Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA denies request to increase ground cover for Tom Nevers garage after extended deliberation
Summary
The Zoning Board denied a request by Michael and Susan Stone to modify a prior variance to allow roughly 384 sq ft of additional ground cover for a garage at 6 Marcus Way (Tom Nevers). The board cited the property’s complex legal history, prior variance conditions and the multiple prior adjustments to allowable ground cover.
The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on May 8 denied a request by Michael and Susan Stone to increase allowable ground cover on a Tom Nevers lot to permit a 384‑square‑foot garage. The board’s deliberations focused on the unusual subdivision history of the original Lot 963 (now portions A and B and a portion of Coffin Road), prior variances and the way earlier approvals allocated ground cover between the two resulting parcels.
Attorney Arthur Reed explained the application: the owners sought a modest increase in the permitted ground cover (from the 1,816 square feet currently allowed for the parcel to 1,985 square feet) to accommodate a single‑car garage sized to store a larger family vehicle and some household items. Mr. Stone told the board he wanted indoor, protected vehicle storage and winter storage for furniture and grills.
Board members reviewed earlier decisions that created the current ground‑cover allocations. The 2017 decision that validated the split of Lot 963 and the earlier building permits on the parcels effectively allocated portions of the three‑percent allowance to each portion; one member summarized the 2017 analysis that led to the 1,816‑square‑foot figure for the smaller portion after accounting for the larger portion’s existing development.
Several board members expressed reluctance to grant additional variance relief after the property’s multiple prior adjustments and transfers of ownership. One board member described the situation as “multiple bites of the apple” — a reference to the serial changes made to the original lot and its allocations. Another member said the board should avoid another incremental variance that could be replicated elsewhere.
The board voted on a motion to approve with a condition that the applicant relinquish the automatic right to build a separate 200‑square‑foot “zoning shed”; that motion failed. A subsequent procedural motion and roll call resulted in the application being denied. No abutter letters were on file and no public opposition appeared during the hearing.
Outcome: application denied (final motion to approve failed and chair declared request denied after deliberation).
