1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In my opinion, and for those reasons stated hereafter, I do not • believe that Mr. McCarthy requires variance relief: 1. Mr. McCarthy's lot is a non -conforming lot given existing zoning requirements; 2. Under local zoning and under state law, non -conforming lots are granted certain protection from changes in Zoning By -Laws. 3. Mr. McCarthy's lot existed long before the creation of the wetland setback requirement set out in Section 7.7. 4. Mr. McCarthy acquired his lot in January 1985. 5. When he acquired the lot it was held in ownership separate from all abuting lots and continues to be so held. 6. I believe the new Setback By -Law (7.7) was adopted in late 1985. Richard Halpern - We have four cases that are basically identical to this. Here's Town Counsel's opinion on the By -Law. Mr. Hanrahan - My suggestion is that we develop a form letter around those points to send to the applicants. 1 , Richard Halpern - We should probably make it in the form of a Determina- tion - that no variance is required for the following reasons and then list those reasons.• Mr. Hanrahan - We can develop them tonight if you want, based on points made in Mr. Kirrane's letter and Joe Reardon's determination. •The letter was then dictated, to be as follows: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION The Board of Appeals has received your application for a variance under 7.7 of the By -Laws. We have reviewed the application and determined that a variance is not required for the following reasons: 1. The subject lot is a non -conforming lot given existing zoning requirements; 2. Under local zoning and under state law, non -conforming lots are granted certain protection from changes in Zoning By -Laws; • 3. The subject lot existed prior to the creation of the wetland setback requirement established in Section 7.7 in 1985.