Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nantucket ZBA approves vertical addition at 43 Union Street with tree‑protection and construction conditions
Summary
The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on May 8 approved a special permit to add a vertical extension and dormers at 43 Union Street, 4–1, attaching conditions meant to protect an adjacent town elm and limit on‑site storage, summer construction, and other impacts.
The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on May 8 approved a special‑permit application by Whitney H. Matthews to add a vertical extension with dormers at 43 Union Street, over the objection of some abutters concerned about a town‑owned elm and neighborhood impacts. The board voted 4–1 to approve the alteration of a preexisting nonconforming structure, attaching multiple conditions intended to protect the adjacent town tree and limit construction impacts.
The applicant’s attorney, Arthur Reed, told the board the request was limited to a vertical addition “within the existing footprint” with “no change to the foundation, without any excavation being required,” and that materials would not be stored outdoors. Reed said the project has an approved Historic District Commission certificate of appropriateness and sought a zoning special permit to allow the vertical work inside the existing footprint.
The discussion focused on two recurring issues: whether the board should require an updated survey/proposed‑conditions plan (the board requested one showing building dimensions and the proposed location of relocated stairs) and whether the board could or should attach enforceable conditions related to the adjacent town‑owned elm. Town Tree Warden David Shampoo told the board that while there are fines under the town tree rules, “there is fines, but it’s minuscule” and that enforcement tools for damage to town trees are limited. Abutters warned of potential root damage and debris and urged strict controls.
Reed and the applicant agreed to several mitigation measures during the hearing. The board’s draft findings and the conditions read into the record require, among other items, a surveyed proposed‑conditions site plan that shows the building dimensions and, where applicable, the relocated stairs; conformance with the HDC‑approved plans; restrictions on exterior construction during the summer season; no outdoor storage of materials or dumpsters/roll‑offs on the site; a construction contact phone number provided to staff and abutters; installation of construction fencing along the lot line and around the town tree; and an agreement that the contractor will consult with the town arborist/tree warden and the Tree Advisory Committee about construction methodology to protect the tree.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that the zoning board’s authority is limited — the building department, the DPW and the HDC each have separate responsibilities — but said attaching conditions and obtaining the applicant’s written commitments were the best available way to manage risk. The board noted that the property’s nonconforming setbacks (northerly setback about 2.11 feet and southerly about 1.51 feet in the ROH district) and small lot area (approximately 1,708 square feet) are legally protected nonconformities under the zoning bylaw, and framed its decision under the standard that the alteration must not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
The public record included several abutter statements asking for either denial or strict conditions. Resident Elizabeth Coffin told the board the proposal “is a substantial damaging enhancement of the current structure” and said it would change light and air for nearby properties. Herschel Allerhand and other neighbors said construction logistics on the tight site make daily removal of debris challenging and asked the board to ensure a local contact and strict limits on on‑site storage and equipment.
Formal action: the ZBA approved the requested relief with conditions by roll call vote 4–1 (John Brescher: yes; Alisa/Alissa: yes; Lisa: yes; Joe: no; Chair: yes). The approval was conditioned on the list read into the record and noted that the HDC certificate of appropriateness remains controlling for historic‑district design matters. The board directed staff to draft a formal decision incorporating the conditions discussed and to attach the applicant‑provided survey/proposed‑conditions plan when submitted.
The decision closes the public hearing on this application; the board said it will monitor implementation through the building permit and will expect coordination with the tree warden and other town departments if construction proceeds.
