HomeMy WebLinkAbout019-90",tom Form 3 -0y
a��'iw= TOWN OF NANTUCKET � �'�� -4G
• BOARD OF APPEALS
I? A711
w
mat NANTUCKET, MA,_L_ SACH�.; SETTS 2
uw�
May /O , 19 90
To: Parties in interest and others
concerned with the decision of t.
Board of Appeals in Application No. -=-go
Of• Bruce Porter, Lorna Porter and Robert Porter
Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has
this day been filed with the Nantucket Town Clerk.
An appeal from this decision may nursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massaclu___-ts General Laws.
Any action appealing the decisic— ^,ust - -
filing a complaint in court within twenty (20)Jdays-after
this day's date. Notice of the action W411-. a ccr• of the
complaint and certified copy of c_: rus, be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such twenty
(20) days.
L-P
_t_J! ��n-
Will. Sherman, Chairman
cc: Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
1
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
Decision:
The Board of Appeals, at a public hearing held on Fridav,
May 4, 1990, at 1:00 P.M., at the Town and Cour -y Buildinq,
Nantucket, made the following decision upon the application of
BRUCE PORTER, LORNA SCOTT PORTER and ROBERT F PC' (0- ;
1. This is an appeal under Nantucket Zoning By -law Section
139 -31, from a decision of the Building Comrr:__sic___._ j a
Certificate of Occupancy for a completed dwelling, on the basis
of violation of Sections 139 -16.0 (side or rear yard setback) and
139 -26.J (compliance with permit). In the alternative, the
applicants request a variance from the requ_ —ments of Se^ +_inn
139 -16.C, or a special permit under Section 137 -33.ti to :,,odi y an
existing special permit issued by us on March 13, 1985, in Case
No. 013 -85, for alteration of a pre- exisLiny unconfc�...�_y
condition. The subject property (the "Locus ") is situated at 2
CENTER STREET ( also fronting upon Shell Street anq -4- S+- ,-nr,+ )
SIASCONSET (Assessor's Parcel 73.2.4 -2), Plan Book 22, Page 10,
and is zoned as RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC.
2. In our decision in Case No. 018 -85, we granted the
former owners of the Locus a special permit to construct a new
secondary dwelling, creating a nonconformity as to ground cover
ratio, upon a nonconforming, under.si_ zed lot of record. The basis
for the qrant of this special permit was :!e Ana_ .e
principal_ dwelling was nonconforming as to s e_acks. we found
that the proposed construction would not be su'^ ia„ ;ore
detrimental to the neighborhood. A plan was submitted to us
showing the location of the proposed new structure; it was referred
i:.o but not incorporated in our decision. Th_,� pian showeu
new structure with setback of five feet from each of Center
Street and Main Street, with zero setback from ,, ^1" Street. -In
Locus contains 3866 square feet, with the pre- existing principal
dwelling having ground cover of 1042 square feet. The secondary
dwelling has 560 square feet of ground cover, bringing total
ground cover on the lot to 1602 square feet, or 41.440. (A
covered porch, containing 1.44 square feet, %,,as inc _ _ _: d - = = -ie
ground cover computation in the decision in 018 -85; however,
pursuant to the amendment to the By -law defi ^_i -,i ^n of
cover ration" made by Article 81 of the May 29, 1988 Town Meeting,
it is no longer included in the computation.) Recr ,fired m- -;*num
ground cover in this Residential -Old Historic diS___._L
however, the maximum for an undersized lot is 30 %. Front yard
setback is zero; side and rear yard setback is five feet.
3. A principal portion of the difficulty in this case
arises from questions as to determination of required setbacks.
The Locus is a narrow strip of land, lying between Shell Street
and Center Street, with frontage of about 120 feet or each, an(3
Page 1 of 3
depth of 35.71 feet at its southwesterl-,. Mai n Street and
29.70 feet at the northeasterly end. At Lne time that the
application in Case No. 018 -85 came before us, it was the prevailing
interpretation by the Building Department that front yard setback
was to be measured from any one street upon which a lot fronted,
that street to be subject to election uy osr:_r.. L_ the
decision in 018 -85, we found that the applicants had elected to
have frontage on Shell Street, and there _ - c�: _' ,, - aintai n zero
setback from that street; side or rear yard setback of five feet
would, as a corollary, be required from ea-c'- of Main Street and
Center Street.
4. At the time of the decision in n„' -05, "build4
cap" under By -law Section 139 -27 was Ae�urdingly,
although the owners' building permit application was filed,
complete, on May 23, 1985, no building permit was issued until
June 3, 1986. During the interim, the owners of the Locus and.
their architect tell us that they considered alterna'ti, es
in the design of the proposed improvements, including several of
which they secured approval by the the Hi�-tor 4 _ ^;_strict -Imis, c� ^ -.
In our decision in 018 -85, we made reference to a neighbor's
concern with preservation of trees on the Lc ^us. TYe owners tell
us that their concern in siting the ..�3w _nu ±o 1 -
cutting these trees or damaging their root system. A design was
finally developed, in accordance with ,. the constr , '-ion was
done, which involved placing the builc,ir. _ Y -auty slam
foundation, sited so as to avoid damage to the trees.
5. When the building was being sited, in late fall of
1986, the then Building Commissioner had tal-on the position -t -.t
a lot's front yard setback was to be measured from every street
which adjoined such lot. While in most cases this was a more
restrictive interpretation, in zoning dist.L --.s witn zero front
yard setback, such as Residential -Old Historic, it would allow
building with zero setback from all _ '.ut'_ ,tr
told that the owners' engineer, aware of this interpretation (but
not aware of the legal implications of the siting contained in
the plans submitted in Case No. 018-8-"') , s'-_'„_"O ted reliance up(-,_
this interpretation so as to site the foundation without concern
with any setback from all of these abutting streets; furthermore,
that the owners' architect and engineer confirmed this by telephone
with the Building Commissioner before co*rncing con ^t cn.
E. In any event, the plot plan submitted to us in the
present case, a copy of which is attached as Exhiu_L` A hereto,
shows setback of 3.77 feet from Shell Street, and 4.54 feet from
Center Street, furthermore, the built.i.nc,
feet from Main Street , is now set back by some ib feet. The
present Building Commissioner has denied a Certificate of Occupancy
for the structure as so completed, c..
less than five feet from Center Street -s r. -- permitted (zero
setback, as front yard, being measured from Shell Street as per
the decision in 018 -85), and furthermore that construction does
not conform to the special permit upon which it relied. (It is
Page 2 of 3
to be noted that, as a result of the decision of the Land Court
in the DeGennaro case, the Building Dc -- -tT-r ~ '_,,e
By -law to require front yard setback to u� frog one, and
only one, street, to be determined by the Building Commissioner
based upon the facts in each in.stonce.)
7. Based upon these facts, we a.re to =___ er_ _n
the Building Commission's denial of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Likewise, as indicatedin our decision ii are una' - to
make the requisite findings to support a grant of variance relief.
Therefore, the owner's appeal and application for -•- rian -- ?re,
by unanimous vote of the Board, denied.
8. However, we find that the sitincr — -7one r.,
and their professional advisers was — not s usLantia�_
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre- existing,
nonconforming situation upon the Locus. In fact, we find that
the siting of the new dwelling is substantially less detrimental
to the neighborhood than construction co:: _ ing exactly to the
plans and decision in 018 -85 would have beer_. We find that the
preservation of trees upon the Locus ^ ificant because -1
the visibility of these trees in the cenLe- vi sc_i.sez Viilage.
This finding is buttressed by numerous letters from residents of
'Sconset in support of the applicat ___1 `c
appeared at our public hearing to express this support.
9. The conditions set forth in Nip 7 of our decision
in 018 -85, that (a) the Locus never be subdivided, and (b) the
secondary dwelling remain in the same ownership as the principal
dwelling and never be leased separately from the principal dwelling
shall continue to apply to the Locus anc3 as
conditions of the relief granted by the prey____ decision.
10. For reasons set forth here_.i, ti. ._..,ara grants a Sp`cial
Permit to the applicants, confirming the siting of the structures
upon the Locus in conformity to Exhi' ^;' 71 74 _-r
to the special permit granted in Case No. Oib -85, by a UNANIMOUS
vote.
Dated:1�. h , 1990
D vi J Legg
Page 3 of 3
ejw/109/DECPOR and DECPORl L
ARTHUR I. READS, JIt.
SARAII lr ALGER
KENNET:II A. OULLIGKSEN
SUSAN II. JONES
MARIANNE ILANLEY
BY HAND
I ?EADE & ALGEI3
PROFISSSIONAL CORPORATION
SIX YOUNG'S WAY
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02684
(508) 228 -3128
FAX: (5013):220-5G30
March 7, 1990
William R. Sherman, Chairman
Nantucket Board of Appeals
Six Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 023554
Dear Bill:
MAJ.ING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 2GG9
NANTUCKET, MASS. 02384
Re: Bruce Porter, Lorna Scott Porter
and Robert F. Porter
Shell Street, Siasconset
BOA Case No. 0/9-90
The above matter, which I propose to
9, constitutes an appeal from a decision
in the alternative, relief by variance or
also requested.
file on Friday,
of the Building
special permit
March
Commissioner;
is
The final day for filing this application for an appeal
is in fact March 9, the thirtieth (30th) day following the
February 7, 1990 action by the Building Commissioner.
Normally, the public hearing on this matter would be held
at the next Board meeting on March 30. However, we do not
wish to present this case at that meeting because it is of
extreme importance that the applicants' architect (Christopher
F. Holland) and engineer (John J. Shugrue) be present in order
to describe the unusual history of this project. Mr. Holland
will be away on a previously - planned family vacation and Mr.
Shugrue is scheduled to testify in Land Court on March 30.
Accordingly, we would like to request that you accept
PwIlthis.application for filing but that you schedule the initial
n9 for APri 1990.
y
We are awa e tht the time for the Board to act, pursuant
e 1937 amendments to Chapter 40A, § §9 and 15 is a l
� united
period which commences upon the date of filing. In no way
do we wish to constrict the time within which the Board must
act upon these applications. Pursuant to Chapter 40A, §15,
t
r
I FADE & ALGER
I'HOVE_SS ION AL CORPORATION
William R. Sherman, Chairman
March 7, 1990
Paoe Two
as so amended, the requested time limits for public hearing
and action may be extended by written agreement between the
applicant and the Board of Appeals. Section 15 establishes
the time within which the Board must make its decision as one
hundred (100) days after the date of filinq of the appeal,
application or petition, as to the variance request and the
appeal from the decision of the Buildinq Commissioner. Section
9 gives the special permit grantinq authority a period of ninety
(90) days following the date of the public hearing to make
its dec' -sion.
ZIn each instance, the Board is required to commence its
public hearing within 65 days following the date of filing;
1990 is well within this 65 day period from March
9.
Therefore, as attorney for the applicants, I hereby propose
that the required time limits for the action of the Board upon
Qie appeal and variance application be extended to and including
1990, which is the 90th day following Apri±---2-7-, 1990,
z, the sizcaciesEed date for the public hearing. Thereby, the periods
/Within which the Board may act upon the variance and the appeal
will be coterminous with the action period upon the special
permit. It is my hope, of course, that the matter will be
able to be disposed of much sooner than that, probably at the
At, i� 27 -- meetinq.
If the B d 111
// Y,
'J tl�
oar W agree with this approach, I would respectfully
suggest that it countersign this letter and file it with the
V/ Town Clerk, as the agreement contemplated under Chapter 40A,
§15, in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph, as amended
by Acts of 1987, Chapter 498.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this regard.
ySinc ely, I. Reade, Jr. /
AIR /ejw
, Z
f�
j�
� i
V�
mi
i �.
� 4
f
f N O T I C E
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1990, at 1 :00 P.M., in the Town and County Building,
Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket on the Application of BRUCE
PORTER, LORNA SCOTT PORTER and ROBERT F. PORTER (011-90), seeking
an appeal from the decision of the Building Commissioner denying
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a completed structure
on the basis of zoning non - conformity. In the alternative,
applicants seek Variance relief from Section 139 -16.C. to confirm
the siting of the structure as built, or a Special Permit (modifying
the Special Permit in Case No. 018 -85) for the alteration of the
pre - existing non - conforming use upon the premises, to conform
with the structure as built. The Premises are located at Shell
Street (also fronts on Center Street and Main Street), Siasconset,
Massachusetts, Assessor's Parcel 73.2.4 -002, (Plan Book 22, Page
110), and are zoned RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC.
William R. R. Sherman
BOARD OF APPEALS
ejw /103 /PORT2
ARTHUR I. READS, JI3.
SARAH F. ALGER
KENNETH A. GULLICKSEN
SUSAN H. JONES
MARIANNE HANLEY
BY HAND
I3EADE & AEGEI3
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SIX YOUNG'S WAY
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
4508) 228 -3128
FAX: (508) 228 -5630
March 7, 1990
William R. Sherman, Chairman
Nantucket Board of Appeals
Six Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 023554
Dear Bill:
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE HOX 2669
NANTUCKET, MASS. 02584
Re: Bruce Porter, Lorna Scott Porter
and Robert F. Porter
Shell Street, Siasconset
BOA Case No. 0%9 -90
The above matter, which I propose to
9, constitutes an appeal from a decision
in the alternative, relief by variance or
also requested.
file on Friday,
of the Building
special permit
March
Commissioner;
is
The final day for filing this application for an appeal
is in fact March 9, the thirtieth (30th) day following the
February 7, 1990 action by the Building Commissioner.
Normally, the public hearing on this matter would be held
at the next Board meeting on March 30. However, we do not
wish to present this case at that meeting because it is of
extreme importance that the applicants' architect (Christopher
F. Holland) and ena_,ineer (John J. Shugrue) be present in order
to describe the unusual history of this project. Mr. Holland
will be away on a previously - planned family vacation and Mr.
Shugrue is scheduled to testify in Land Court on March 30.
Accordingly, we would like to request that you accept
this application for filing bait that you schedule the initial
hearing for 1990 ei,`p"d
We are aware tht the time for the Board to act, pursuant
to the 1987 amendments to Chapter 40A, § §9 and 15, is a limited
period which commences upon the date of filing. In no way
do we wish to constrict the time within which the Board must
act upon these applications. Pursuant to Chapter 40A, §15,
1 .
TIEAl7E & ALGER
I'I(OFJV .SIONAL CORPORATION
William R. Sherman, Chairman
March 7, 1990
Page Two
as so amended, the requested time limits for public hearing
and action may be extended by written agreement between the
applicant and the Board of Appeals. Section 15 establishes
the time within which the Board must make its decision as one
hundred (100) days after the date of filinq of the appeal,
application or petition, as to the variance request and the
appeal from the decision of the Buildina Commissioner. Section
9 gives the special permit orantinc1 authority a period of ninety
g
(90) days followin the date of the public hearing to make
its decision. -
In each instance, the Board is required to commence its
public hearinq within 65 days following the date of filing;
0 *, 7�
1990 is well within this 65 day period from March
9.
Therefore, as attorney for the applicants, I hereby propose
that the required time limits for the action of the Board upon
the appeal and variance application be extended to and including 'L �1
1990, which is the 90th day following , 1990,m `T d�l`�&Il /
the suggested date for the public hearing. Thereby, the periods '!/
pqlllli within which the Board may act upon the variance and the appeal
will be coterminous with the action period upon the special
permit. It is my hope, of course, that the matter will be
able to be disposed of much sooner than that, probably at the
vz�Z49
If they xg, "'ill agree with this approach, I would respectfully
suggest that it countersign this letter and file it with the
Town Clerk, as the aareement contemplated under Chapter 40A,
§15, in the second. sentence of the fifth paragraph, as amended
by Acts of 1987, Chapter 498.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this regard.
ynn ely,
I. Reade,
AIR /ejw
7,7
/0�
O
elw /103 /PnRT
BoA Form 1 -89 NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN AND COUNTY BUILDING Date
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
CASE No .61g. j-2tL
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
Owner's name (s) : B uce Porter Lo
c o Reade & Alaer Professional Corporation, 6 Young's Way,
Mailing address:
Applicant's name: --
Mailing address: --
Location of lot: Assessor's map and parcel number73.24 -2
Shell Street (also fronts on Center Street and Main Street),
Street address: Siasconnet
Plan Bk & Pg ^" "' "" Pi 22 -110 Lot
Date lot acquired: 11231ja(�* Deed Ref 2jCj-i29 Zoning district ROH
*originally acquired by Porter family on September 29, 1966. MCD?
Uses on lot - commercial: None y or
-
- number of: dwellings 2 duplex— apartments— rental rooms
Building date(s): all pre - 8/72? No or
Building Permit appl'n. Nos. 4800 -86
Case Nos. all BoA applications, lawsuits: BOA Case No. 018 -85
C of O?
State fully all zoning relief sought and respective Code sections
and subsections, specifically what you propose compared to present
and what grounds you urge for BoA to make each finding per Section
139-32A X if Variance, 139 -30A X if a Special Permit (and 139 -33A
X if to alter or extend a noncon.orming use). If appeal per 139 -3 A
& B X , attach decision or order appealed. OK to attach addendum .
See attached Addendum
Items enclosed as part of this Application: orderl X addendum2 —_
Locus map x Site plan X showing present +planned structures
Floor plans present- proposed— elevations (HDC approved ?_)
Listings lot area frontage setbagks— GCR parking data
Assessor - certified addressee Mist 4 sets x mali.ng labels 2 sets
$200 fee payable to Town of Nantucket x proof 'cap' covenant
1(If an appeal, ask Town Clerk to send Bldg Comr's record to BoA.)
I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially
complete and true to the best of my knowledge, under the pains and
penalties of pe ur .
SIGNATURE: Applicant Attorney /agent X
3(If not owner or owner's attorney, enclose proof of authority)
FOR BoA OFFICE USE
Application copies recd: 4( zor_ for BoA on-1P--/r dby
One copy filed with Town Clerk on/_/�a by �2- complete? -
One copy each to Planning Bd and Building Dept dbY$200 fee check given Town Treasurer on_ /_/_, baived ? —o,�
Hearing notice posted3/ n'7" ed / Q I & M
Hearing(s) on _/__/_ cont'd to--/__J_, _/—/_ withdrawn ?__/__/_
Decision due by��_ made /_/_ filed TC_/_/_ mailed_/_
9&(A se' i�1� ted gases l �� lawsuits other
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION OF BRUCE PORTER, LORNA PORTER
and ROBERT F. PORTER
This is an appeal from the attached decision of the Building
Commissioner denying issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a
completed structure on the basis of zoning nonconformity. In the
alternative, the owners are applying for a Variance from Section
139 -16.C. to confirm the siting of the structure as built, or a
Special Permit (modifying the Special Permit in Case No. 018 -85)
for the alteration of the pre- existing non - conforming use upon
the premises, to conform with the structure as built.
The locus consists of a lot containing 3,866 square feet
which was, as of March 13, 1985, improved with a single - family
dwelling, pre- existing the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket Zoning
By -law, nonconforming as to side yard and rear yard setback of
five feet. Its ground cover of 1,042 square feet conformed to
the 30% maximum ground cover allowed for this undersized lot.
The owners applied to the Board of Appeals for a special permit
or variance from ground cover ratio limitations to permit
construction of a second dwelling, of about 600 square feet in
ground cover, to be located in the southwesterly portion of the
lot. The Board at that time also considered, and implicity
granted relief from, the 12 foot front -to -rear spacing requirement
under present Section 139- 7.A(2)(b) of the By -law.
The locus presents unique problems as to dimensional factors
under the zoning By -law. It abuts three paved public streets,
Shell Street, Main Street, and Center Street. Required front
yard setback in this Residential -Old Historic District is zero.
Only if the new dwelling were deemed to be the principal dwelling,
and to front upon Main Street, could the 12 -foot front -to -rear
spacing requirement be met; such a siting would have had an
adverse effect upon sight lines on this lot.
Pursuant to the existing practice at the time of the decision
in Case No. 018 -85, the Board in its decision effectively adopted
the election of the applicants to regard the locus as fronting
upon, and measuring front yard setback from, Shell Street, without
requirement for consideration of orientation and placement of
doors. Relief was granted., on a special permit basis, in general
terms to allow construction as applied for, which had the effect
of granting relief from ground cover limitations and from the
front to rear spacing requirement, and determining frontage to be
on Shell Street. No relief from setbacks was granted, thus
requiring setbacks of five feet from Center and Main Streets, as
rear and side yard respectively.
The decision in Case No. 018 -85 was issued on March 25, 1985
and recorded on May 23, 1985. A building permit application was
filed on May 23, 1985, and under the building cap provisions then
effective under Section 139 -27 of the By -law, May 23, 1986 was
established by the Building Department as the first available
date for issuance of a building permit.
During this waiting period, the applicants and their architect
continued to work with the Historic District Commission, and
modified plans were prepared and approved by the Historic District
Commission. A revised building permit application, reflecting
these changes was filed, and Building Permit No. 4800 -86, was
issued on May 20, 1986 by Carl F. Borchert as Building Commissioner.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Borchert resigned and was replaced
by Elbert L. Ulshoeffer. Shortly after taking office, Mr. Ulshoeffer
articulated the position that front yard setback in all cases
must be computed from every street or way on which a lot fronts.
Cognizant of this interpretation, the owners' architect and engineer
contacted the Building Department with regard to the peculiar
siting problems presented by this lot, and were informed by Mr.
Ulshoeffer that zero setback was permissible, as front yard from
each of the three streets adjoining the locus. In the interest
of preserving trees, adjustments to the siting were made, resulting
in the present location as shown upon the enclosed plot plan by
John J. Shugrue, dated February 1, 1990.
Assuming frontage to be on Shell Street, pursuant to the
election made in connection with 018 -85, and with the 1985 decision
having permitted the excess in ground cover and waived the
front -to -rear spacing requirement, the only nonconformity of the
structure as built is that its southeasterly wall extends to a
point 4.54 feet from Center Street, thus being 0.46 foot into the
required 5 foot setback.
Notwithstanding the subsequent decision by the Land Court in
the De Gennaro case, and the subsequent change in the interpretation
of the front yard setback by the Building Department, the owners
believe that the Building Department was in error in denying a
certificate of occupancy, and that zero front yard setback should
be allowed from Center Street as well as from Shell Street, on
the basis that under the peculiar circumstances of this case,
each constitutes "front yard" within the meaning of the by -law.
The locus, unlike the De Gennaro property, is in a zoning district
where front yard restrictions are less than side or rear yard.
As the Town has created this difficulty in interpretation, the
By -law should be interpreted in favor of the landowner, much as
the Land Court did in the converse situation presented in De
Gennaro.
As an alternative to this appeal, relief by variance or
special permit, depending upon the findings that the Board is
prepared to make, is also requested.
ejw /103 /PORT1
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN BUILDING ANNEX
2 EAST CHESTNUT STREET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Telephone 228 -6800 ext. 230
February 7, 1990
Mr. Gordon Porter
19 Polheyns Place
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11215
Dear Mr. Porter,
Your request for a Certificate of Occupancy for the single family
dwelling authorized by Building Permit #4800 -86 has been reviewed and
for the following reasons DENIED:
The "As- Built" plot plan provided shows the dwelling to be
constructed in violation Chapters 139 -26J and 139 -16C of the Code of
Nantucket.
Please be advised that you may appeal this decision of the Building
Commission to the Board of Appeals pursuant to 139- 29D(1)(b) of the Code
of Nantucket.
Very truly your n.
d-
Ronald J. antos
Building Commissioner
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
N O T I C E
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1990, at 1:00 P.M., in the Town and County Building,
Federal and Broad Streets, Nantucket on the Application of BRUCE
PORTER, LORNA SCOTT PORTER and ROBERT F. PORTER ( -90), seeking
an appeal from the decision of the Building Commissioner denying
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a completed structure
on the basis of zoning non - conformity. In the alternative,
applicants seek Variance relief from Section 139 -16.C. to confirm
the siting of the structure as built, or a Special Permit (modifying
the Special Permit in Case No. 018 -85) for the alteration of the
pre- existing non - conforming use upon the premises, to conform
with the structure as built. The Premises are located at Shell
Street (also fronts on Center Street and Main Street), Siasconset,
Massachusetts, Assessor's Parcel 73.2.4 -002, (Plan Book 22, Page
110), and are zoned RESIDENTIAL -OLD HISTORIC.
William R. Sherman
BOARD OF APPEALS
ejw /103 /PORT2