in plan, interior arrangement or building features not subject to public view.” St. 1955, c. 601, § 8 (c). The quoted provision made it clear that the Nantucket historic districts commission was to review only features visible to the public in its h reted the term “structure” as defined in local by-laws. In Galligon we found that a billboard was not a “structure” pursuant to language which expressly defined both “structure” and “sign.” The zoning by-law at issue in Williams provided no definition of “structure,” and we 05, 208 (1967) (finding that combination of platform that extended at ground level out over a steep slope, a retaining wall, and door to a storage space under the platform was a “structure” under a zoning by-law); Nash v. Commonwealth, 174 Mass. 335, 336 (1899) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Wilbur v. Newton, 307 Mass. 191, 193-194
holding that an aqueduct entirely underground in places was a structure for purposes of the mechanics lien statute holding that this statute was the most analogous state statute for purposes of erisa action filed in utah holding that the corresponding structure is a controller holding a burglary must be of a building or structure in order to qualify as a violent felony for acca purposes holding that a leakage of an underground petroleum tank was excluded from coverage by a similar definition of pollutants