11/27/1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals - Minutes - ?November 27 , 1991 3 . boat . He said children would be prevented from fishing in the area. Attorney Brian McDermott, representing Francis J . Reidy, an abutter, requested that a copy of the Decision be sent to him P . O . Box 547 in Falmouth . He reviewed the history of the lots created after 1960 when Mr. Reidy arranged for the engineering and legal services to combine lots B, C and D . He said Mr . Blythe had asked Mr . Reidy two years ago if he had any objections to improving the present pier and Mr. Reidy said he would like to see the proposed plans . Mr. McDermott said Mr. Reidy was not shown plans in .advance and learned of them from a Conservation Commission notice . He said the Blythe pier would be denying Mr . Reidy his use of the cover and use over the water as well as his view. Mr . McDermott said the applicant has to provide the burden of proof for granting of a permit and he suggested three reasons he felt permit should not be granted : he said plot plan submitted was not complete, side line set backs were not shown, suggested pier would prohibit travel by water and said pier could not be considered an accessory use . He presented the Board with the D. E. P . Waterways Regulations on access to littoral or riparian property . Myles McHugh, a neighbor, said he would be looking directly at 'the pier . Attorney Henchy explained that there is an existing structure between 2 pilings and said that the claim of an abutter that this structure would impact their access to their mooring did not make sense . He said access to moorings had not been a problem in the past and he did not believe that a 5 ' extension would make that much difference . He said if it was that important it could be shortened . Mr . Henchy said he had sent copies of the plans to Mr. McDermott and suggested discussion on compromises . He referred to an agreement signed in 1962 by Mr. Reidy and plans showing proportional distribution between property owners . Mr . Makunas asked if Mr. Henchy ' s argument was that the property line takes a turn at the high water mark and proceeds perpendicular to the shoreline down to the low water mark . Mr . Henchy said that this was his understanding . He stated that they had made every effort to comply with what the Conservation Commission, Shellfish Dept . and Harbormaster would like to see here and would be willing to talk with the neighbors . Mr . Makunas asked Mr . Henchy if he understood that the applicant would be walling to restrict the floating part of the pier to the same dimensions that exist now in the same location . Mr . Henchy replied that he felt Mr . Blythe would . He said he would have to check with the Shellfish Dept . since