Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Inquiry 2/22/067 TOWN OF YARMOUTH 1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1,16Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664 508-398-2231 ext. 261 LOT INQUIRY FORM (used for zoning porpases only) �' Map No. ! S r Lot No. 336 Street Address 6 1�44 y f-4Q l3ndmanent Date of Subdivision Plan and Type (if applicable) � Total Land Area (sq. ii.) Fri v 3 � Name of Cumexrt Owner 1 eft 1,4 Lf 5' Q,a ,+. �1 Telephone No. 3 F 5- 7 2 -7 Inquirer's Name (if different from owner) '4 M L (� Telephone No. Inquirer's Mailing Address `' 0 `� er Y- 1 e S �D_e c, u t s VIA tv,., Building Intent (in t(�k 2 3 F '►8 Lot Nurnbers /5 / dL v 3 By lot(s) qung this r assert my undersh"ft that the purpm of this inquiry is to determine whether the never previously been b 'o"�O land and that to the best of �ioned Signature of Applicant 1 e lot(s) has Gn'�- Date of Inquiry Z. � � .,,e.%.i.71WZN vor onke ruse "II ) Dm and/or the ape la L. the applicable provisions of NLG Chapter 40A, Section 6 Definitive, Plan Ex Rig bylaw, as per the information plod on this dataemption -C :' oraas to the applicable provisim of M-G.L. Chanter 4nA c..t:,,,. ,c .4, Para � of the - Application is incaompkte. Comfits: ------- Adequate mad access must be Planning Board Pursuant to iN.G A determination of adequate access shalt be made the Chapter 41 prior to the issuance of a building Perrrrit. (' , Shall satisfy Title V requirements. (See Health Dept.) i Shall satisfy fy regulatiow, if applicable. FEB 15 2006 Shall satisfy the Highway Regional Historic District BCommission (if applicable) By Investigator's Signature 6 Date Rev. 8/02 a ww ACC 151. 30 MAP 134 LOT L 1 Propelly Lc c-0 0005 ag' FARM RD N _QLAN NO. OwivtK -TITLE REF. DATE SELLING PRICE ACCOUNT NO. Book/Doc Page/Cert �� K /3 ftvU 3 -Da /333-)4 1 I 100 � 1 0,20 0 �3 � '6 1 7 r� oo M �� iiE7 66N K a F 14 Ito moo F ------------------- ACCT 51.31 MAP 134 LOT L3 LOC ; 90044 J3RAY FARM RD N uwrv�rs r r r r+r- v� f Sibr A)��PLAN P&H SELL) G DATE PRICE A OUNT NO. Page/Cert _ 0 r. �c /Doc T7/0qq I ACCT# 151.29 MAP 134 LOT J5 3$ 19 PLAN NO. 1 LOr, 00054 BRAY FARM RD N f �SlG�7 Ff�DN k# 4- �'6 _. - �•••�...- •.�. _ DATE SELLING PRICE ACCOUNT NO. Book/Doc Page/Cert (� 6UMA El- -t 7 M fh �. ���us _-_ _ u� rrt�s d NOLFOLK 3 fix/ s6 7-� ' g oa oa _ I, 006 _ c t_ Parcel lv,6-,3 ��ess ,l1 D IV AY mid xAi 2 Y4R.4, , Loa .c' Plan ,911a _OWNSA -- BOOK PAGE DOC. CER% PROBATE OAT -r, Nar(ei Ad4ress v F ��,a y 1-4)VM Rb , of n" i laic OWNER BOOK PAGE DOC. CiRT. PROBATE DAY --�-7-� 1-7 ,^ -hoL _.-ycc I FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: 3165 HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: PROPERTY: 50 cel L1, being Plan 40290-A, 130170. TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION January 26, 1995, March 22, 1995 55 AP" -6 P1? :15 7�9 1C'wh Fleet Bank of Massachusetts, N.A. Successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as liquidating agent/receiver of Heritage Bank for Sayings, 109 Main St., Northampton MA. Bray arm R ad N., Yarmouthport MA. Asse,pe� s_tp 134, Par als Lot on Land Court Plan 41420-A an Lot 6 on, Land Cour La d t Document Number 582868, Certi sef'Title MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: Leslie Campbell, Chairman, Fritz Lindquist, David S. Reid, John Richards, Jerome Sullivan • The petitioner has requested action and seeks relief from the Board of Appeals as follows: 1. Appeal pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning By -Laws Section 102.2.3, as a party aggrieved by a Decision of the Building Inspector, and requesting that the Board of Appeals overturn the Decision of the Building Inspector and grant relief acknowledging that the subject parcel is a pre-existing non- conforming lot protected and grandfathered pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning By- law Section 104.3.4 and/or M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 6; or 2. In the alternative, to grant a petition for a variance, pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning By-law Section 102.2.2, for a variance from the minimum lo- size requirement of Yarmouth Zoning By-law Section 203.5 or other dimen- sional requirement as may be determined as required by the Building Inspec- tor for the purpose of the construction of a single-family dwelling, an allowed use. 3. To allow such other relief that the Board of Appeals deems meet and just. 4. And to waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations where the Board may deem such appropriate. HEARING: The petition was duly filed. Notice was given as required by law, includi twice publication in the Yarmouth Register, a weekly publication having circulation in Yarmouth. Pursuant to notice a public hearing was held by the Yarmouth Zoning Board on January 26, 1995. In the course of the hear- ing, several questions were posed to the petitioner's representatives by t members of the Board of Appeals. Several Yarmouth residents were heard ar response was made by representatives of the petitioner and by members of this Board. After the conclusion of the public hearing the matter was tak under advisement and it was duly voted to continue the deliberation until February 23, 1995. On February 23, 1995, the Board's chairman was unable be present, and with the consent of the petitioner, the remaining members voted to continue the deliberation until March 23, 1995. Prior to March 2 another scheduling conflict arose for a Board member, and the Chairman decided to convene the deliberation at a special session on March 22, 1995 The petitioner was notified, the meeting was posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and the Board attempted to notify as many abutters as ha been present at the earlier hearings. The deliberations were accordingly reopened with the attorney for the petitioner, and the attorney for the principal objector present. PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION 1. The criteria and authority for overturning the Building Inspector is found in Yarmouth Zoning By-law Section 102.2.3 which states: "To hear and decide other appeals. Other appeals will also be heard and decided by the Board of Appeals when taken by: 1. Any person aggrieved by reason of his inability to obtain a permit or enforcement action from any administrative officer under the provisions of G.L. ch. 40A, as amended; or 2. The Cape Cod Commission; or 3. Any person, including any office or board of the Town of Yar- mouth or of any abutting town, if aggrieved by any order, decision of the Building Inspector or other administrative official, in violation of any provision of G.L. ch. 40A, as amended, or this by-law." 2. The criteria for the grant of a variance are stated as set forth in Massachusetts General. Laws Chapter 40A and Zoning By-law Section 102.2.2: 1. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the by-law would involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the peti- tioner or appellant. 2. The hardship is owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without either: substantial detriment to the public good; or nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning by --law. PLANS SUBMITTED: 1. Yarmouth Planning Board, Approval Not Required Plan #2556-3 endorsed by the Planning H u_at 17, 1983 and now shown as Land Court Plan Numbe 1420 2. Yarmouth Planning Board, Approval Not Required Plan Number 2556-C endorsed by the Planning Board August 17, 1983 and now shown as Land Court Plan Number 40290A 3. Yarmouth Assessors Map, portion of Sheet 134 showing locus as Lot L1. PETITIONER'S RATIONALE FOR GRANTING RELIEF: A. Relief From Decision of the Building Inspector: On October 6, 1994, the Petitioner (by letter to the Building Inspector - copy submitted) formally requested that the Yarmouth Building Inspector acknowledge and decide that locus is a pre-existing non -conforming lot, lacking required area pursuant to the Yarmouth Zoning By -Law Section 203.5, but that said locus was and is grandfathered pursuant to said By -Law Section 104.3.4. The Building Inspector thereafter verbally informed the Petitioner of his decision that locus is not a "Lot" within the meaning of Section 104.3.4 and thus, is not thereby grandfathered and protected. Subsequently, on November 30, 1994, the Petitioner (by letter to the Building Inspector - copy submitted) argued that the Building Inspector's use of the definition of Lot found in the Subdivision Control Law was inappropriate when interpreting a zoning issue. Thereafter, the Building Inspector verbally reaffirmed his decision to deny. Thus, the sole decision before this Board is whether or not at the time of subdivision approval it was the decision of the Planning Board that Lot L1 was considered as one Lot for zoning purposes and otherwise qualifies as a protected grandfathered lot. The Petitioner claims that for zoning purposes locus, being Lot Ll on Yarmouth Assessors, Sheet 134 (copy submitted) has been a single lot for zoning purposes since Planning Board endorsement of the two "Approval Not Required" plans creating locus on August 17, 1983. On August 17, 1983, the Planning Board endorsed as approval not required, a plan for Paul Cuddy, Jr. Said plan is noted as Planning Board Plan 2556-B (copy submitted) and created Lots 1 through 10 thereon. Said plan was subsequently filed in the Land Court and is noted at the Land Court as Plan 41420-A (copy submitted). A portion of our zoning lot locus is shown as Lot 1 on said plan. Said plan shows ten lots, but only nine building lots were thereby created. Zoning in this area at that time required 20,000 square feet of area per lot in this then R-20 Zoning District. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 thereon met the requisite zoning area requirement. It is important to consider that a note is printed on said plan which states, "NOTE: Lot 2 is to be used in conjunction with the adjoining Lot 5 and become a Part thereof. The reason for this important distinction is that the Lot referred to in the note on the above referenced Planning Board P] 2556-B is shown in parentheses as part of a different plan witl the same Planning Board case. That dif ferent plan is a plan which ( on the same date as the B pl - August 17, 1983) the Planning Board endorsed as an approval r, required plan for Mary E. Burns. Said plan is noted as Planni Board Plan 2556-C (copy submitted) and created Lots 1 through thereon: Said plan was subsequently filed in the Land Court Plan 40290-A (copy submitted). You will note that the oth portion of our zoning lot locus is shown as Lot 6 on said plan. Said plan shows six lots but only five building lots were there created. Lot 6 thereon, obviously, did not on its own meet the th requisite 20,000 square foot zoning area requirement. Again, it is important to consider that a note is printed on sa plan which states, "NOTE Lot 6 is to be used in conjunction wi the adjoining Lot 1 and become a part thereof." Obviously, Planning Board Plans #2556-B and #2556-C were filed a signed conjointly. In its minutes dated August 17, 1983 t Planning Board acknowledged that the two approval not requir plans were essentially part of one overall scheme of land divisio The minutes (copy submitted) state in part as follows: "Plan 2556-B & C - ANR Plan of land for Paul Cuddy Jr. by Low & Weller Inc., the property being located on the north side of Bray Farm Road. ANR Plan of land for Mary E. Burns by Low & Weller Inc., the property being located on the north side of Bray Farm Road. Bill Weller was present for the plan. Mr. Weller suggested that both the Cuddy and Burns plans be examined together, as they are one subdivision, but separate Land Court cases. Each plan shows the same thing. ... Moved by Mr. Martin, Seconded by Mr. Robertson, that ANR plans of land #2556-B for Paul Cuddy Jr., and #2556-C for Mary E. Burns by Low & Weller Inc., be endorsed. The property in question is located on the north side of Bray Farm Road. Carried unanimously." The question then arises as to whether or not Lot L1 (the conjoined 1 6 and Lot 1) were then one lot for zoning purposes. The buildi inspector relies on the Subdivision Control Law definition of Lot deciding whether or not Lot L1 is one lot for zoning purposes. M.G. Chapter 41 Section 81L defines Lot as follows: "Lot" shall mean an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." Thus, the Building Inspector, noting that Lots 1 and 6 were not in o ownership at the time of endorsement and later at the time of the zoning change, has decided that the lot did not acquire zoni protection as a Lot pursuant to Zoning By -Law, Section 104.3.4. However, said statute is very clear that said definition of a Lot solely for Subdivision Control Law purposes when it states in i definition introduction that, "In construing the Subdivision Control Law, the following words shall have the following meaning, unless contrary intention clearly appears: Underlining added for emphasis. Thus, it is apparent that it is inappropriate to use the lot definiti, in Section 81L in rendering a zoning decision wherein the law stay clearly that these definitions are solely for the purpose of construii the Subdivision Control Law. Neither the Massachusetts Zoning Enabling Act nor the Yarmouth Zonii By -Law define the word Lot. The reason for this is that the concept c a Lot is fluid in the area of zoning where zoning district lines oft( bisect subdivision lot lines, thus creating zoning lots which ai separate, distinct and different than current land division lot line: In Yarmouth, for example, Sections 201.5 and 6 of the Yarmouth Zonii By -Law create rear boundary zoning lot lines as defined in Sectic 201.7, which create lots for zoning purposes which do not meet tl definition found in Chapter 81L, where the current 81L lot line different than the lot line found in 1946 or in 1971. Thus, in this case the plans were separate to meet the lot requirement of Chapter 41 for subdivision purposes. The Petitioners intend( however, and the Planning Board required at the time of the simultaneoi endorsement of the plans, that Lot 1 on Plan 2556-B and Lot 6 on Pli 2556-C become joined as one zoning lot at that time. Each plan shows enhancement of the joined lots 1 and 6 at the bottom middle of ea< plan. As stated above, neither the Yarmouth Zoning By -Law nor the Zonii Enabling Act, M.G.L. Chapter 40A define "Lot." However, the Yarmoul Planning Board regulations define Lot as follows: "Lot shall mean an area of land with definite boundaries, used or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." Lot L1 (the joined Lots 1 and 6) meet the requirements of the definition irrespective of ownership, being (as shown on the assessor: plan) an area -of land with definite boundaries available for use as tl site of one or more buildings. Further, it is long standing case law : Massachusetts that the separate ownership of parcels does nc necessarily separate lots for zoning purposes. In this case, Cuddy al Burns maintained separate ownership of parcels 1 and 6 while their Lai Court Plans were filed and processed in the Land Court. However, whi: they maintained separate legal ownership of the two parcels, th( assented to the Planning Board requirement that the two parcels were of lot for zoning purposes as of August 170 1983, the date of plan(: endorsement. In the case of Planning Board of Norwell v. Serena, : Mass. App. Ct. 689,542 N.E. 2d 314 (1989), aff'd, 406 Mass. 1008. 5! N.E. 2d 1390 (1990) the Court relied on Screnti v. Board of ApReals c Wellesley, 345 Mass. 348, 187 N.E. 2d 499 (1963), where a transfer c adjoining land to a straw the day before a frontage amendment, was he: not to give protection against the application of the new dimensionE requirement. The Serena court reduced the analysis to control, not i record ownership. "The crux, thus, was not the form of ownership, bt control: did the landowner have it 'within his power,' i.e., within h: legal control, to use the adjoining land so as to avoid or reduce ti nonconformity?"' In applying the rule to this. case, we submit the landowners, whit holding title separately, by agreement with the Planning Boai condition, gave up control of the zoning lot issue and assented to Lot 1 and 6 (and Lots 2 and 5) being each one lot for zoning purposes as c August 17, 1983, irrespective of record ownership. Having established that Lots 1 and 6 became one lot for zoning purpose as of August 17, 1983, it is necessary to explore the protectic afforded this zoning lot pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning By -Law Sectic 104.3.4. Nothing in this Section of the Zoning By-law requires that a lot be i single ownership. Lot L1 (conjoined Lots 6 and 1) became nonconforming as to "area" whe zoning in this District changed from R-20 to R-40 on January 7, 19E (Article 20 of the Town Warrant - copy submitted). The Petitione represents that: On the date of the zoning change, January 7, 1987, lot contiguoL ownership was as follows: Lot L1: Being the combined Lot 1 on Plan 41420-A and Lot 6 on Ple 40290-A was conjointly owned by Mary Beth H. Cuddy (Lot 1) and Michae F. Burns et al, Trustees of Hockanom Realty Trust (Lot 6). Abuttin Lot 5: On Plan 40290-A was owned by Michael F. Burns Individually, conjointly with Mary Beth Cuddy, the combined Lot 2 c Plan 41420-A. Lot 4: On Plan 40290-A abutting Lot 5 was owned by Peter F. Depas Trustee of MPAS Realty Trust. Abutting Lot 3: On Plan 41420-A was owned by Steven J. Giangregorio e ux. Thus, on the date of the zoning change, Lot L1 was not held in commc with more than two abutting lots. Running the title to date frc January 7, 1987 to present, the Petitioner represents that on July 10 1987 Lot L1 was conveyed to Michael J. Canepari. Neither Mr. Canepar nor the current owner (the Petitioner), have owned any adjoining lots Given the above, we overturn the decision of the Building Inspector an find that: 1. Lot L1.by action of the Planning Board and Assent of the the owners has been one zoning lot for zoning purposes since 1983 2. Lot Ll became nonconforming but grandfathered on January 7 1987, the date of the zoning change requiring increased to area. 3. Since the zoning change to the present, said zoning lot L1 has not been held in common ownership by any owner with more than two abutting lots. 4. Lot LI remains grandfathered pursuant to Section 104.3.4 of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law. B. Variance - Additionally, we seek the variance as requested and ask the board to find that the petitioner has met the criteria for a variance as follows: 1. The petitioner does not own any abutting property to which the subject property could be merged. The abutting properties have already been improved by the construction of single family dwellings thereon. Failure to grant the requested relief would cause the property to have ng use and thus to be reduced to little or no value. Thus, a literal enforcement of the provi- sions of the by-law would involve a substantial financial hard- ship to the petitioner. 2. The lot shape was created in compliance with 1983 Yarmouth Zoning requirements. The above described dual Approval Not Required plans were both subject to Land Court registration procedures. The shape of the lot was created by the necessity of merging the properties so as to create a lot in compliance with zoning. Thus, the hardship is owing to circumstances relating to the shape of such land and especially affecting such land, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. 3. The two ANR plans were comprised of a total of fourteen (14) zoning building lots. Of those fourteen (14), six (6) or for- ty-three percent (43%) of said zoning building lots within the parameters of the two plans are essentially the same size as the subject locus zoning lot. All setback, frontage, and health requirements can be met with the construction of a dwelling similar in size to the other dwellings within this residential area. Thus, desirable relief may be granted without either: substantial detriment to the public good; or nullifying or sub- stantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning by-law. Mr. Forrest White, the -Building Inspector, stands by his decision, for the reasons stated originally, i.e. at the time of the relevant zoning changes, Lot 1 was not independently of sufficient size to satisfy the prior zoning requirements, and it was not owned by the same party as was Lot 6. They had not been combined by conveyance to a single owner, until after the zoning amendment, and therefore the so-called lot L1 did not in fact exist as a pre-existing, non -conforming lot. The zoning change was in January 1987, and the conveyance occurred in July 1987. Several neighbors and abutters appeared in opposition to the petition (in person and by correspondence). Additionally, the immediate abutters, Mr. & Mrs. Taylor, appeared in opposition and were represented by Attorney James H. Quirk, Jr. of Yarmouthport. Attorney Quirk concurred in the analysis of the Building Inspector, and refuted that the triangular par- cels (lot 6 and lot 2) were, prior to the zoning change, within the "control" of the owner of lot 1 and lot 5 respectively. Apparently they were not entirely cooperative partners in the development of those separate subdivisions, and only later did they finally complete the cor- responding lot exchange. Furthermore, he contends, the Plan had no authority to erase lot lines/property lines from a Planning Board simply by indicating on the plan such an understanding relative to the future use of the lots. The board took this matter under careful and detailed advisement. The Board members are very reluctant to allow a developer to stretch the grandfathering protection of the statute or by-law beyond the intended limits, or to manufacture grandfathering circumstances for their unfair advantage. The Board agrees with the Building Inspector that, on the surface, this "lot" does not appear to be entitled to the protection as a pre-existing non -conforming buildable house lot. However, on closer examination, sev- eral factors mitigate in favor of the petitioner's propositions. 'The notation on the two AMR plans (endorsed almost four years before the per- tinent zoning change) and the Planning Board's own minutes both strongly indicate that it was the intention of the property owner, and the inten- tion and expectation of the Planning Board, that these parcels would each be considered one lot (i.e. #1 plus #6, and #5 plus #2). The Board of Assessors assesses them as combined "lots" in this fashion. The lots have in fact (albiet somewhat late) been conveyed and the titles combined. Lot 5 (plus 2) has been built upon. The conveyances of the two wedges of land (#6 & 2) were each made for nominal consideration, and were apparently exchanged simultaneously. The Board finds that the definition of a "lot" for purposes of Chapter 40A Section 6 and by-law Section 104.3.4, is not necessarily the same as the definition of "lot" set forth in Chapter 41 Section 81L or in the Yarmouth Planning Board Rules and Regulations. Neither of those subdivision - control definitions is incorporated into the zoning by-law, nor is the term lot independently defined in the by-law. Particularly in the context of cases dealing with the separation and merger of lots "for zoning pur- poses", the Courts of the Commonwealth have instead looked more to issues of control and the right to control the use of lots, rather than restrict- ing the inquiry to recitations in deeds and/or plans alone. For purposes of determining whether or not a lot is "grandfathered" pursuant to Chapter 40A Section 12, the Board must examine the status of the lot preceding the zoning amendment, based upon the most recently preceding deed, plan, or other instruments of record, or combination of them. From such records, the Board finds that in 1983, two abutting ANR plans were submitted sim- ultaneously to the Planning Board. The representation of both petitioners suggested that they be examined together, and the Planning Board agreed, "as they are one subdivision, but separate Land Court cases" (Planning Board minutes of August 17, 1983). Plan #40290A (Planning Board #2556C) showed lot 1 and lot 6 of Planning Board Plan 2556B, combined in a detail insert, with the notation "Lot 6 is to be used in conjunction with the adjoining Lot 1 and become a part thereof." A corresponding endorsement is added to Plan 2556B, indicating that Lot 2 and Lot 5 would be used as one as well. The current assessor's map, while not controlling, also shows Lots 1 and 6 as a single parcel (L1) and Lots 2 and 5 as a single parcel (J5). In 1983, at the time of the endorsement of these plans, the corresponding lots (lots 6 and 1) were not in common record ownership. Also, at that time, the applicable lot area requirement was 20,000 square feet. Lot 1 contained only 18,198 square feet by itself, but 20,440 square feet when combined with Lot 6. In January 1987, the zoning requirement was increased to 40,000 square feet per lot in this zone. In June 1987, deeds were exchanged for Lots 6 and 2., by deeds reciting only nominal consideration, thus placing Lot 6 plus Lot 1, and Lot 5 plus Lot 2, in the common ownership which exists to date. The Board finds that these facts indicate that, as early as 1983, four years before the zoning change, it was the intention of the subdividers, and the expectation of the Planning Board, that these combinations of lots would henceforth be considered to have merged, for zoning purposes. That intention/expectation, was publicly stated and recorded on the plans which created the parcels. This intention/expectation was carried out, although not until after the zoning requirements had increased. At that time, the conveyances of the created parcels were completed for what is recited to have been nominal monetary consideration. The combined lot J5 (5 & 2) has been built upon as a single house lot, as was anticipated by the notation on plan #2556B. It is the conclusion of the Board that, based upon all of these facts and observations, as of January 1987, when the increase in lot area require- ments was passed, lots 6 and 2 may be considered to have already been merged for zoning purposes. It was not then owned in common with more than two (2) other lots, and is therefore entitled to the protection afforded by Section 104.3.2 and Chapter 40A Section 6. Accordingly, a Motion was made by Mr. Reid, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to grant request number one of the petition, to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector and find this lot L1 (6 & 2) to have been a single randfathered lot, and to deny all alternate forms o e e r d in t e petition. T e members voted unanimously in favor of this Motion. The petition is therefore granted in part and denied in part. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to ss17 c40A and must be filed within 20 days after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. David S. Reid, Clerk Board of Appeals �, c J 4ROITO SWEENEY USSE ROBERTSON & DUPUY PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW LST YARMOUTH MASS 02673 TEL I5M) 775-3433 QUITCLAIM DEED FLEET BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS, N. A., SUCCESSOR FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AGENT/RECEIVER OF HERITAGE BANK FOR SAVINGS, association organized under the laws of the America, and having a place of business at Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, IN INTEREST TO THE AS LIQUIDATING a national banking United States of 109 Main Street, for consideration paid of FORTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($40,000.00) DOLLARS, GRANTS to JEFFREY W. TAYLOR and CAROL L. TAYLOR, married to each other, as tenants by the entirety, having a mailing address of P. 0. Box 1081, Dennis, MA 02638, WITH QUITCLAIM COVENANTS Two certain parcels of land situated in that part of the Town of Yarmouth know as Yarmouth Port, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, known as and numbered 50 Bray Farm Road, bounded and described as follows: PARCEL I: A certain parcel of land.a the northerly side of Bray Farm Road, being LOT 1, containing 198 square feet, more or less, as shown on L. C. Plan No. 414 -PARCEL 11: A certain parcel of land lying northwesterly of Parcel I above described, being LOT 6, containing,,11242 square feet, more or less, as shown on L. C. Plan No. 40290-A. Said land is subject to the restrictions as set forth in a Declaration of Restrictions by Paul J. Cuddy, Jr. et ux, dated December 18, 1984, duly recorded in Book 4367, Page 131. Said land is subject to the utility easements as set forth in two grants, one made by Leslie M. Chick to Cape & Vineyard Electric Company (now Commonwealth Electric Company) and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, dated March 3, 1958, duly recorded in Book 999, Page 56; and one made by Paul J. Cuddy, Jr. et ux to Commonwealth Electric Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, dated June 12, 1984, duly recorded in Book 4200, Page 35. This conveyance is subject to and with the benefit of any and all other rights, reservations, restrictions, and easements of record, if any there be, insofar as now in force and applicable, and as contained in Certificate of Title No. 130170, to which reference may be made for title. Page 1. of Two Pages. )ITO SWEENEY, SE,ROSERTSON t DUPUY P C "ORNEYS AT LAW YARMOUTH MASS 02673 L ISM) 775 3.33 For authority to sign see votes authorizing dated March 12, 1993, and December 16, 1994, filed with Barnstable County Registry District of the Land Court as Document Nos. 587,770 and 631,747, respectively. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FLEET BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS, N. A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS LIQUIDATING AGENT/RECEIVER OF HERITAGE BANK FOR SAVINGS, has caused its corporate seal to be hereto affixed and these presents to be signed in its name and behalf by tilA,�'��u its - hereto duly authorized, this _/7 � day of ' 1995. FLEET BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS, N. A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS LIQUIDATING AGENT/RECEIVER OF HERITAGE BANK FOR SAVINGS STATE OF RHODE ISLAND ss. /-Z , 1995 Then personally appeared the above -named as aforesa' , and acknowledg ' th foregoing instrument to be the free act and deed of FLEET BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS, N. A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS LIQUIDATING AGENT/RECEIVER OF HERITAGE BANK FOR SAVINGS, before me, �--� /v Notary Public My Commission Expires: Page 2. of Two Pages. 0 j F cc � � z � • w � z � s � a° d ra v4l oG41v/7