Appeals court reviews Nantucket setback dispute over whether addition created a new nonconformity
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The court heard competing arguments about whether a new house and attached garage created a new nonconformity requiring a variance, or whether a special permit was sufficient; the panel emphasized deference to the local ZBA's factual findings on nonuse and neighborhood impact.
The appeals panel heard an appeal of a land‑court judgment about a Nantucket property where a recently constructed house and an attached, expanded garage drew a neighbor challenge.
Kathleen Hyer, representing Madeline Guy, argued the project created a new nonconformity that required a variance under the local bylaw because the structure now intrudes into a side‑yard setback and included a window well the land court improperly excluded. She said the prior dwelling had been unused for more than three years and that the judge improperly weighed outdoor maintenance over interior habitability in finding continued use.
Andrea Perriners Sweet, representing Michael Metz (the property owner) and the Zoning Board of Appeals, said the board reasonably concluded the changes fell within a special‑permit pathway: the original garage footprint remained the relevant nonconforming baseline, the addition did not increase nonconformity beyond the preexisting 7.8‑foot side distance, and the judge’s findings about nonuse were not clearly erroneous. Sweet emphasized deference to the ZBA’s factual conclusions about local impacts.
The panel explored remedy questions (e.g., whether an appellate ruling would lead to tear‑down orders) and weighed competing factual inferences about marketing, maintenance, and the historic‑district process. The matter was taken under advisement.