1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hanrahan - We have a situation where we have a claim of a hardship • probably not through the fault of the land owner and certainly not through the fault of the abutter who is objecting to it. The abutter should not be penalized because he hasn't built yet. The chair recognized Mr. Leonard Penski, representing Mr. Parachi who owns Lot 8, abutting Mr. Bornsteins property. Mr. Penski stated "as far as we're concerned it was not Mr. Bornstein who measured or sighted the house, and maybe Mr. Houghton made an error of law, but the fact is there was a concrete bound on the street side at that time which has a line straight up that angles can be measured from. Mr. Houghton also had the benefit of this plan from the Registry of Deeds, showing lot 7, lot 8 and the line. 2) It was a five and a half foot error, not a little error - approximately 30X of the side line. 3) All the cases that talk about removal of the offending structure are sent back to Superior Court or to a board of your nature.to determine whether there's some other way that it could be legally used. Here we have a straight out violation. The problem is why should Mr. Bornstein and his family be harmed because Ted Houghton made a mistake. He didn't do it intentionally. Why should Mr. Bornstein be forced to remove the garage or change location of the garage because Mr. Houghton made a mistake. Why shouldn't Joe Parachi get the benefit of those 15 feet of land? When he bought the property he bargained that you folks would say 'you can't put a house at that level, and if you do want to put a house at that level, you've got to give me notice. And after the foundation is put in you have to have it surveyed to certify to the Building Inspector that it's right. Then if it's not right, we can't issue a certificate.' The last thing Mr. Parachi wants is for the Board to pull • the Certificate of Occupancy. All we want is for the Board to determine that a) there is a violation and b) that the Board deny the variance. We don't think there is a hardship other than financial. Mr. Sutter then restated what he had first said at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Hanrahan - I don't agree with your logic. Just because he (Mr. Parachi) hasn't cleared his lot, I don't think he should be penalized under the law or the rights available to him. It's not a question of who's here first. Richard Halpern - What's on that lot is irrelevent. Mr. Bornstein must prove a hardship in order for us to grant a variance. Mr. Sutter - As it stands right now, we're not encroaching on land that's being used. Mr. Hanrahan - But it's land that could be used. • Mr. Sutter - I think there's a hardship in terms of cost (to Mr. Bornstein).