My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/22/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
04/22/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2021 5:00:59 PM
Creation date
11/1/2021 1:20:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/22/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
that Plaintiffs had constructed a lean-to on the Buffer without an easement to use the Buffer <br /> for any purpose. Lawton sought a declaratory judgment of his right to remove the lean-to <br /> from the Buffer and Plaintiffs' prohibition from using the Buffer without him granting them a <br /> valid easement or license. The counterclaim was never adjudicated on the merits because it <br /> was not fully pursued and was dismissed. <br /> 24. Plaintiffs continuously and exclusively used the Buffer in an open, notorious, and hostile <br /> manner for more than twenty years. The Plaintiffs believed that the Buffer was their property <br /> until Robert Lawton first raised the claim of trespass in the above-referenced case. <br /> STATEMENT OF CLAIMS <br /> COUNT I: APPEAL OF THE DECISION <br /> 25. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 6-18, supra, the Decision is legally untenable, arbitrary, <br /> and capricious, and constitutes an exceedance of the powers of the special permit granting <br /> authority. See Shirley Wayside Ltd. P'ship v. Bs. of Appeals, 461 Mass. 469,475 (2012). <br /> 26. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 6-18, supra, the evidence before the Board does not <br /> support the determination that the proposed use or development will not have a significant <br /> adverse impact on neighboring properties and will not cause excessive levels of noise. See <br /> id. <br /> COUNT II: ADVERSE POSSESSION <br /> 27. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 19-24, supra, the Plaintiffs acquired title to the Buffer by <br /> adverse possession because they have made exclusive use of the Buffer in an open, notorious, <br /> and hostile manner for more than twenty years. See M.G.L. c. 260 §§ 21-22;Kendall v. <br /> Selvaggio,413 Mass. 619, 621-22 (1992). <br /> 28. Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to a declaratory judgment that they hold title to the Buffer <br /> and are within their legal rights to remove the chain-link fence, and that Defendants Steven <br /> Hynds and 11 Industrial Drive, LLC must immediately cease trespassing on Plaintiff's land <br /> by, among other things, cutting vegetation, regrading soil, and placing gravel. <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.