The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-19 9 Lincoln AvenueTOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 APPLICATION Fee: $450.00 File No.1d__9 Owner's name(s): Nantucket Point of View LLC Mailing address: c/o John D Flavin, PO Box 860, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Phone Number: E -Mail: Applicant's name(s): See Addendum A Mailing Address: c/o Cohen & Cohen, PO Box 786, Nantucket MA 02554 Phone Number: 508-228-0337 E -Mail: steven@cohenlegal.net Locus Address: 9 Lincoln Avenue Assessor's Map/Parcel: 30/137 Land Court Plan/Plan Book & Page/Plan File No.: 43204-A Deed Reference/ Certificate of Title: 26591 Zoning District: R1 Uses on Lot- Commercial: None X Yes (describe) Residential: Number of dwellings 1 Duplex Apartments Date of Structure(s): all pre -date 7/72 X or 1925 Building Permit Numbers: 1868-18 Previous Zoning Board Application Numbers: 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile State below or attach a separate addendum of specific special permits or variance relief applying for: SEE PoVENQh1M h I certify that the information contained herein is substantially complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the pains and penalties of perjury. SIGNATURE: Owner* SIGNATURE: Applicant/Attl�neY/Agent* *If an Agent is representing the Owner or the Applicant, please provide a signed proof of agency. vac adr� T4e C -c cl 71- OFFICE USE ONLY Application received on:_/_/_ By: Complete: Need Copies: Filed with Town Clerk: _/_/_ Planning Board:_/_/_ Building Dept.:—/—/— By:_ Fee deposited with Town Treasurer:—/—/— By: Waiver requested: Granted:_/_/_ Hearing notice posted with Town Clerk:_/_/_ Mailed:_/_/_ I&M_/_/_ &_/_/_ Hearing(s) held on:—/—/— Opened on :—/—/— Continued to:_/_/_ Withdrawn:_/_/_ Decision Due By:_/_/_ Made:_/_/_ Filed w/Town Clerk:_/_/_ Mailed:_/_/_ 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile LIST OF ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A: LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBIT B: RELIEF APPLIED FOR ATTACHMENT 1: COPY OF COA ATTACHMENT 2: COPY OF APPEAL OF COA ATTACHMENT 3: DECISION OF SELECT BOARD ATTACHMENT 4: SUPERIOR COURT COMPLAINT ATTACHMENT 5: COPY OF ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT ATTACHMENT 6: COPY OF ACTS/BYLAWS CITED ATTACHMENT 7: COPY OF ABUTTER'S LIST ATTACHMENT 8: COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH BUILDING INSPECTOR ADDENDUM A Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth J. McCausland, Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 11 Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avenue; 2. Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13 Lincoln Avenue, and 3. Peter McCausland; and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avenue, 24 Jefferson Avenue, and 26 Jefferson Avenue ADDENDUM B ADDENDUM B The Appellants are Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth J. McCausland, Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 11 Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avenue; Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13 Lincoln Avenue, and Peter McCausland; and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avenue, 24 Jefferson Avenue, and 26 Jefferson Avenue. The Appellants are all abutters and neighbors to the property located at 9 Lincoln Avenue in Nantucket, Massachusetts, which property is owned by Nantucket Point of View, LLC. On or about April 1, 2019 the Appellants learned that a pool was currently being constructed at 9 Lincoln Avenue, a deeply troubling discovery given that the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) wrongfully issued by the Nantucket Historic District Commission (HDC) was and is under appeal to the Nantucket County Superior Court. Counsel to the Appellants wrote to the Nantucket Building Commissioner on April 1, 2019 to advise him that Nantucket Point of View, LLC was proceeding with unlawful and unauthorized excavation and construction activities. Appellants requested that the Commissioner require immediate cessation of such construction, that the existing hole be immediately filled in, and that the Building Permit for such, Permit No. 1868-18, be revoked. The basis for the revocation request was that Section 5.A and 10.A of the HDC enabling Act, Chapter 395 of the Acts of 1970, as amended (the "HDC Act"), provide that no structure shall be constructed without a building permit accompanied by a COA from the HDC. Similarly, the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw provides at Section 139-26.0 that a building permit application is to be accompanied by a COA from the HDC. Building Permit No. 1868-18 was issued pursuant to COA 71235 (the Permit Card says COA 71238, but this is likely a scrivener's error, as the permit application correctly identified COA 71235). Since COA 71235 was under appeal to the Select Board at the time the Building Permit was issued, and is currently under appeal in the Nantucket County Superior Court, any Building Permit issued under COA 71235 was issued under mistaken or fraudulent circumstances. Section 139-261 authorizes the Building Inspector to revoke any permit issued in the case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application on which the permit was based or for any other cause set forth in such chapter. In this case, the COA itself was not ripe, as the appeal renders the COA legally insufficient to meet the requirements of the law. The building permit application failed to disclose the appeal, even though the applicant knew about it, and instead suggested that there was a valid COA. The land owner has acted in bad faith and should not be rewarded for it. Therefore, Building Permit 1868- 18 was issued on the basis of false or misrepresented facts and should be revoked. On or about April 8, 2019, the Nantucket Building Commissioner denied the Appellant's request. Pursuant to Nantucket Zoning Bylaw Section 139-29.E.l (b) and 139-31.A.1, appeal is now taken of that decision. The Appellants request that the Board of Appeals overturn the decision of the Building Commissioner and/or order immediate cessation of such construction, that the existing hole be immediately filled in, and that the Building Permit No. 1868-18 be revoked. A Building Permit cannot be issued or operated under during the pendency of an appeal of a COA. The issuance of a Building Permit based on an appealed COA destroys the purpose of the HDC Act and renders the appeal rights granted by the HDC Act and the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw meaningless. The entire purpose of the establishment of the HDC is to prevent the construction of inappropriate structures and to prevent the inappropriate alteration or demolition of historic structures. The HDC Act specifically provides in Sections 11 and 12 that appeals of the HDC's initial determinations by aggrieved persons must first be taken to the Select Board and then to the Nantucket County Superior Court. The process cannot serve its purpose if one can proceed with work before the COA is final, and an aggrieved person's appeal has not yet been adjudicated. While state law specifically provides that one can proceed at their own risk during the appeal of a Special Permit, that is not the case under the HDC Act or the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw, and doing so is against the language of the bylaw, against public policy, and particularly against the Town's interests. For example, if one could get a building permit and proceed under an appealed COA, then one could demolish a structure despite an appeal of that COA. This is not an academic question - under this reasoning, an owner could obtain a building permit based on the COA issued by the HDC and could relocate a building (such as the North Liberty Street barn), regardless of the ongoing litigation. Further, under this reasoning, one could obtain a building permit and act under a constructive grant of a COA even if an abutter or the Town appeals the constructive grant. This reasoning also raises the question of which decision can be relied upon; for instance, if the Select Board overturns the HDC's denial of an application for a COA, and then such reversal is appealed by a neighbor or the HDC to the Nantucket County Superior Court, could a building permit be issued and action taken on the Select Board's determination? Further, this reasoning would seem to apply to other positive determinations that may be appealed, such as those of the Zoning Officer or the Conservation Commission, meaning that work can be done under those decisions too, even if the appeal is pending with the Zoning Board of Appeals or in court. In this case, the owner of 9 Lincoln Avenue knowingly filed a building permit application with false or misleading information. The Building Commissioner relied on that information in inadvertently but erroneously issuing a building permit. The Building Permit No. 1868-18 should thus be revoked, all work stopped, and the existing hole should be filled. The Building Commissioner's determination to not order such is arbitrary and capricious, is against the clear language and purpose of the HDC Act and the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw, and will be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and the public interest. EXHIBIT 1 CERTIFICATE NO: - f l C/ ,) DATE ISSUED; - r LQ !� Application to the HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION, Nantucket, Massachusetts, for a CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS for structural work. All blanks must be filled In using (SLUE OR BLACK INK (no pp alt or marked NIA. NOTE: It Is strongly recommended that the applicant be familiar with. the Hoc guidelines, Bull Ing'wlfh:NentuckO in Mlnd, prior to au.birilttet of application. Please see other aide for subriMal requirements. Incomplete eppllcetlbns,Will Hot be revlewedby the. HOC. 1111a Is a contractual agrenmant and must be filled out In Ink; An eppilcallon (s herobyy.m�de Jot Issuance ol. a;Cedlhoeie of Appropriateness under Chapter 395 of the Acts and Resowos of Mass., 1970, for proposed wurk as described herein and on plane, drawings and photographs sc;oMpahying .flits applicatbn and made a part hereof by releronce. The certificate N valid for three years from data of Issuance. No slructure.may differ rqn of res USEdnw from the approved applionlion. Violation may Impede Isauance of Cortilicaie of S Occupancy, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Date applfcadon racefvad: _. Fee Paid: S ZOU- rAX MAP N`; 6O __ PARCEL N — fli 3treel N Number of Proposed Work: _j�I ✓rL r� Dwner of record; _ hl apt=f 1t Cki, ir--�Qlt1 f 0't' V1_tx2__LL(- v1nllingAddrnss; L'�0 JQhN ri t-��VI11 _ Conleot Phono M:yT E -Mail: AGENT INFORMATION (if a Vnmo: _. 101/t cirrcu+nr --- lalling Address: _-_i D &d,X Donlect Phonu if: �o6 51L E•mall: r_) JA A a ,jUL MA Must be acted on by; ` ". Exlended Approved:_ _ _ Disapproved: Chairman: f -� U) ,+ F Merntrer:— r —}„ I—�— o ry � Member 911—r— Member;- Notes ember:_Notes - Coml to - Residouons - Conditions A --vv .tar of I DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED See reverse for required documentation, :1 New Dwelling ❑Addition ❑Garage �66v.way/Apron ❑Commerdal DHlstodcafRenovation DDeck/Patio ❑51eps DShed _1 Color Change DFence D Gale ;�iardscaping ❑ Move Building D Demolition EIf3evisfons to previous Cod. No. -(Boot (zoning Disldcl B 11) ❑ Root D outer ilze of Structure or Addition: Length; Sq. Footage t st Hoot: ..^ berks/Patlo; 6fze: ❑ 151 floor Width! __ Sq. footage 2nd floor: Sizo: D 1s111oor D 2nd Po ^� Sq. footage 3rd floor: )iflerence betweon existing grade and proposed finish grade: North South East West COP 1elght of ridge above final finish grade: North South "_ East West �/Iry iMLQnal emnrks REVISIONS' 1. East Elevation (� Ilatarlc Name: DF, 1. (describe) 2..South -Elevallon )dglnalDale: l Uhl U Dec t.+ . 3. West Elevation Jngkrol Builder: 4, North Elevation s there an HDC survey form for this building attached7 E) Yes D WA 'Cloud on drewlngs and submit photographs of axlsdng elevations. DETAIL OF WORKTO 9E PERFORMEd. ❑poured Concrete [3 Plars Foundation: I-lelght Expoeed - ❑ Block D Block Parged U Stint (type) Masonry Chimney; ❑ Block Parged D Brick (type) _ [:)Other _ — Roof Pitch: Main Mass -_- /12_- Secondary Mass /12 Dormer 112 Other Rooting material: ❑Asphalb E13 -Tab ❑Architectural Fence: Height: ❑ Wood (Typo:— Type, pt, f Red Cedar, While Cedar, Shakes, elo.) _ '— Length: 601eG h Ilr .3D + akyllghts (flat only): Manufacturer_ Rough Opening Size Location Manufacturer Rough Opening _ Size Locallon__ Gullere. D Wood DAluminllm ❑ Copper D Leaders (materiel) - - Leaders (matarlel.and size); — Bldewall: U While cedar shingles ❑ Other - 111m: A. Wood D Plns D Redwood D Cedar ❑ Othal B. Treatment D Palnl ❑ Natural to weather D Other C. Dlmonslons: Fascia Rake Wlndow Cssing Door Frame _ D Clapboard (exposure: Inches) Front O _ Sldo U Soffit (Overhang) Comer boards _ Frieze: Columns/Poste: Round_ Square Windows`; ❑ Double Hung D Casement D All Wood ❑ Other _ D Thee Divided Ughls(muntlns), single pane D SDL's (Simulated Divided Lights) Manufacturer ------ Doors' (type slid trilateral): anufacturer - Doors'(lypestidlnalerlal); DTDL ❑SDL Front--___._— Roar_ Side- -- Garage Door(s): Type _ ___ _ Material Hardecapo materials: Driveways _51al,� Walkways Nolo: Com loco door and window schedules are required. COLORS 6ldewall Trim Deck Clapboard (if applicable) Sash -.. Foundation Root Doors Fence_ Shutters Agacli manufacturer's color samples If color Is not from HDC approval fist. I hereby authorize the agent named above to act on my behalf 10 make changes In the spoclfications or the plans contained In this application in order to bdng ilia appUca- tion into compliance with the HDC guidelines. I hereby agree to abide by and comply with the terns and conditions of this application. I hereby agree that the eubm salon of any rovlsloQn to 1 Is Spplicalion will Inlllele a new sixty-day review period. Signed undo+ penalties of perlury fnnrn S I �) 14 i( Signature of owner of record „ -i --- - - EXHIBIT 2 Steven L. Cohen Cohen & Cohen Steven@cohenlegal.net LAW PC BY HAND -DELIVERY Select Board Town of Nantucket 16 Broad Street Nantucket, MA 02554 November 9, 2018 Re: Appeal ofHDCApproval for COA #71235 9 Lincohl Avenue; Map 30, Parcel 137 Dear Members of the Select Board: Jennifer G. Cohen Jennifel-@cohenlegal.net On behalf of Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth J. McCausland, as Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 11 Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avenue (see Book 1408, Page 285); Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13 Lincoln Avenue (see Certificate of Title No. 24309); and Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avenue, 24 Jefferson Avenue, and 26 Jefferson Avenue (see Certificate of Title No. 24310), I hereby appeal the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Nantucket Historic District Commission (the "HDC") as COA #71235, a pool at 9 Lincoln Avenue, which is owned by the Nantucket Point of View, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Applicant") (see Certificate of Title 26,591). As direct abutters or close neighbors, my clients are specifically aggrieved by the impact of a ruling of the HDC approving the pool in the front yard at 9 Lincoln Avenue. The main house at 9 Lincoln Avenue, a colonial revival summer home initially constructed at the turn of the 20`x' century, is in one of the most prominent locations at the edge of Town, at the top of Cobblestone Hill, and at the entry to Lincoln Circle. It is among the most iconic locations on Nantucket. The house has an integral relationship with the landscape, with the bluff and cobble way, and with the streetscape created by the main and ancillary structures. The approval of a pool in the front yard, in front of the house, is historically inappropriate, is inconsistent with the Commissions own guidelines and practices, and is a great mar on the historic structure and historic setting. Although the HDC has approved other pools in the area, this pool is in an inappropriate location - it should be behind the house or on the side, not in the front yard and it should be a smaller shallower so-called garden pool, not a full-sized family pool that would be found in a back yard. P.O. Box 786 34 Main Street, 2nd Floor Nantucket, MA 02554 508.228.0337 OFFICE 508.228.0970 FAX cohenlegal.net At the present time I am available for any of the meetings of the Select Board in December, but request the December 12, 2018 meeting. Enclosed please find the following: 1) A check, payable to The Inquirer and Mirror, in the amount of $291.40 to cover the amount of the public hearing advertising costs; 2) A copy of the HDC Certificate of Appropriateness certified by the Town Clerk; and 3) A copy of the Minutes for the applicable meetings of the Historic District Commission. Very truly yours, Steven L. Cohen, Esq. EXHIBIT 3 TOWN & COUNTY OF NANTUCKET TOWN ADMINISTRATION OFFICE MEMO TO: Town Clerk FROM: Erika Mooney, Operations Administrator Flmwl- CC: HDC PLUS Town Counsel Steven Cohen, Esq. DATE: December 18, 2018 RE: Select Board decision of HDC appeal of 9 Lincoln Avenue garage At its December 12, 2018 meeting, the Select Board voted 4-1 (Ms. Higgins was opposed) to deny the appeal of Christopher F. and Elizabeth J. McCausland and Peter and Bonnie F. McCausland of Historic District Commission (HDC) approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) No. 70858 to relocate a garage at the property location of 9 Lincoln Ave., Map 30, Parcel 137, and to uphold the HDC decision. 16 Broad Street • Nantucket, MA 02554 • (508) 228-7255 • Fax: (508) 228-7272 www.nantucket-ma.gov EXHIBIT 4 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT NANTUCKET, SS. CHRISTOPHER F. McCAUSLAND and ELIZABETH J. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees Of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust, PETER McCAUSLAND and BONNIE F. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust, and PETER McCAUSLAND and BONNIE F. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. SELECT BOARD OF NANTUCKET, NANTUCKET HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION, AND NANTUCKET POINT OF VIEW, LLC, Defendants. INTRODUCTION SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1375000Ot4S C:(Dpy COMPLAINT 0 E C 71't 2018 NANTUCKET SUPERIOR COURT CLERK 1. This is an action in the nature of certiorari pursuant to Section 12 of Chapter 395 of the Acts of 1970 (the "HDC Act"), as amended, appealing two decisions of the Nantucket Select Board (the `Board") affirming the decisions of the Nantucket Historic District Commission ("HDC"). For no discernible or justifiable reason, the HDC armed two applications for improvements at 9 Lincoln Avenue (the "Property"), which is owned by Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC, to alter and move the existing garage and to install a large pool in the front yard of the Property. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings to the Select Board of Nantucket, which, on December 12, 2015, voted to affirm the HDC's rulings. 1 2. Neither the Select Board nor the HDC made any written findings to support their decisions. The HDC issued no written decisions other than signing off on written Certificates of Appropriateness. The Select Board Operations Administrator issued summary memoranda setting forth the voting counts in the Select Board's denial of the appeals, with no stated reasons for the denials. 3. The HDC and the Select Board approvals of the applications for the alteration of the garage and the addition of a pool at the Property were violative of the purposes of the Act, arbitrary, capricious, and amounted to abuses of discretion. PARTIES 4. Plaintiffs Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth J. McCausland, Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 11 Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avenue, Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13 Lincoln Avenue, and Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avenue, 24 Jefferson Avenue, and 26 Jefferson Avenue, ("Plaintiffs") are all direct abutters and close neighbors to the Property located at 9 Lincoln Avenue. 5. Upon purchase or acquisition of their respective properties, Plaintiffs knew that their properties were subject to the restrictions of the Act, but would also benefit from the Act's provisions and restrictions in preserving the essential character and value of their historic Nantucket neighborhood. 6. Defendant Select Board of Nantucket is the municipal board to whom parties aggrieved by a decision of the HDC are required by the Act to take an appeal in the first instance. W The Select Board's decisions are the subject of this appeal. The Select Board's offices are located at 16 Broad Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 02554. 7. Defendant Nantucket Historic District Commission made the original rulings with respect to the Property at issue in this appeal, decreed in Certificate of Appropriateness No. 70858 and Certificate of Appropriateness No. 71235. The HDC's offices are located at 2 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 02554. 8. Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the record owner of the Property located at 9 Lincoln Avenue, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 02554. Nantucket Point of View, LLC was the named applicant on the application to move the existing garage (COA No. 7085 8) and the application to install a large pool in the front yard of the Property (COA No. 71235). Nantucket Point of View, LLC purchased the Property in or about September 2017. Upon information and belief, the beneficial owners of Nantucket Point of View, LLC are Mr. and Mrs. John D. Flavin, who permanently reside in Saratoga Springs, New York. FACTS 9. The island of Nantucket is a distinctive, unique place of extraordinary beauty, designated as a National Historic Landmark by the United States Department of the Interior. 10. The HDC has published an official design guidelines manual, entitled Building With Nantucket in Mind, that is available on the HDC's website. As eloquently stated in that manual, "[t]he impact of a new building or addition on Nantucket is largely a question of its design: whether it possesses the common identity and spirit shared by Nantucket buildings and whether it harmonizes with the special character of its particular site. When property owners build only with concern for their own aspirations and advantage, the result often is a structure that does not belong 3 with the historic environment and image of the island and hence diminishes Nantucket's attractiveness and unity." 11. Over sixty years ago, the Massachusetts Legislature first adopted special legislation to create a framework for oversight and control of development on Nantucket in the interest of protecting the historic neighborhoods, architecture and character of Nantucket. See St. 1955, c. 601, § 3. 12. In 1970, the Legislature adopted the Nantucket Historic District Act, at Chapter 395 of the Acts of 1970 (the "HDC Act"), formally establishing the Historic District Commission, abolishing the predecessor Historic Districts Commission, and making the entire island subject to the Act's provisions and protections. The HDC Act instilled the HDC with the power to approve or deny applications to alter any pre-existing structures in Nantucket, as well as the power to approve or deny applications to perform new constructions on property on Nantucket. 13. The HDC Act enumerates its purposes as "to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Nantucket through the preservation and protection of historic buildings, places and districts of historic interest through the development of an appropriate setting for these buildings, places and districts." HDC Act, § 2. 14. The Property and the Plaintiffs' neighboring properties on Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Avenue are just outside of the core of the historic center of town on Nantucket. 15. On December 6, 2018, Michael May, the Executive Director of the Nantucket Preservation Trust (the "NPT"), wrote on behalf of the NPT to the Nantucket Select Board in support of the Plaintiffs' appeals of the issuances of the Certificates of Appropriateness by the HDC. A copy of Mr. May's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. May noted that Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC's Property is historically known as "Point O' View" or "Point of M View", was constructed in 1916, and Point O' View is well known on Nantucket as an exemplary example of early 20`h century architecture. Mr. May explained that "[t]he Property's setting, including the relationship between the house, its drive and garage, has remained unchanged for the past 70 years. Point O' View is one of the finest examples of early 20' century architecture on island and illustrates Nantucket's rebirth as a summer resort community. We believe all effort should be made to protect this historic resource." Mr. May further stated that the "NPT believes the addition of a pool in the front yard of this historic property and moving of the garage will significantly alter this iconic streetscape and is inappropriate to the historic integrity of the district. We are concerned that the property's historic significance as well as alternative locations for the pool were not fully explored. We hope the Select Board will look favorably on the appeal." 16. Point O' View is substantially similar to the homes on the other neighboring properties in the Lincoln Avenue, Cobblestone Hill, and Jefferson Avenue neighborhood. The substantial similarity of the buildings and designs of the Property and Plaintiffs' properties greatly contribute to the unifying harmony of a historic neighborhood of special and unique character. 17. The HDC Act provides that the HDC shall pass upon the appropriateness of exterior architectural features of buildings and structures subject to view from a public way or street, and that the HDC, in so "passing upon appropriateness of exterior architectural features in any case, shall keep in mind the purposes set forth in Section 2 and shall consider, among other things, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure in question, the location on the lot and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings and the position of such building or structure in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings and structures." HDC Act, § 9, as amended by St. 2000, c. 57. 5 18. In issuing COA No. 70858, the HDC approved Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC's application to alter the garage on the Property to remove an addition, relocate windows, and add a pergola and an outdoor shower. 19. Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC's application to the HDC for alterations to the garage in COA No. 70858 was facially deficient and should have been denied by the HDC. That application failed to include any information regarding the unique, historic nature of Point O' View, any information regarding the age and historic character of the garage, or information regarding the location of the garage in relation to other structures on the Property and neighboring properties. 20. The HDC considered the application for the alteration of the garage on the Property embodied in COA No. 70858 separately from the Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC's separate application for the addition of a full-sized family pool in the front yard of the Property. This was in contravention from the longstanding HDC practice and policy to consider related applications together, rather than in piecemeal fashion. 21. The HDC issued COA No. 70858 on August 28, 2018. A copy of COA No. 70858 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The HDC did not publish a written decision in support of the issuance of COA No. 70858. 22. In issuing COA No. 71235, the HDC approved Defendant Nantucket Point of View, LLC's application to install a full-sized family pool in the front yard of the Property, in front of the house. Though the HDC has approved other pools in the neighborhood, the proposed location of the pool in the front yard of the Property, in front of the historic and significant Point O' View, along with attendant alterations to the driveway on the Property is profoundly at odds with the historic setting and character of the neighborhood. 3 23. The HDC issued COA No. 71235 on October 16, 2018. A copy of COA No. 71235 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The HDC did not publish a written decision in support of the issuance of COA No. 71235. 24. The HDC utterly failed to properly consider the purposes of the HDC Act embodied in Section 2 when it issued COA No. 70858 and COA No. 71235, nor did it properly consider, pursuant to the HDC Act, how the addition of a large family -sized pool in the front yard and significant alterations to the garage of the Property would deleteriously affect "the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure in question, the location on the lot and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings and the position of such building or structure in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings and structures." HDC Act, § 9, as amended by St. 2000, c. 57. 25. The Select Board is obligated to perform a meaningful review of the HDC's rulings to ensure that it was appropriate under the Act and absent abuses of discretion. The HDC's decisions must be reversed if made unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or without legal basis or cognizable reasoning. 26. The HDC's issuances of Certificate of Appropriateness No. 70858 and Certificate of Appropriateness No. 71235 were legally unsound and contrary to the purposes of the Act. The HDC rulings were unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and amounted to abuses of discretion. The Select Board was required to invalidate the Certificates of Appropriateness and enter an order that prevented the alterations to the garage and the installation of a large above -ground pool in the front yard of the Property. The Select Board's affirmances of the HDC's issuances of the Certificates of Appropriateness damages Plaintiffs and infringes their legally protected property rights in a manner that the HDC Act was drafted to prevent. 7 27. On December 12, 2018, at a meeting of the Select Board, the Select Board voted 4- 1 to deny Plaintiffs' appeal and affirm the HDC's issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness No. 70858. A copy of Operations Administrator Erika Mooney's one -sentence Memo regarding the Select Board's decision with respect to COA No. 70858 is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 28. On December 12, 2018, at a meeting of the Select Board, the Select Board voted 5- 0 to deny Plaintiffs' appeal and affirm the HDC's issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness No. 71235. A copy of Operations Administrator Erika Mooney's one -sentence Memo regarding the Select Board's decision with respect to COA No. 71235 is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 29. For the reasons stated above below, the Plaintiffs are specifically aggrieved by the Select Board's decision to affirm the HDC's issuance of the Certificates of Appropriateness. Point O' View is in one of the most iconic locations on Nantucket, and the house, the garage, and the setting of the house have an integral relationship with the surrounding neighborhood occupied by Plaintiffs, the cobblestone way and the streetscape created by the structures on the Property. 30. The alterations to the garage and the construction of a large family -sized pool in the front yard of the Property, if allowed to proceed, will substantially and inexorably alter the unique character of the Lincoln Avenue, Cobblestone Hill and Jefferson Avenue neighborhood in a manner directly at odds with the purpose of the HDC Act. 31. Moreover, the alterations to the garage and the addition of the full-sized pool in the front yard of the Property, if allowed to proceed, will have substantially negative effects on the property values of the Plaintiffs' abutting and neighboring properties. below. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the relief requested n. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiffs Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth J. McCausland, Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 11 Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avenue, Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13 Lincoln Avenue, and Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/t dated May 18, 2012, as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avenue, 24 Jefferson Avenue, and 26 Jefferson Avenue, respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment: (1) Ruling in their favor on all counts of the Complaint; (2) Reversing the December 12, 2018 decision of the Select Board that affirmed the Certificates of Appropriateness (No. 70858 and No. 71235) issued by the Nantucket Historic District Commission with respect to 9 Lincoln Avenue, Nantucket, Massachusetts; (3) Annulling the Certificates of Appropriateness (No. 70858 and No. 71235) issued by the Nantucket Historic District Commission with respect to 9 Lincoln Avenue, Nantucket, Massachusetts; (4) Awarding Plaintiffs all costs of suit; and/or (5) Ordering any other or further relief to which Plaintiffs may be able to demonstrate they are entitled. 0 Dated: December 26, 2018 10 CHRISTOPHER F. McCAUSLAND and ELIZABETH J. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees Of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust, PETER McCAUSLAND and BONNIE F. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees of the Seven Doors Nominee Trust, and PETER McCAUSLAND and BONNIE F. McCAUSLAND, as Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust, By their attorneys, Jonathan W. Fitch (BBO #168510) Robert C. Bout -well (BBO #679247) FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP One Beacon Street, 16" Floor Boston, MA 02108 617-542-5542 jwf@)fztchlp. com rcb@j7'tchlp. com EXHIBIT 5 m It t -t y 0 0 00 O m td w m C x yyO O < T x 0�� O D m n m v_ d Z x v O N o m s m m = o a m ? p O -{ n(zn x N m x x O x 0 r Z n CO m x m< C) O c O y O ii1 � o m o 3 a o 2 a \l D m x 0 m n N a 1 xo O m� D Fo b � 9 ZmZ C O f O { m m C x yyO O < T x 0�� O D m x O v_ d m x v O N o m s m m = o a m ? p O -{ n(zn x N m x x O x E r Z n V L m x m< cn v to w 'n m o 3 o: >> Z 0 z x 0 m 4 0 Fo m m o ` rn ' w O f 1111 `~ O o Z 0 O do p a m w d x m z z m 3 _ < - ° o O a G '2 3 � G y K ti O GQ n n m z -1 .n m rn m � O zm z m E R: n O m O 9 f Z m = O v O O Z D T o 1 y y O m G G v o O ° a O D m — 71 A m GcD ° O w ° C ° v' 0 dm Z w V CL 7 m O w J _C m 3 C m m 0 O W co 1 ch S 5 dZ o a U� w m Z O D O v L3 T ° a O m x yy > F O I DOS DD? w c W %�DDDODD? O N m O ' v N O On x O v i o Z m v O N o m s m m = o a m ? p Z -i °_ 3 v m o f -o `" N Q m E 3 O O T m m 0 3 t'o O �. c m m E. O V L m w E cn v to w 'n m o 3 o: >> Z 0 m m m m m o ` rn ' w p O Z `~ D O m n Q 0 N_ x do w d L m z z m 3 _ < - ° o O 3 `Z G '2 3 O y }-� m m GQ \on D n z -1 .n ° v. H a � Z m c m 9 f Z O N ° D w 1 y y O m G G v o a O D m — 71 A m GcD ° O w O O r En- v' 0 dm Z w V CL 7 m O w _C m 3 C m m 0 O O co 1 ch S 5 dZ o a _ A w m Z O D O v L3 T ° a n O m x yy > F O o m m p r m ° 7 p d m Y o G N co � w OR R. w ^ ° m D m h m 3 o y � � - o° z y o d m o d m m O r o G ° S _ o N ' m' w a o H n vi N C'J C y S D N m d 6 �^ o d �_ o_ 1.0 0 0 N a LI: m � Z ll.J]1 co w T z z r ` 3 m co O O <m m O Q o O V.y y y D a N � m n a -T a 'v g d S DOS DD? w DDD D DDD mm %�DDDODD? N C'rp� O On x O v i o Z m v O N o m s m m = o a m ? p Z -i °_ 3 v m o f -o i 0 D O 3 O O T m m 0 3 t'o O �. c m m E. O V L Z cn v to w 'n m o 3 o: >> 0 m m m m m o ` rn ' w p O Z `~ D O m n Q 0 N_ x a u O q m m n x m m 3 _ < - O U) 3 `Z G '2 m O y }-� m m GQ \on D n z -1 .n ° v. x N O m Z m r 9 D Z O N Z o O m 1 y y O m a v o a O D m O 0 0 m OW v S v c O w O O r En- v' 0 dm Z w V r ~ O w _C m -1 m m 0 O O co 1 ch S 5 0 o a _ A w m Z O O� m� O v L3 T V a n O m x yy > F O o m m p r ° m Y o G N co � w OR ^ T m D m h m 3 o { - o° z y 7 f m r R^ D o H 3 - 7 L °c m m �^ o �_ o_ 1.0 0 0 a LI: m � Z co T z z r ` 3 m co T` S o o n <m m o V.y y y D a N � m n a -T a 'v g d S W 2 N U w$ m o x �o m mD y r SZ r9 z aO 0cn 0 v r C m m mz 1z ME D v O O N O fn c D a o o v T o 0 p�y1 T co Z N' W z o N o n o °° m m i 9 m m y z p 1 ra Q p Z D m m S z _...n' c Im n O 'C71' J O o n n -_ m J f J R n ma a a d z T p 3 O j. C N H G7 O { C m 3 2. n Z > o y o m f p T �'. Z T v m 3" J o m c _ 31 c O Oz G N z O ° o c m ° C' m o o ° co va ?. 05 D = 3 3 v m d'' O D c y O � I 0 w 0 y � < = �.�, u o o � :fir M 1 3 m m m m N '. m a - m o m w - z N D c = h m m I m z 6 O V w f m O m 3 y �i �e m o v x ° 3 3• 3 3 F d w o a o s rL = 3 3 3 3 y a D 0- 0. O m CD m < % S ° ° 0 3 3 3 3 A md c 3 3 3 3� d O m o w o> N 2 n c o m n m q� 0 O z m m 5 S m m m ME D v O O N O fn c D a o o v T o 3Z p�y1 N' z o v• 1 ra Q p Z m d �o m ma a a d 0 z 0 o ? 3 2. n Z > o y o m f < O a D O N z O ° o c ° C' m N A EXHIBIT 6 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA Town of Nantucket, MA Wednesday, April 10, 2019 Chapter A301. Special Acts Article Il. Text of Selected Special Acts § A3O1-4. Historic District Commission. ACTS, 1970. CHAP. 395 AS AMENDED BY ACTS: 1972, CHAP. 708; 1984, CHAP. 300; 1985, CHAP. 291; 1987, CHAP. 735; 1989, CHAP. 333; 1990, CHAP. 314; 1998, CHAP. 193; 2000, CHAP. 57; 2002, CHAP. 90; 2010, CHAP. 8; 2014, CHAP. 338 AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET AND ESTABLISHING NANTUCKET ISLAND AS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT Be it enacted, etc., as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 601 of the Acts of 1955 is hereby repealed and the Historic Districts Commission is hereby abolished. SECTION 2. The purpose of this Act is to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Nantucket through the preservation and protection of historic buildings, places and districts of historic interest through the development of an appropriate setting for these buildings, places and districts and through the benefits resulting to the economy of Nantucket in developing and maintaining its vacation - travel industry through the promotion of these historic associations. SECTION 2A. For purposes of this Act, the following words shall have the following meanings: "Altered" shall include the words rebuilt, reconstructed, rehabilitated, remodeled, renovated and restored. "Building," a combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property. "Commission," the Nantucket Historic District Commission, acting as the Historic District Commission. "Constructed" shall include the words built, erected, installed, enlarged, and moved. "Exterior architectural features," such portions of the exterior of a building or structure, including the size and shape of proposed buildings and structures described in subsection (b) of section 9, as are open to view from a beach, a public way, a traveled way, a street or way shown on a land court plan or shown on a plan recorded in the Registry of Deeds, a proprietor's road, a street or way shown on a plan approved and endorsed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law, a public park or a public body of water, and shall include but not be limited to, the architectural style and general arrangement and setting thereof; the kind, color and texture of exterior building materials; the color of paint or other materials applied to windows, doors, lights, signs, trim, gutters, leaders, louvers, vents, exterior surfaces and type and style of roofs, porches, decks, staircases, steps, balconies, roof walks and other appurtenant exterior fixtures. [Amended by St. 2000, Ch. 57] "Razed," includes the words destroyed, demolished and removed. "Structure," a combination of materials other than a building, including, but not limited to a vending machine, sign, fence, wall, terrace, walk or driveway. [Amended by St. 1998, Ch. 193] SECTION 3. There is hereby established in the Town of Nantucket an Historic District Commission consisting of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town of Nantucket, to be appointed by the Selectmen. The Historic District Commission shall have the powers and authority and perform all the duties as hereinafter enumerated and provided. All 5 members shall be elected for rotating 3 -year terms at the annual town election each year. Vacancies occurring in the Commission, other than by expiration of term of office, shall be filled by appointment by the Selectmen, but such appointment shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the member replaced. [Amended by St. 2014, Ch. 338; St. 2016, Ch. 2111] https:Hecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=15338755 1/4 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA The Chairman of the Historic District Commission may designate an associate member to sit on the Commission in case of absence, inability to act or conflict of interest on the part of any member thereof or in the event of a vacancy on the Commission until said vacancy is filled in the manner provided herein. Three such associate members shall be appointed by the board of selectmen in accordance with section 3.4(a)(3) of the charter of the town of Nantucket for rotating 3 -year terms. Vacancies in said office shall be filled by the board of selectmen for the remainder of the unexpired term. [Amended by St. 2014, Ch. 338] The members of the commission shall be exempt from subsections (a) and (c) of section 17 of chapter 268A of the General Laws. [Amended by St. 1998, Ch. 193; St. 2002, Ch. 90] SECTION 4. There is hereby established in the Town of Nantucket an Historic Nantucket District, which shall include the land and waters comprising the Town of Nantucket. SECTION 5. (a) No building or structure shall be constructed or altered within the Nantucket Historic District in any way that affects its exterior architectural features unless and until either: (1) An application for a building permit shall first have been approved as to exterior architectural features, which approval shall be evidenced by a certificate of appropriateness issued by the Commission; or (2) The Commission first issues a certificate of nonapplicability with respect to such alteration or construction, (b) No building permit for construction or alteration of a building or structure within the Historic Nantucket District shall be issued by the Building Inspector until and unless the applicant has first obtained the applicable certificate from the Commission. No occupancy permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector with respect to any building or structure in the Nantucket Historic District unless and until the Building Inspector receives a written certification from the Historic District Commission that: (1) The building or structure has been constructed or altered in compliance with the terms of the certificate of appropriateness issued therefor; or (2) A certificate of nonapplicability has been issued for the construction or alteration. (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repair or replacement of any exterior architectural feature within the Nantucket Historic District which does not involve a change in design, material, color or the outward appearance thereof; nor to prevent the meeting of requirements certified by a duly authorized public officer to be necessary for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, nor to prevent landscaping with plants, trees and shrubs. SECTION 6. No building or structure within the Historic Nantucket District shall be razed without first obtaining a permit approved by the Historic District Commission, and said Commission shall be empowered to refuse such a permit for any building or structure of such architectural or historic interest, the removal of which in the opinion of said Commission would be detrimental to the public interest of the Town of Nantucket or the Village of Siasconset. SECTION 7. The erection or display of an occupational or other sign exceeding two (2) feet in length and six (6) inches in width or the erection or display of more than one (1) such sign, irrespective of size, on any lot, building or structure located within the Historic Nantucket District must be approved in advance by the Historic District Commission. Evidence of such approval shall be a certificate of appropriateness issued by said Commission. SECTION 8. The Historic District Commission shall elect its Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Commission shall meet within ten (10) days of the receipt of an application for a certificate of appropriateness or permit for removal and at such other times as the Commission may determine or upon call of the Chairman or of any two (2) members. It shall keep a permanent record of its resolutions, transactions and determinations and may make such rules and regulations consistent with this Act as may appear desirable and necessary. It may hold public or private hearings as it may deem advisable. It may incur expenses necessary to the carrying on of its work within the amount of its annual appropriation. The Commission shall make and publish rules and regulations adopting or establishing guidelines for exterior architectural features and establishing procedures for the processing of applications and conduct of hearings. The Commission may establish such fees with respect to applications and hearings as it deems necessary and appropriate to defray its expenses. [Amended by St. 2010, Ch. 8] SECTION 9. (a) It shall be the function and the duty of the Historic District Commission to pass upon the appropriateness of exterior architectural features of buildings and structures hereafter to be erected, reconstructed, altered or restored within the Historic Nantucket District wherever such exterior features are subject to view from a beach, public way, public park, public body of water, traveled way, a street or https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=15338755 2/4 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA way shown on a land court plan, or shown on a plan recorded in the registry of deeds, a proprietors road or a street or way shown on a plan approved and endorsed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law. All plans, elevations and other information deemed necessary by the Commission to determine the appropriateness of the exterior features to be passed upon shall be made available to the Commission by the applicant. It shall also be the duty of the Commission to pass the removal of any building within said districts as set forth in Section 6 and the erection or display of occupational or other signs as set forth under Section 7. (b) The Historic District Commission, in passing upon appropriateness of exterior architectural features in any case, shall keep in mind the purposes set forth in Section 2 and shall consider, among other things, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure in question, the location on the lot and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings and the position of such building or structure in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings and structures. In the case of new construction or additions to existing buildings or structures, the Historic District Commission shall consider the appropriateness of the size and shape of the building or structures both in relation to the land area upon which the building or structure is situated and buildings and structures in the vicinity, and the commission may in appropriate cases impose dimensional and setback requirements in addition to those required by applicable by-law. [Amended by St. 2000, Ch. 57] (c) The Historic District Commission shall not consider interior arrangement or building features not subject to public view. The commission shall not make any recommendations or requirements except for the purpose of preventing developments incongruous to the historic aspects of the surroundings and the Historic Nantucket District. [Amended by St. 2000, Ch. 57] (d) In case of disapproval, the Commission shall state its reasons therefor in writing, and it may make recommendations to the applicant with respect to appropriateness of design, arrangement, texture, material, color and the like of the building or structure involved. (e) Upon approval of the plans, the Commission shall cause a certificate of appropriateness, dated and signed by the Chairman, to be issued to the applicant or affixed to the plans. (f) If the Commission shall fail to take final action in any case within sixty (60) days after receipt of any application for a certificate of appropriateness or a permit for removal, the case shall be deemed to be approved except where mutual agreement has been reached for an extension of the time limits. (g) The Commission shall have, in addition to the powers, authority and duties granted it by this Act, such other ancillary, enforcement or investigative powers, authority and duties as may be delegated or assigned to it from time to time by vote of an Annual or Special Town Meeting of the Town of Nantucket. SECTION 10. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $10 nor more than $500, which shall be forfeited to the use of the town. Each day that a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense. (a) It shall be a violation of this Act for any person to construct or alter a building or structure without having first obtained from the Commission a certificate of applicability or a certificate of nonapplicability; for any person to raze any building or structure without having first obtained from the Commission a permit for such razing; for any person to construct or alter a building or structure in any way which is inconsistent with or contrary to the terms of the certificate of approval issued for such building or structure; or for any person to knowingly submit false, fraudulent or misleading information to the Commission in connection with any application. SECTION 10A. It shall be a violation of this Act for any person to construct or alter a building or structure without having first obtained from the Commission a certificate of applicability or a certificate of nonapplicability; for any person to raze any building or structure without having first obtained from the Commission a permit for such razing; for any person to construct or alter a building or structure in any way which is inconsistent with or contrary to the terms of the certificate of approval issued for such building or structure; or for any person to knowingly submit false, fraudulent or misleading information to the Commission in connection with any application. SECTION 11. Appeals may be taken to the Board of Selectmen by any person aggrieved by the ruling of the Historic District Commission. The Board of Selectmen shall hear and act upon such appeals promptly, and the decision of the Board shall be as determined by a majority vote of the members of the Board. Such appeals shall be taken within ten (10) days of the filing by the Commission of its certificate of determination with the Clerk of the Town of Nantucket, and written notice of such appeal shall be given by the appealing party to the Commission at the time such appeal is taken. https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=15338755 3/4 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA SECTION 12. Any person or the Historic District Commission, aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Selectmen, may appeal to the Superior Court sitting in equity for the County of Nantucket, provided that such appeal is filed in said Court within 15 days after such decision is recorded. The appealing party or parties shall, at the time of filing such appeal, give notice thereof to all persons who were parties to the appeal to the Board of Selectmen, by causing to be delivered to such parties a copy of the complaint and written notice of the filing thereof. The Court shall hear all pertinent evidence and determine the facts and, upon the facts so determined, annul such decision if found to exceed the authority of such Board, or may remand the case for further action by the Commission or make such other decree as justice and equity may require. The foregoing remedy shall be exclusive, but the parties shall have all rights of appeal and exception as in other equity cases. Costs shall not be allowed against the Historic District Commission or the Board of Selectmen unless it shall appear to the Court that the Commission or the Board, in making the decision appealed from, acted with gross negligence, in bad faith or with malice. Costs shall not be allowed against the party appealing from the decision of the Historic District Commission or the Board of Selectmen unless it shall appear to the Court that said appellant or appellants acted in bad faith or with malice in making the appeal to the Court. SECTION 13. The Superior Court, sitting in equity for Nantucket County, shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Act and the certificates, permits, determinations, rulings and regulations issued pursuant thereto and may, upon petition of the Commission, restrain by injunction violations thereof; and, without limitation, such court may order the removal of any building, structure or exterior architectural feature constructed in violation of this Act or the substantial restoration of any building, structure or exterior architectural feature altered or razed in violation of this Act and may issue such other orders for relief as may be equitable. SECTION 14. In case any section, paragraph or part of this Act be for any reason declared invalid or held unconstitutional by any court of last resort, every other section, paragraph or part shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 15. This Act shall take effect upon its acceptance by the voters of the Town of Nantucket at an Annual Town Meeting or any meeting duly called for the purpose. February 27, 1990 [1 ] Editor's Note: Section 2 of this enactment provided that an incumbent member of the Historic District Commission appointed or elected pursuant to section 3 of chapter 395 of the acts of 9970, as amended, shall continue to serve in that capacity until the expiration of the incumbent's term or until the incumbent sooner vacates the office, after which the election of members shall proceed in accordance with section 1." https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=15338755 4/4 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA Town of Nantucket, MA Wednesday, April 10, 2019 Chapter 139. Zoning Article V. Administration and Enforcement § 139-26. Issuance of building and use permits. A. No building or structure shall be used, erected, constructed, relocated, added to or otherwise subjected to alteration, or demolished without a building or use permit having been issued by the Building Commissioner for any use or structure. No lot shall be changed from its use preexisting the July 27, 1972, effective date of this chapter, except to its natural condition allowed by § 139- 7A(5) above, without a use permit or a building permit permitting such use. No such permit shall be issued until such construction, erection, relocation, addition, alteration, demolition or use, as proposed, shall comply in all respects with the provisions of this chapter as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer or with a decision rendered by the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, or the courts in the case of appeals. [Amended 4-10-2000 ATM by Art. 46, AG approval 8-2-2000] (1) Demolition delay. [Added 4-14-1997 ATM by Art. 40, AG approval 8-5-1997] (a) Statement of purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish a predictable process for reviewing requests to demolish residential structures in order to: [1] Establish an appropriate waiting period during which the Town and the applicant can propose and consider alternatives to the demolition of a building of residential value; [2] Minimize the quantity of demolition debris ending up in the landfill; [3] Create an incentive for reuse of residential structures; [4] Give interested parties an opportunity to acquire reusable residential structures. (b) Buildings subject to demolition delay. All residential structures are subject to review by the Building Commissioner for the purpose of determining whether such buildings have any residential reuse potential. (c) Issuance of demolition permit. The requirements set forth in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the requirements of any other codes, ordinances, statutes, or regulations applicable to the demolition of buildings. No demolition permit shall be issued for a building that is subject to review, pursuant to Subsection A(1)(b) above, unless: [1] It is determined that demolition is necessary, pursuant to Subsection A(1)(d) below. [2] It is determined that said building has no residential reuse potential due to the existing condition of the structure or physical barriers to moving the structure such as significant trees, bridges, etc. [3] The demolition delay period set forth in Subsection A(1)(f below has expired. https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=11472514 114 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA (d) Required demolition or repair. [1] Demolition. Nothing in this section shall restrict any authority in the general laws for the Building Commissioner or Building Inspector to order the building owner, or Town, to demolish a building at any time if it is determined that the condition of a building or part thereof presents an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or safety. [2] Repair. Nothing in this section shall restrict any authority in the general laws for the Building Commissioner or Building Inspector to require the applicant to take reasonable action to prevent the need for required demolition of a significant building, which may include securing the building and making it safe so that it does not present an imminent and substantial danger to the public. (e) Issuance of building, use, or occupancy permit. [1] If it has been determined that a building is subject to review, pursuant to Subsection A(1)(b) above, no building permits shall be issued for the erection of a new building on the site of such building subject to review before issuing a demolition permit for such building subject to review in compliance with this section. [2] If it has been determined that a building subject to review has been voluntarily demolished in violation of this section, no building permits shall be issued for new construction, or any use or occupancy permit for any use other than a park or recreational open space, with respect to the premises of such building for a period of two years after the date of the determination. As used herein, premises includes the parcel of land upon which the demolished building was located and all abutting parcels under common ownership or control. [3] The applicant (or the owner of record, if different from the applicant) shall be responsible for properly securing the building during the time that it is subject to review under this section. If a building is subject to demolition delay, pursuant to Subsection A(1)(b) above, and the applicant fails to secure the building, the loss of the building to fire or other causes shall be considered voluntary demolition for the purposes of this section. (f) Procedure. [1] An application for review pursuant to this section shall be made to the Building Commissioner in the manner provided in this Subsection A(1)(f). If the applicant is not the owner of record of the building, the owner or owners of record shall co-sign the application. [2] The applicant (or building owner) is encouraged to apply for review under this section as early as possible, so that any necessary review, and any delay period required by this section, may be completed prior to, or during, any other review to which the building or its site may be subject. [3] Application for review under this section shall be made in connection with an application for a demolition permit. [4] After its receipt of an application, pursuant to this Subsection A(1)(f), the following determinations shall be made: [a] Whether immediate demolition is required pursuant to Subsection A(1)(d); and [b] Whether said structure has any residential reuse potential pursuant to Subsection A(1)(c)[2]. https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=11472514 2/4 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA [5] A notice of determination shall be issued within 20 days after the application filing date. If it is determined that the structure does not require immediate demolition and that it does have reuse potential the applicant shall place a public notice in a local newspaper. [a] Contents of public notice. INVITATION FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF HOUSE WHICH MUST BE MOVED FROM CURRENT LOCATION A house at (street address), scheduled for demolition, is being made available to any interested parties subject to the owner's conditions. The Building Commissioner is accepting Letters of Interest for 30 days from the date of this publication. All interested parties should submit a letter of interest to the Building Commissioner. The house must be moved within 60 days of this publication. [6] A published copy of said notice shall be presented to the Building Department. From the date of publication of said notice, any interested parties shall have 30 days to respond in writing to the Building Commissioner. If any bona fide letters of interest, as determined by the Building Commissioner or Building Inspector, are received within the thirty -day period no demolition permit shall be issued for a period of 30 days thereafter. [7] If no bona fide letters of interest are received within the thirty -day period, a demolition permit may be issued. B. Form of application. The application for a building or use permit shall be submitted in such form as shall be described by the Building Inspector and shall be accompanied by the required fee as hereinafter prescribed. Application for a permit shall be made by the owner or lessee of any building or structure or the agent of either. The application for the permit shall be accompanied by a plot plan of the proposed building, structure or use drawn to scale with sufficient clarity to show the nature and character of the work to be performed, including off-street parking and loading space, if required, the location of new and existing lot lines. C. Accompanying documents. The application for a building or use permit shall be accompanied by the following documents, if applicable: (1) Certificate of appropriateness issued by the Nantucket Historic Districts Commission pursuant to Ch. 395, Acts of 1970, as amended. (2) Sewer permit. (a) For on-site septic systems issued by the Nantucket Board of Health pursuant to Title V, § 3.7, of the State Environmental Code. (b) For hook-ups to the public sewage system issued by the Superintendent of the Nantucket Department of Public Works pursuant to the Wastewater Systems Regulations Governing the Use of Common Sewers, of the Town and County of Nantucket, as amended. (3) Order of conditions issued by the Nantucket Conservation Commission, pursuant to the State Wetland Protection Act (MGL c. 131, § 40), when a determination has been made that all or a portion of the property included in the building permit application is subject to the Wetland Protection Act. It is the responsibility of the applicant to file a request to determine applicability of the Wetland Protection Act if the applicant suspects that all or a portion of his property may be subject to the Act. (4) Water well completion report establishing availability of water on property, if public water supply is unavailable. 3/4 https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=11472514 4/10/2019 Town of Nantucket, MA (5) Certified copy of each Board of Appeals and Planning Board decision, including minor and major site plan review approvals, and of the plan approved by the Planning Board if the building permit is for a secondary dwelling, whichever may be relevant to the proposed project. [Amended 4-14-1997 ATM by Art. 49, AG approval 8-5-1997] D. Issuance of permits. Upon receiving the application, the Building Inspector shall examine the same within a reasonable time after filing. The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall provide the Building Commissioner with a certificate of compliance with this chapter. If the application does not conform to the provisions of all pertinent local laws, the Building Commissioner shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor, within 30 days of the submission of a complete application. [Amended 4-10-2000 ATM by Art. 46, AG approval 8-2-2000] (1) He shall inform the applicant of his right of appeal to the Board of Appeals in the event such application is rejected. (2) If satisfied that the proposed work and/or use conforms to the provisions of this chapter and all laws and ordinances applicable thereto, he shall issue a building or use permit thereto, within 30 days of the submission of a complete application. E. Any permit issued shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six months after its issuance; however, for cause, one or more extensions of time, for periods not exceeding six months each, may be granted in writing by the Inspector of Buildings. Work under such permit, in the opinion of the Inspector of Buildings, must proceed in good faith continuously to completion so far as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances. F. Revocation of permits. The Building Inspector may revoke any permit issued under the provisions of this chapter in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application on which the permit was based or for any other cause set forth in this chapter. G. Posting of permit. A true copy of a permit placard issued to the applicant with the permit shall be kept on the site of operations open to public inspection during the entire time of prosecution of the work or use and until the completion of the same as defined on the application. H. Temporary permit. A temporary permit may, upon written request of an applicant, be authorized by a favorable vote of at least four members of the Board of Appeals for a nonconforming structure or use which the Board of Appeals finds necessary to promote the proper development of the community, provided that such nonconforming structure or use shall be completely removed upon expiration of the permit (unless previously made conforming or validated) without cost to the Town (unless the Town is the applicant). Such permit may be renewed annually for an aggregate period not exceeding three years. I. Payment of fees. No building or use permit shall be issued until the fees prescribed by the Board of Selectmen shall be paid to the Building Inspector. J. Compliance with permit. All work or uses shall conform to the approved application for which the permit has been issued as well as the approved plot plan. https://ecode360.com/print/NA0948?guid=11472514 4/4 ATTACHMENT 7 Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals f fo PROPERTY OWNER: Nantucket Point of View LLC MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 860, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 PROPERTY LOCATION: 9 Lincoln Ave ASSESSOR MAP/PARCEL: 30/137 SUBMITTED BY: Cohen and Cohen Law PC SEE ATTACHED PAGES I certify that the foregoing is a list of all persons who are owners of abutting property, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way; and abutters of the abutters and all other land owners within 300 feet of the property line of owner's property, as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list (M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 11 and Zoning Code Chapter 40A, Section 139-29B (2)• DATE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF NANTUCKET �oq� pFc 011 FiVF qp�r 19elT SARs OP ° a a x a> z a> >a a s z a z> a>> a a> a 'a z v a4 z a z z a z a a z a z z a> z z >>>> > a a a Q> > > z ro a 2 o z o o O O z o o Q O O W a a Q a Q a❑ a❑❑ a O W o E H m H o m V1 JG H m F 2 m Z a m m > Z Z z z a a s E a m z> z z a z z a> z> O z o O z z o z z z o z z z z a z 0 0 0 o z£ z££ z> V W m O w m W w W z D W D V w U Z W W U O W w m O O O O E, O D U U U O D O O O O D H Z w a (9 W a w W w a U' W C� z w z w W Z U w w w U U U U z U z z z z U a V Q Q U C7 N H w 0 3 W D w W W 0 3 w 3 W a W w z w W a z z z¢ Z z a Z a a z 3 14 F S z h x 7 7 h U Q 7 Q a h a h 7 .] 7 h m z a a a a a E a Q a H ,,, m r, rat a a e m a a a a (a a a U a U U a a O a m m m e .. m r ,-� e .N. a rt N N e e N Ip a IO 6 .+ e N e rt rt r1 e e l0 l0 �D e O O C .+ m N O O 01 rt rt rt O IO O e O �' "t "t " '' N m '^ `^ m o e e e e a v u� o o m m o m o o m r m ✓t m rl N O� N N l0 O O N O r] rt Ol 01 p1 D\ D\ � N N N rt rt O r rt 10 r r tp 1p l0 1p m ID N m N ao a O N O o O O o r 0 0 0 m ££ m E U z Z£ z z H W W d aM d W a Z Z Z£ W w Z Z H 3 U Z Z 0 0 0 U F U z U ra-1 ial a a z z z z a° z Z Z> C C Z H E O F x z Z F O w w w w W W w F U U z T m o D D Q E T w W F w N 3 3 W 2 E a a a F E. E+ E F a Q a W a Q W 3 U O m m m Q w U H F E F EH H F U' O C7 �' w w a O Z z F U' Z Z 2 U U w Z U o 3 F F U a z H m m w w w w W O o O V m m a E 0 o 3 m Z O O Q z Z V 3 O O a O D O Z >� �+ O o W >� >. N N �. E E F O �. H m Z m O H H U W O Z E F a F H F w a a F O z Z Y' w a a F m to F E w a z S a z a 5 Q a z 5 W Z D Q K Wa Q Q a a a z Q Q fail Q O a a O W W .a] 4 4m] z Q Q a U Z Z U£ z E U' H F Z m a 3 C7 O a a a a a m m m z a a£ H x h U£ U 3 o u z a❑ z U W � x E a w E a W F N H m N > El m O O m N a a z w °a a o W ❑ zQ o ❑❑ z mO z an 3 D ❑ E> O N Z 3 W a 14 3 z a 3 w 0 m o Q a W F > m m W m z U fWil a s O a Z Z z Z O .a] > W a a 0❑> Z a izi m a H❑ a a a F F F Z a a H W w O a o > z a a a Q z££ O i m a m F m m a a w w e e e e o O m>> S T r 3 a 0 a C m a f� U ?� m a m W w D o U U r r r r e �o to 0 0❑ w E o 0 of H W w Q W x F H Q Q m 0 0 N N N N N m m m a a a O H O m Q a£ 0 0 0 0 a sa w IO a m S m z o z F S x O w a z Z X X X X X X X O a T Z X w a 0 o V£❑ X W u F O a O a 3 3 a❑ Q a O O O O X O o O a o o m 3 O£ a O a a O a o F O m 2 .� .-i m m m m O m m m m �O IO in m a- O m W m e e m m z o c vt o 0 N N r m �o O O O O O O O O O O m vt r N N .-� e m O e N r N N a a a a a a a a N .-� .� a �O N a .-� Y) a .-� u'1 ,.. a N z U H H E E y � m D r 7 rH7, E °m a z E a F >❑ a m❑ E- U U E a Q W N £ N z X E+ E F E. VEI fEA 4 w Z F N o W O E Q Z w m m m m O D z F. W a s E !y Z z£ H F R a C 5 H E z mo £ w a F 4 z H a 0 a m H F F E 2 2 z Q m O a> H N £ a ffff�QQQ m Z V W U H w W z a z Q w O N m ££££ >>> w w U W a W W z z w o z o 0 0 o a a a z z w w a❑ z z a W U a z z z z a a a �a > D w .7 w w w E E ❑ Q >+ a 2 z > EF z a ,°a a a m w w w o o a c� ❑ o o a w m w m w w w D a o u u ❑ m❑ z z w z z z m m m > £ o a a a w a Q z D D z D u JG x aW' S o G H E E z z z m a a❑ o£ ( V a U a F Q Q ❑ W❑ E F H x x x W w Q a U > a m o s a o a s z o o o o o o o o a s z o w w w U a a 0 U U C Z U V U h h h z z U T z z W W z a 0 o Q o o o Hn > o o u o o o >> o o a o o o o a N D w D D D W w O U r U U U h m a a a L, -- U U a s U U U U U V N m F a m a F F Q w £w w z h a Z z F m a fFi] a a 5 m m F w. a Q a U V U. O a m a a m W z a a Z m F a a a a H a a a Z a F F H H a a w W a w Q Q a Q a a a Q Q w a E w S m x ❑ m F H F F w m U a a a EW a F F >. E O H w W W W 3 3 3 a F U a a F Q Q❑ Q Z U z a m �1 a W W W❑ w F m a O W w a of H� a E H F F WZ a a w Z Z m W F F m m m m x>>> a z z H E z z W F F a a a a a a H a s££ Q a ut F£ h h ££ U U H F F E+ O W W w iG iG F W z Q 0L a o � T�{{ Q 7 o h W W O m Q S x a a a a y o 0 0 o V U m z a g E z a.� h a a F Z C V£ Q w F E U Z z a W m w w F F F E a Z Z Z z z z W w F Q Q U Z E Z Z `a E' £ S Z 3 m w a Q a a m 0 2 >� z z w w W w x a❑❑ Z w 4" a z U U£ z U GI O m m m m m x W w O V o w z z a a a a U o o 0 V1 W W z Z a m a >. W T H W to a W w a a a H a a z w a T W U£ a a w O a a N ❑ a z H Q£ m a F (a'J z fat x Z Z Z z Z F F H H W W h h a' 3 z .Z.1 z tFn w w z 7 m W O Z w w x h w h W w T EF H Q Q a a a W W w w a a Q Z h O z W z Z Q❑ o H o �4 D4 H X O D D J' ❑ w m x x a a a a a `.G JL �L `1 W W❑❑ fn Q U > o o a o F + U >� W Z V z a z z V Z W U U m m m m m U U U V U U z Z H F Z O z m m m Q w z W D❑ a O D o a o o 0 a h Z W W D O O D O O D D D Z Z O o a D O O O w Z S❑ N F m E+ E+ E+ W £ £ H a a a a Q a a a a E H E H £££ w a a .7 h V U' > O E D> z z a a z a a a a z m y ay a m£ m U U U U U z z z z>> z Q u a z z a a aa❑ Q a o z> u z z z w o � z z a z 'z U U U U V Q Q Q a w W a O w W Q£ W W a U G] w a £££££ Z z Z z a a 0 0 Q 0 x a w W U£ a m m N I 41 m O\ m r1 a i(1 N N N l0 r m m m 01 01 O .-i N .i N rt a J] ill l0 r m 01 O a rt a V1 N V1 VI N ✓1 N .-I .-I .i N H N .w .-I r1 N ti N .1 ti H H r-1 N H N •-I .i N N N N N r1 C x u 0 w N m m .a 0 ro N m m o 0 0. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o o E N N m m rt n m m m m m m rt n m m m m rt ri n m m rt ri m rt rt m r� m rt rt rt m m m rt rt n rt v 29 30 30 NANTUCKET TOWN OF ROWLAND GREGORY S & AMY E NANTUCKET POINT OF VIEW LLC C/O PARK & REC 142 DEAN ST C/O JOHN D FLAVIN 2 BATHING BEACH RD BROOKLYN, NY 11217 PO BOX 860 NANTUCKET, M.A. 02554 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 29 VAN DYKE DEBORAH TRUSTEE 74 NORTH BEACH ST NOM TRUST 74 N BEACH ST NANTUCKET, MA 02554 30 GILBRETH REBECCA M ETAL 1844 MAYBANK HGWY CHARLESTON, SC 29412 30 NORTON JAMES M JR & KATHLEEN M 2 STONE BRIDGE LANE MILTON, MA 02186 30 RNR JEFFERSON FAMILY LTD PRTNR C/O RIDOLFI ROBERT N 26 HARBOURTON WOODSVILLE RD PENNINGTON, NJ 08534 30 DOLAN SHELLEY W 775 LINCOLN AVE WINNETKA, IL 60093 30 AMBRECHT KENNETH C & SUSAN B 2601 N OCEAN BLVD GULF STREAM, FL 33483 30 30 NANTUCKET ISLANDS LAND BANK ETAL AMBRECHT KENNETH C TRST ETAL 22 BROAD ST JUSTINE MULLIN GST EXEMPT 2011 TR NANTUCKET, MA 02554 2601 N OCEAN BLVD GULF STREAM, FL 33483 30 NORTON JAMES 2 STONEBRIDGE LANE MILTON, MA 02186 30 FARELLO MICHAEL J & CATHERINE 9 NORTH STREET GREENWICH, CT 06830 30 DIAMOND ROBERT E JR C/O CLARFELD FINANCIAL 560 WHITE PLAINS RD 5TH FLR TARRYTOWN, NY 10591 30 DIAMOND ROBERT E JR C/O CLARFELD & COMPANY 560 WHITE PLAINS RD 5TH FLR TARRYTOWN, NY 10591-5112 30 MCCAUSLAND PETER TRST ETAL SEVEN DOORS NOM TRUST PO BOX 274 LAFAYETTE HILL, PA 19444 30 MCCAUSLAND PETER TRST ETAL PUG COTTAGE NOM TRUST PO BOX 274 LAFAYETTE HILL, PA 19444 30 MCCAUSLAND PETER TRST ETAL PUG COTTAGE NOM TRUST PO BOX 274 LAFAYETTE HILL, PA 19444 30 MCCAUSLAND PETER TRST ETAL PUG COTTAGE NOM TRUST PO BOX 274 LAFAYETTE, PA 19444 30 NANTUCKET POINT OF VIEW LLC C/O JOHN S FLAVIN PO BOX 860 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 30 NANTUCKET POINT OF VIEW LLC C/O JOHN D FLAVIN PO BOX 860 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 30 NANTUCKET ISLANDS LAND BANK 22 BROAD ST NANTUCKET, MA 02554 30 LEVINGER FREDERICK N & CAROL J TRS" LEVINGER NOMINEE TRUST 13360 PROVENCE DR PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 30 LEVINGER FREDERICK N TR LEVINGER NOMINEE TRUST 13360 PROVENCE DR PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 30 DIAMOND JENNIFER 400 BROADHOLLOW RD MELVILLE, NY 11747 30 DIAMOND JENNIFER C/O CLARFELD FINANCIAL ADVISORS IN 560 WHITE PLAINS RD STE 530 TARRYTOWN, NY 10591 30 ALGER SARAH F TRST C/O HARDING & CARBONE 1235 NORTH LOOP WEST STE 205 HOUSTON, TX 77008 30 30 30 NANTUCKET TOWN OF MCCAUSLAND CHRISTOPHER F TRST ETE SULLIVAN WILLIAM F TRST ETAL 16 BROAD ST PO OX 274 PO BOX 8070 NANTUCKET, MA 02554 LAFAYETTE HILL, PA 19444 JACKSON, WY 83002 30 DENAUT JAMES A TR 16 LINCOLN AVE NOM TRUST 100 MEADOW VIEW DR GREENWICH, CT 06830 30 KF LINCOLN LLC C/O NORMANDY REAL ESTATE PTR 53 MAPLE AVE MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960 30 DANJOU NANCY N NANT LLC C/O NEVINS AUDREY LEIGH DSGN 452 POMPTON AVE CEDAR GROVE, NJ 07009 30 LMD INVESTMENT LIMITED PRTSHIP 177 GOODHILL ROAD WESTON, CT 06883 30 FERGUSON ERIC N & ANNE R TRS C/O FERGUSON NEIL 120 RIDGE RD GLASTONBURY, CT 06033 30 FERGUSON ERIC N & ANNE R TRS C/O FERGUSON NEIL 120 RIDGE RD GLASTONBURY, CT 06033 30 GRAVES ANNE M & JAMES P TRST 51 LOCUST AVE, STE 202 NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 30 MCDONALD JOHN T 5406 MARYANNA DRIVE AUSTIN, TX 78746 30 KEITH ROBERT M & KATE L 19 OLD FARM ROAD DARIEN, CT 06820 30 BEAUDETTE RICHARD P TR 2 LINCOLN AVE NOM TRUST PO BOX 659 NANTUCKET, MA 02554 30 SLAVIN LORRAINE TRST SIX PAWGUVET LN REAL ESTATE TRUST 24 FIELD POINT ROAD GREENWICH, CT 06830 30 ATLANTIC FAIRVIEW LLC C/O FOSSEN MERLE & CAROLYN 219 NORTH CHERRY ST FALLS CHURCH, VA 22046 30 MCCAUSLAND CHRISTOPHER F TRST ED PO BOX 274 LAFAYETTE HILL, PA 19444 ATTACHMENT 8 From: Paul Murphy To: Steven Cohen Subject: RE: 9 Lincoln Date: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 8:46:15 AM Attachments: imaae001.Dna From: Paul Murphy <pmurphhy(@nantucket-ma.gov> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 11:23 AM To: Steven Cohen <steven(@cohenlegal.net> Cc: Leslie Snell <LSnell(@nantucket-ma.gov>; Andrew Vorce <AVorce(@nantucket-ma.gov> Subject: RE: 9 Lincoln Hi Steve, Sorry for the late reply. I have read all the correspondence to date and I respect your position on this matter. I will not revoke the building permit for 9 Lincoln Avenue. I do not see a sufficient reason to do so. Best regards, Paul Murphy TauC-"Avlurphy Building Commissioner Town of Nantucket Planning & Land Use Services 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, MA 02554 Tel: 508-325-7587 X 7057 Fax: 508-228-7298 pmurphy(@nantucket-ma.gov ruc From: Steven Cohen To: pmurphv(@nantucket-ma.goy Cc: Robert C. Boutwell; Jonathan W. Fitch; "George Pucci (GPucciCd)k-olaw.comy' Subject: RE: 9 Lincoln Date: Saturday, April 06, 2019 12:26:00 PM Paul, I would also note that the ZBA staff has set a 4/10 filing deadline for ZBA matters to be heard in May (such as an appeal of your response by my client or by the 9 Lincoln Ave owner), due to staff vacations in April. It would be helpful to have a determination in advance of that deadline. Best, Steven Paul, This email is to follow up on my email from Monday. Time is of the essence, as construction continues at 9 Lincoln Avenue. In your phone call with Mr. Fitch and in our brief discussion at Town Meeting, you mentioned that it may be that a building permit holder could be in a situation where an appeal does not preclude the use of the HDC's Certificate of Appropriateness for the issuance of a Building Permit and that they may be proceeding at their own risk. I do appreciate that this is a possible scenario, but I do not think that it is the case here. I agree that not every appeal would stop a Building Permit from being issued, for example if the appeal was based on a Special Permit, as the law expressly provides for work to be done at the owner's risk under an appealed Special Permit, or if a law suit involved a purely private matter, such as a deed restriction or contract issue, which would not involve the validity of the building permit or compliance with zoning and other code issues. In those cases the Building Permit would be valid and the appellant would have to see injunctive relief to stop construction based on the merits of the lawsuit, not the validity of the Building Permit. However, in this case, an HDC COA is a prerequisite for the Building Permit itself, but the COA itself was not ripe (at that time of the building permit, the appeal had not even been heard by the Select Board, never mind been appeal again to Superior Court) and therefore the COA could not be the basis for a Building Permit. The building permit application intentionally or inadvertently asserted that there was a COA and did not disclose the appeal, even though the applicant knew about it. Therefore, the Building Permit should not have been issued in the first place. A suggestion that one can proceed based on the initial determination of the decision maker during an appeal of the validity of that decision seems to be against the language of the code, against public policy, and particularly against the Town's interests in most cases. Moreover, in practice, it leads to some odd results. For example, if the Zoning Officer makes a positive determination about a permit application and an abutter appeals that to the ZBA, would you issue a Building Permit and allow the work to proceed under that appeal, since the ZO has ruled, even if the ZBA has not heard that case? Even sticking to the HDC, if the HDC issues a demolition approval and an abutter or the Town appeals that COA, would you issue a building permit for demolition to proceed during the appeal? If the Select Board over turns the HDC's decision on a COA, as it can do, and the HDC or an abutter appeals that SB decision, would you issue a building permit based on the Select Board decision regarding the COA and allow work to proceed on that during the pendency of the further appeal? What if a person has a constructive grant of a COA based on the failure of the HDC to act, which has happened, would you issue a Building Permit during the pendency of the Town's appeal of the constructive grant? The danger of allowing a private party to proceed with a COA that is not ripe is not just academic speculation or limited to this matter — could Jeff Kashuluck have demolished the barn on Liberty Street at his own risk based on his HDC approval, even though the COA was appealed? In that case, the Select Board and District Court both ruledagainst that COA but the Appeals Court recently sided with Jeff, but what if he has proceeded and then lost on the appeals? The structure would already have been demolished. The entire purposed of the HDC is to prevent the construction of inappropriate structures and to prevent the inappropriate alteration or demolition of structures. How can such work proceed before the authorization is final, particularly when the Act lays out a three-step process for aggrieved persons to seek remedy? Normally the COA is final within 10 days of the COA being posted, if no appeal is taken. The proceed -at -your -own -risk theory from Special Permits does not exist in the HDC Act, the Building Code, or the Town Code, and is not in the interests of the public interests protected by the HDC. Again, I ask you to revoke the Building Permit for the pool on the basis that the permit was issued on an application that failed to disclose the appeal, and that the appeal renders the COA legally insufficient to meet the requirements of the law. The pool hole should be ordered to be filled and all work under the permit undone. The land owner has acted in bad faith and should not be rewarded for it. As an aside, in correspondence with Mr. Fitch, counsel to the owner of 9 Lincoln Ave is now asserting that they can proceed with this work because the HDC has no jurisdiction over structures outside of the public view. While this jurisdictional assertion is mostly correct, it is not applicable here, as the HDC is the arbiter of this determination and here the HDC specifically approved the pool application - the COA was not issued due to lack of visibility, which is an entirely different legal situation. I am bringing this to your attention, in case it comes up later. Best, Steven Steven L. Cohen, Partner Cohen & Cohen Law PC 34 Main Street, 2nd Floor Mail: Post Office Box 786 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Tel. (508) 228-0337 Fax (508) 228-0970 Steven@Cohenlegal.net http://cohen I egal.net To avoid cyber -fraud and wire -fraud, please confirm all wiring instructions to our office via phone at (508) 228-0337, especially if you receive an e-mail or notice purporting to change wiring instructions. We do not accept or request changes to wiring instructions via e-mail or fax; always call to verify. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the persons responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please contact Cohen & Cohen Law PC immediately at either (508) 228-0337 or Steven@Cohenlegal.net and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us. fiil,eK: URIaMUI GniWCB9n:l9DrcnN Nvmre pa4: TI1aWy,yM04,2019ll:5 WNt Paul. This email is to follow up on my email from Monday. Time is of the essence, as construction continues at 9 Lincoln Avenue. In your phone call with Mr. Fitch and in our brief discussion at Town Meeting, you mentioned that it may be that a building peril holder could be in a situation what, an appeal docs not preclude the use of the HDC's Certificate of Appropriateness for the issuance of a Building Permit and that they maybe proceeding at their own risk. I do appreciate that this is a possible Scenario. but 1 do not think that itis the cast hare. I agree that not every appeal would slop a Building Permit from being issued, for example if the appeal was based on a Special Permit, as the law expressly provides for work to be done at the owner's risk under an appealed Special Permit or If a law suit involved a purely private matter, such as a decd restriction or contract issue, which would out involve the validity of the building permit a compliance with zoning and other code issues. In those cases the Building Peril would be valid and the appellant would have to we injunctive relief to slop construction based an the mems of thc lawsuit, not the validity of the Building Peril However. in this case. an HDC COA is a prerequisite for the Building Permit itself, but the COA itself was not ripe (at that time of the building peril the appal had not even been heard by the Select Board, never mind been appeal again to Superior Court) and therefore the COA could not be the basis for a Building Peril The building peril application inbmtionall• or inadvertently asserted that there was a COA and did not disclose the appeal. even though the applicant knew about it. Therefore, the Building Permit should not have been issued in the first place. A suggestion that one can proceed based on the initial determination of the decision maker during an appeal of the validity, of that decision seems to be against the language of thc code, against public polio'. and particularly against the Town's interests in most cases. Moreover, in practice, it leads to some odd results. For example, if thc Zoning Officer makes a positive determination about a permit application and an abutter appeals that to the ZBA, would you issue a Building Permit and allow the work to proceed under that appeal. since the ZO has ruled. even if the ZBA has not hcard that case? Evan sticking o the HDC, if thc HDC issues a demolition approval and an abutter or the Town appeals that COA, would you issue a building peril for demolition to proceed during the appeal? If thc Selca Board ora turns die HDC's decision on a COA. as it can do, and the HDC or an abutter appeals that SB decision, would you issue a building permit based on the Select Board decision regarding the COA and allow work to proceed on that during the pendency of the further appeal? What if a person has a constructive grant of a COA based on the failure of the HDC to act. which has happened, would you Mise a Building Permit during the pendency of the Town's appeal of the conswetive grant? The danger of allowing a private party to proceed with a COA that is not ripe is not just academic speculation a limited to this matter- could Jeff Kashuluck have demolished the barn on Liberty Street at his own risk based on his HDC approval, even though the COA was appealed? In that case, the Select Board and District Court both ruled against that COA but the Appeals Court recently sided with Jeff. but what if he has proceeded and then lost on the appeals? The structure would already have been demolished. The entire purposed of the HDC is to prevent the construction of inappropriate suuclures and to prevent the inappropriate alteration or demolition of structures. How can such work proceed before the authorization Is final, particularly when the Act lays out a three-step process for aggrieved persons to seek remedy? Normally the COA is final within 10 days of the COA being posted if no appeal is taken. The proceed-at-your-01sn-risk theory from Special Permits does not exist in the HDC Act. the Building Code, or the Town Code, and is not in the interests of the public interests protected by the HDC_ Again, I ask you to revoke the Building Permit for the pool on the basis that the permit was issued on an application that failed to disclose the appeal, and that the appeal renders the COA legally insufficient to meet Ole requirements of the lash. The pool hole should be ordered to be Filled and all work under the permit undone. The land owner has acted in bad faith and should not be rewarded for it As an aide, in correspondence with Mr. Filch. counsel to the owner of 9 Lincoln Ave is now asserting that they can proceed with this work because the HDC has rwjurisdiction ova sructures outside of the public view, While this jurisdictional assertion is mostly correct, it is not applicable here, a the HDC is the arbiter of this determination and here the HDC specifically approved the pool application - thc COA was not issued due to lack of visibility, which is an enlimly different legal situation. I am bringing this to your attention, in case it comes up later. Best, Steven Stci en L Cohen, Partner Cohen & Cohen taw PC 34 Main Strcet, 2"d Floor Mail: Post Office Box 786 Nanlueket. Massachuselts 02554 Tel. (508) 228-0337 Fez (508) 228-0970 c rI rmCDhmurgal•y,, hit, d/mhrrole"al net Is.mTo myoid cyber -fraud and wire -fraud, please confirm all wiring instructions to our office ria phone at (508) 228-0337, especially if3'ou receive an a -mail or notice purponing to change wiring inv trans. We do not occept or request changes to wiring instructions via a -mail or fat; ahrays call to verify. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message am intended for thc exclusive use of the addressees) and may comain confidential or privileged information. If you art adl the intended recipient or the persons responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient be advised you have received this message in error and that any use. dissemination. forwarding- printing or copying is strictly prohibited. Please contact Cohen & Cohen Law PC immediately at either (508) 228-0337 or C rye" ,Cohrnlrgal "rl and Aesuoy all copies of this message and am' atlachmenlz. You will be reimbursed for mr sotublc costs incurred in notifying us. S Or err Ms,, u.—,, UNLESS OmhEBNla p"PRE9aLy ar.ITED HEREIN, Tma GW L (1) DOES NOT INCLuBE AN ELECTRONIC IR—RE; (2) S11-1, NOT BE DEED TO BE A Ei—r'RONIC aIGNaTOR6 inDii rr nmroaE; (3) Su— •. Mor as, BE— Tn CREITE .I InNaIN'G COmai-T; AND (4) SILu-L NOT COmitti fE AN OEBER OB.ICCEPr. i -. From: Steven Cohen Sent: Monday, April 01, 20194:50 PM To:'pmurphy@nantucket<na.gov' <pmurphy@nantucket-ma.gov> Cc: Robert C. Boutwell <rcb@fitchlp.com>;'Jonathaa W. Fitch' <Mf@fitchlocom> Subject: Unlawful Construction at 9 Lincoln Avenue Paul, I am working with Mr. Fitch as local counsel on this matter. I am unclear on how a Building Perit was issued and would respectfully suggest that it is not valid and should be revoked. The HDC Certificate of Appropriateness fa this pod was validly appealed to the Select Board and then to Superior Court. Therefore, it cannot Be relied on for a Building Permit The Nantucket Zoning Code provides at Section 139-26.0 that the building permit application is to be accompanied by an HOC COA, and at 139-26.F provides that Building Inspector may mroke am• perp issued in the case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application on which the parnil was based or for any other cause set forth In this chapter. Moreover, Section 5A and 10.A of the HDC enabtmg Act provides that no structure shall be com iueted without a building permit accompanied by a COA from the HDC. The Building Permit 1868-18 shows that it was issued under COA 71238. The Building Permit Application says that the COA was 71235 (this is the correct number, not 71238). Since COA 71235 is under appeal, any permit issued under it appears to have been issued under mistaken or fraudulent circumstances. I have full faith in Mr. MDrash, but this permit seems to have been issued in violation of the Town Code, sante there u no wkd COA. Therefore, Building Permit 1868-18 should be revoked. Best, Steven Steven L Cohen, Partner Colhen & Cohen LawPC 34 Main SIICCL 2nd Floor Mail: Post Office Boz 786 Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Tel. (508) 228-0337 Faz (508) 228-0970 C rI nrrifnhrnlggnl nal him Hrohenhegal net fa' RtT. avoid cyber-fmud and wire-fmud. please confimt all miring instructions to our office via plmne .at (508) 228-0337, especially if you recciwe an e-mail or notice purporting to change wiring itmmetions. We do not accept or request changes to mining instructions via e-mail or fav; ahways call to rerif STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message and am attachments to this message am intended for the evelusive use of the addressce(s) and may contain confidential or priwilcged information. If) on art not the intended recipient. or the persons respomibte for delivering the email to the intended recipient. be advised you have received this message in error and that amuse. dissemination. forwarding. printing. or copying is strictly prohibited. Please contact Cohen & Cohen Law PC immediately in either (508) 228-0337 .,R oGr Cchr ,legal net and destroy all copies of this message and am' attachrnems. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us. S...N,,,mr Dt.ri rrtr,m UNErxv ontaasasF. Evrarsst.w sr AT Fn H— N, Trns Enui t. (1) Dors NOT INCLUDE Ax a.FnRO.vnc STGNITURE; (2) S—A. I.T .1 m.ml to To of .c+ Er.EnRONtc sm-TURE roR -1 nm 14 (3) Sim' NOT aE Or— To CREsn. A nuvnuvc, CO—;-It (i) SIMLL NOT COns IT-E Ax 0— ON Accrm,wcn. Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Murphy > 9lnlphy� .rani �rkc - Subject: RE: Unlawful Construction at 9 LincolnAtenuc Date: April I. 2019 at 3:38:10 PM EDT To: "Jonathan W. Fitch" <J'md'rnfflchln ,in Dear Attorney Fitch, The owners of 9 Lincoln Avenue have a lawfully issued building permit for the pool currently under construction. It was issued on 11/23/18. I cannot revoke the permit as there are no violations of the Zoning bylaw or state building code. Best regards, Paul Murphy Fro m:Jonathan W. Filch <iwffdfitch to cont> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:28 PM To: Paul Murphy <nm rohvfidnantucket-ma env> Cc: Steven Cohen —eveMR cohenlegal. nen; Robert C. Boutwell <rchAfitchlo. cnm> Subject: Unlawful Construction at 9 Lincoln Avenue Dear Mc Murphy: I represent Christopher F. McCausland and Elizabeth 1, McCausland. Trustees of Eleven Lincoln Avenue Trust u/d/t dated October 7, 2013, as the owner of 1 I Lincoln Avenue and 22 Jefferson Avcnuc. Peter McCausland and Bonnie F. McCausland, Trustees of the Seen Doors Nominee Trost eud/t dated Maw 18. 2012. as the omner of 13 Lincoln Avenue, and Peter McCausland and Borwe F. McCausland. Trustees of the PUG Cottage Nominee Trust u/d/I dated May 18. 2012. as the owner of 13A Lincoln Avi nue, 21 Jefferson Avenue. and 26 Jefferson Avenue, who am all abutters and neighbors to tete propen) located at 9 Lincoln Awenuc in Nantucket. ithich property is owned by Nantucket Point of View, LLC. I am writing to advise you that Nantucket Point of Vic,. LLC is proceeding with unlawful and unauthorized excavation and construction activities to install a large. in -ground pool at 9 Lincoln Avenue. The proposed installation of the pool is cumend% subject to a pending lawsuit in the Nantucket Count) Superior Court filed by my clients, appealing the arbivary and capricious actions of the Namueket Historic District Commission and the Select Board of Nantucket allowing Nantucket Point of View. LLC s application to install the pool. Please see my attached letter of yesterday to Nantucket Point of Vim. LLC s counsel. as well as the photogmpl s attached hereto evidencing excavation and construction. I have also a0ached a copy of my clients' complaint in the above -referenced Nantucket Superior Court anion. Construction and excavation actiritics taking place during the litigation am unlawful and in flagrant disregard of my clients' appeal to the Superior Court 1 ,ould ask that you please immediate]) infomt Nantucket Point of Vic,. LLC that all excavation and consuucmn work related to the installation of a pool at 9 Lincoln Avenue in Nantuckn must stop immediately. ,.it further. that the holt that has been dug without a permit or other aulhomation from the Nantucket Building Division should be immediately filled in. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 1 mould appreciate receiving acknowledgment of your receipt of this communication. Thank you in advance Sincerely. Jonadean Fitch Jonathan W. Fitch Managing Partner ..Em sazssa�1 F, ut Ttsaatsa> uisnionm r. in I view Bin . P7 tl' 4K' nA TNIn! : 1 P rMo R.arn n nine nn I Mn mina xw.v lilrhln com - . w..:,z.. e... 2- :�?�� \d\� WITHDRAWAL FORM NANTUG -,;. TOWN CLEf- 2919 MAY -9 PY 3: L TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 File No. 12 -19 Map 30 Parcel 137 APPLICANT(S): Nantucket Point of View, LLC (Owner) AND APPELLANTS Christopher F. & Elizabeth J. McCAUSLAND, Tr., Eleven Lincoln Ave. Tr.a Peter & Bonnie F. McCAUSLAND,Tr.Seven Doors& Pu Cotta e Nom. Trusts p APPEAL of Bldg. Commissioner UPON THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT(S) MADE: PRIOR TO X AFTER PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPLICATION, WE, THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: THE WITHDRAWAL: ACKNOWLEDGE AS A MATTER RIGHT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE X APPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPROVE, BUT WITH PREJUDICE X IN FULL OF THE SAID APPLICATION OF SO MUCH OF SAID APPLICATION AS: The Zoning Board of Appeals DATED: May 9, 2019 Eleanor Weller Antonietti, Zoning Administrator v 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile WITHDRAWAL FORM 2019 MA r -9 Ph 3: 28 TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MA 02554 File No. 03 -19 Map 92.4 Parcell- � APPLICANT(S): Estate of Nikki S. Toole; Edward S. Toole, Tr., of ECMJ Nominee Trust; Sarah F. Alger, Tr. of 15 Sandsbury Nominee Trust SPECIAL PERMIT - 11.13.& 15 Sandsbury Road UPON THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT(S) MADE: PRIOR TO X AFTER PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPLICATION, WE, THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: THE WITHDRAWAL: ACKNOWLEDGE AS A MATTER RIGHT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE X APPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPROVE, BUT WITH PREJUDICE X IN FULL OF THE SAID APPLICATION OF SO MUCH OF SAID APPLICATION AS: The Zoning Board of Appeals DATED: May 9, 2019 Eleanor Weller Antonietti Zoninq Administrator 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket Massachusetts 02554 508-228-7215 telephone 508-228-7298 facsimile