04/22/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

18. The Board's focus on and consideration of the placement of Plaintiffs' chicken coop tainted the Board's decision-making process. The existence and location of a chicken coop on the Plaintiffs' property is entirely irrelevant to the determination of whether to grant the Applicant a special permit for the Subject Property. Nonetheless, the suggestion that the Plaintiffs might have non-compliant structures on their property was wielded to undercut the significance of the Plaintiffs' concerns about the Applicant's plan (the Board asked staff to put up onto the screen during the hearing photos of the chicken coop, which was done and which was followed by a lengthy discussion of the status of this structure on the Plaintiff's property). THE FORMER 50 FT. BUFFER 19. The Plaintiffs have lived at 13 Nancy Lane since August 27, 1998, when they purchased the property. For as long as Plaintiffs can remember, there had been a brown wooden fence that had been erected by a prior owner of 89 Industrial Drive 50 ft. from the line between the Subject Property and Plaintiffs' property. 20. For more than twenty years—until Defendant Steven Hynds' erection of a chain-link fence at the property line in July of 2019—Plaintiffs made exclusive use of the 50 ft. of land up to the brown wooden fence ("the Buffer") and used it as their own. No one else used the Buffer. 21. Plaintiffs regularly accessed and used the Buffer. They maintained trees and vegetation on the Buffer, including removal of felled trees and planting of other trees, constructed a lean-to structure on the Buffer, built a chicken coop abutting the Buffer, and ran their chickens through the Buffer. 22. Plaintiffs never received permission from Defendants Hynds or 11 Industrial Drive, LLC, or their predecessors in interest. 23. Robert Lawton, a predecessor in interest, filed a counterclaim for trespass against Plaintiffs Johnathan Fish and Susan Fish on December 15, 2014 in Fish v. Town of Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals, C.A. No. 1472CV594 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Barnstable Cty.) The counterclaim alleged that Plaintiffs intentionally and without right removed trees and vegetation from the Buffer and regularly access and use the Buffer without permission. Furthermore, it alleged 6