with the minimum area, frontage, width and depth requirements of the zoning. . . by-laws in effect in the Town of Barnstable, not- withstanding the adoption or amendment of a zoning . . .by-law in the town imposing minimum area. . . requirements—in excess of those in effect at the time of such recording. . .may thereafter be built upon for residential_use-if --at. the time of.-the-- adoption of such requirements or. while building on such lot .was otherwise permitted, whichever occurs later, such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoining land. . . " (emphasis added) . 6. It seems clear that the emphasized language -refers to lots i which would qualify for protection, not because of separate owner- ship at the time of adoption of increased requirements, but because of interim protection under another grandfather provision, such as that which was then applicable here,, under section 7A of chapter 40A. It is to be noted that there is no explicit term for the protection, once acquired. More importantly, there is no explicit requirement that separate ownership be continued to preserve the protection. The question thus becomes whether the acquisition by the bank of all the unsold lots--an acquisition which, presumably was precipitated by circumstances beyond .the bank's control--was an . - event which extinguished the protection,. and thereby diminished the value of the very security the bank was seeking to act upon. . Prior to reaching that ultimate question, there is ,a formal, dispositive threshhold. question: did the land received by the bank from itself consist of one lot or of several lots. There appear to be two ,.,lines of cases which deal with the subject of whether... or not lots, 'as shown on plans bar described in deeds, can, should or' must be assembled for the purpose of com- pliance with zoning by-laws. Heald v. 'Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield, Mass. .App., 387 N.E.2d 170 (1939) represents the latest in the non-apposite branch. of these decisions, which seems to confirm the right of an_owner .of. several plan lots--,to combine them in order to come up to minimum zoning requirements in effect at the time -of the dispute. _ 9 7. The relevant series of decisions, on the other' hand,. manifests a policy of. which we are mindful in writing this opinion: "the Supreme Judicial Court. has not favored manipu- lations which attempt to preserve non-standard lots for wilding purposes. " Giovannucci v. Board of Appeals of Plainville, 344 N.E. 2d 913 1976 at 915. " ' Emphasis supplied.) The-most recent and probably the most instructive case in this branch (although it deals also with -the first 'series,. as will be — seen) is Perry v. Building Inspector of Nantucket, Mass. App 350 N.E. 2a 733 (1916) . There, the court shed some light on the inter- pretation of the section 5A grandfather provision which is sub- stantially the same as the one in question here. The plaintiff, in that case, had apparently argued that he had the right, under the other line of cases, to combine his -lots within a number of adjacent parcels which he owned in order to meet the minimum frontage and area requirements imposed by the grandfather pro- vision itself, while at the same time contending that, once that minimum was achieved by the device of assembly, the court should "thereafter view his land, not as one piece but as several. The court held' that: "Section 5A must be read to apply to the lots shown on the plan, or to all the plaintiff's adjacent land shown on the plan, but not to anything in be- -tween. Section 5A does not give a developer the privilege of meeting the dimensional requirements of �5A by assembling new nonconforming lots when he has it within his power to "assemble conforming lots. " pe ryrsupra, at 738 In the instant case, it is to be noted that the bank is not attempting to -assemble new lots,. if- it can be seen under the 8. circumstances to be assembling anything at all. Furthermore,' the bank is not in a position of arguing .for the different characteri- zations of its land. It asks simply that the individual lots as shown on the 1968 plan and conveyed by the November 7, 1977 deed to itself, be treated as such. The criteria by which the present situation must be judged are found in-Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 284 N.E. 2d 595 (1972) . The principal- factor is clearly the language of the by-law which, arguably, affords the grandfather protection, and the intent of its framers. As evidenced by the above quotation from Perry, there are at least two meanings which can be gleaned_ from the language common to both section 5A and the by-law, albeit only one at a time is acceptable. Fortunately, the transcript of the November 5, 1977 meeting is available; it provides a fairly clear picture that what was being adopted was a by-law to protect adjoining lots. In explaining the need for replacing the section 5A grandfather protection, the then-chairman of the. Barnstable Planning Board said: Under 808, as it came ou ,, t of the Legislature, this g randfathering protection was eliminated and so anybody who owned a lot in the Town of Barnstable which was undersized to the present standards of density requirements, they would find that they couldn' t put a house on it. We - felt that this would be a tremendous hardship to a lot of people, not necessarily developers , but people who had invested in the lot next door or invested in lots somewhere hoping for. retirement or even people perhaps off-Cape who wanted to build a retirement home who are unaware of the zoning change or unaware of this requirement. " (Transcript,. Barnstable Annual Town Meeting, November 5, 1977, p. 29 ; Barnstable -Board--of­Sel-ectmen; emphasis-added) .--__(A later exchange, at. p. 35 , seems to relate to the effective date of the by-law under consideration or to subsequent by-laws increasing the requirements) . V 9. That there was. an_ understanding that the purpose of the by-law was to preserve lots which did not meet the minimum requirements is indicated by further remarks of the chairman: "Now, I know that there are: a lot of people that feel that checkerboarding, as it is popularly referred to, is a bad thing. A developer can exploit it. They , exploit it now and they circumvent it. If you feel that we have got to address this issue and we have„ got to plug up the checkerboard loopholes, let's do it later after we have adopted 808. Let' s get 808 into effect so we can get our other zoning articles enacted because they are pressing today. " (Transcript, supra, p. . 30) Finally, just before the vote was taken, the chairman restated a question,. and answered it thus : "All right. First, I want you to recognize that we are not changing the present situation in the town. That is, presently today, the grandfather clause exists under the old 40A and people have the same protection that we are trying to implement. The only difference is that we are shortening_ it from 7 to 5 years as far as plans go. Now in your hypo- thetical where you said an estate holds a• subdivision and estate- holds build on it for 1-0 years, r they are sprinkled or checkerboarded all over the town, okay. And presumably the Town increases the density requirement where these lots are located. Is that your.. . . okay: If they were in separate ownership at the time the town increased the density requirement, they would be protected unless next year we eliminated the grandfather clause or, you know, changed our zoning to eliminate the protection. " (Transcript, supra, at p. 44. (emphasis added) "Thus, it would seem that once the protection is -acquired, at least in a case where. the acquistion was less than voluntary, (the "e tate" in the hypothetical) the protection continues. Read in this narrow fashion, the grandfather provision would seem .to comport with the policy against "manipulations" which are calculated to preserve non-standard lots. In .the instant case, we are dealing with another method of acquisition which -can -be. seen to be involuntary-- -a mortgage fore-- closure. Research reveals that there are no reported cases dealing { -- - -' --- - -- -. 10. i - - with the problem of- 'a--merger of interest where the- merger is effected by way of a foreclosed security interest. Nevertheless, there is j a series. of cases wherein the issue was raised as to whether a i municipality should be barred from selling contiguous sub-standard lots where a Town had foreclosed its tax title. These cases might provide a useful analogy in arriving at a reasonable and fair solution to the present case. The first question which might be fairly. asked, then, is whether the foreclosing mortgagee is analogous to a foreclosing municipality. The mortgagee in this case is the Bass River Savings Bank which is a state chartered mutual savings bank. Like a muni- cipality, it receives its right to exist and its legal character by a grant from the Commonwealth. Like a municipality, it is imbued with the public interest. Its actions are authorized by the Office of the State Banking Commissioner with an eye toward seeing to it that the bank serves its community by' providing a means of capital accumulation for reinvestment in the area which it is.-located. There are no stockholders. The 'bank is in effect, . owned- by its 60,000 depositors who are mostly residents of Barn- stable County. Like a municipality, the* bank must practice prudent business procedures. A delinquent mortgagor must be treated as a delinquent tax payer. When a serious default: occurs, the bank must proceed to foreclose just as the Town must proceed to foreclose to preserve its tax base. A mutual savings bank must act prudently and foreclose to-preserve--its -reserves-- for the- safety zsf its- - depositors. Both the municipality and the mutual savings bank must dispose of the property promptly after foreclosures. In the series of cases referred to. above., the New York courts have consis- r tentl held that y up-,- could not. be used against a municipality after a foreclosure for back taxes. In the case of Canbarerri vs. Michaelis 192 N.Y.S. 2nd 861 (1959) , the plaintiff purchased a lot from Nassau County which County had acquired title to the lot by way of a tax taking. The lot had been owned by a person entitled to build on the lot as a matter of right under an old ordinance. The lot -was -only in common ownership with other sub-standard contiguous lots when owned by the County. When the plaintiff appealed from a decision of the Board of Appeals denying him .a building permit, the Court stated: "The ownership of land by a County arising from its purchase at a tax sale differs in some respects from other types of ownership. The County, having been compelled to assume tax title is hardly in the position of a voluntary purchaser who knowingly acquires abuttinc_parcels and should not be hampered or penalized in its duty in returningthe land to private hands by being compelled to assume the further burden of disposing of the property in plots reassembled to conform to a zoning ordinance from the provisions of which the property would have been free in the hands of its defaulting former owner. " The instant case presents much the same set of facts as in the Cambarri case. That is, the. bank was compelled - to assume title, . was not in the position of a voluntary purchaser, must -act to return the parcels to private ownership and should. not be compelled to assume a burden that the law did not require of the defaulting former owners. See also: Feldman vs. Commerdinger, 218 N.Y.S. 2nd 484 (1960) and Isadore v. Kramer, 198 N.Y.S. 2nd 533 (1959) . In other words, on/ the narrow facts of this case, there appear o be compelling olic � P g -p y""-rea-sonsF- for-preservation of"-the "lots;-not — - a situation where manipulation is being employed. We believe that Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 284 N.E. 2d 595 (1972) , a f .. ------- -- r - - r - - `s - 1,. 12. case. which might be read for a -contrary- result, actually supports this conclusion inasmuch as it relied on a zoning by-law whose grandfather clause gave protection to lots as hereinbefore defined" , meaning defined in the Milton by-law, and not, as here, to lots "lawfully laid out by a plan or deed duly. recorded. " Furthermore, where that case found an intent of the parties to -the relevant conveyance to convey one lot, because the deed granted a 'certain parcel of land' and set out "a metes and bounds description of a single area" , the relevant deed here could hardly be more explicit in its intent to convey individual lots, short of containing a prescient clause explicitly spelling outthat the intent of the parties was to preserve the lots for the purpose of the by-law. We are not inclined. to retroactively impose such foresight; to impose the contrary interpretation on the bank,'s deed to itself would be ludicrous. We are, 'therefore, of the opinion that you may issue building permits for single family residences on the lots acquired by the Bass River Savings Bank by its November. 7, 1977_ deed to itself, which lots are shown on the ,plan referred to in the deed. y 39 X ASSESSORS .MAP. _ NOTES'' PARCEL: 40 TEST HOLE- LOGS ASSUMED FROM QUAD NGVD + 1. VERTICAL DATUM. • N ENGINEER. THOMAS cL LLAN, P.E.CURRENT ZONING. RF 2. YUNICAPAL WATER IS, AVAI LABLE. WITNESS. JERRY DUNNING ,. �► BUILDING SETBACKS. 3. SCHEDULE 40 4 .PVC .PIPE TO BE.USED THROUGHOUT SEPTIC SYSTEM. 8 20 98 r F. - 30' S. 15' R. 15 DATE. 4. L PRECAST UNITS TO CONFORM°W. .AL N OR WITH AASHTO .H-f0 2 MIN/IN �, PERCOLATION RATE: < � LOADING SPECIFICATIONS. FLOOD ZONE: C 5. FIFE PITCH = 1/4" . PER FOOT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 4 TH-f TH-2 4,5.0 47.0 6. FIRST-2' OF PIPE OUT OF D-BOX TO BE SET LEVEL. ELEV ZLEV. 7. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE THE - LOOA W A D LOOAMY SAND USE OF A GARBAGE DISPOSAL.' LOCUS s" 10YR 2/1 445 s" 1oYR z/f 465 S. ALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ARE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE L HORIZON B HORIZON STATE OF MASS. ENVIRONMENTAL CODE TITLE FIVE AND LOCAL LOCATION MAP IOY�je D OYR 518 HEALTH REGULATIONS. ( , LOT 56 z4 4so za" 4ss C HORIZON C HORIZON 9. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR 25,888 ± S.F. UTILITIES MEDIUM SAND MEDIUM SAND TO CONSTRUCTION. 0.59 + AC. - 50. 4 �� 10. GROUND COVER OVER ALL SEPTIC SYSTEM COMPONENTS NOT TO EXCEED 3.0. ® �© 132" 34.0 120" 37.0 CAPE & VINEYARD ' ELECTRIC CO. EASEMENT 49 ` \ N., GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED (APPROX.LOCATION) 48 50. 2 7 �g WATT GCE �' SEP f SYSTEM DESIGN \ �g5• � � � � 50 ELEVATION 49.7 46 \ � FLOW 1STIMATE: B.CDROOMS AT ,110 GAL/DAY/BEDROOM = 330_GAL/DAY 45 ,� � � 14• s z 49. 7 9 d moo. SEPTIC' TANK: 1a DECK so, 330 'GAL/DAY x 2 DAYS = 660 GAL PROPOSED USE 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 28, 3 BEDROOM - ` .� DUELLING ` ' LEACR I NG AREA: 4 GAR. .p f 14 49. 0 USE 3 INFILTRATORS (MAXIMIZER CHAMBERS) s' WiTH 4' OF STONE ALL AROUND (30' x 11' x 2' DEEP) PROPOSED DUELLING UTILITY FIDE AREA-f30 + 11)2 x 2 = 164 SF(.74) = 121 GAL/DAY fual`TOM AREA: 30'-s If = 330 SF (74) = 244 GAL '.GAS' CAPACITY =365 GAL/DAY SEPTIC I C SYSTEM SECTION- - _ _ o \� 2" PEASTONE� COMERS WITHIN f2" OF 3 4 - 1 1 2" " 48.5 FINISHED GRADE 47 WASHED STONE TOP OF FOUNDATION 44 � ELEV.= 43.5 46 _ 43.9 �. J ELEV. �, o _ o - f, 44.15 1500 GAL D-BOX 43.65 41.0 ELEV. „ E-� E-� ELEV. 3 INFILTRATORS MAXIMIZER CHAMBERS) 1 45 ��%y SEPTIC TANK 43.82 (6 OF ELEV. 4' 4' WITH 4' OF STONEALL AROUND �,�' 44.5 (6" OF STONE UNDER OR ELEV. STONE 30' (3a s If w 2' DEEP) 44 ELEV. MECHANICALLY COMPACTED) UNDER) 3 INFILTRATORS (MAXIMIZER CHAMBERS) TEE SIZES: 43.0 WITH 4' OF STONEALL AROUND GAS BAFFLE 30' x 11' x 2' DEEP INLET: 6" UP, 13" DOWN AT OUTLET TEE ELEV. ( ) OUTLET: 6" UP, 14" DOWN BENCHMARK AT KEY; XLE7.B�4D SITE AND SEWAGE PLAN EXISTING CONTOUR: APPROVED BY.- DATE: PROPOSED CONTOUR: _ LOCATION. EXISTING SPOT `ELEVATION. 25.5 33D �jNo PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION: zs �- ` LOT 56 PENELOPE LANE TEST HOLE: vL d E �- Z. �� - �� � � � a��. .� ��aREST�R COT UIT, MA UTILITY POLE: --0- /��(� 1� , A4o. 3�858„ �/ l W360FENCE LINE: c CS e .�q0� e e ti o�c PREPARED FOR HYDRANT: -b- DMosr►R �� PATRIOT BUILDERS . RETAINING WALL: arm � 9 ,k TREE: DEMAREST-MCLELLAN ENGINEERING a'� s SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: 0911819 24 SCHOOL STREET P.O.`BOX'463 VEST DEXXIS,'.MASSACHUSETTs 02670 REFERENCE: LAND COURT CASE #22824D SHEET 1 DM #,9 -- 38 D3OF8) ( THOMAS McLELLAN, P.E. JOHN Z. DEMAREST JR., P.L.S. { �� u`l�, :.:PHONE dt.FAX :'(508) 398-77f0 ,F �`� �3 cr