09/24/1997 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

boundary locations. The Board, as then constituted, approved the Special Permit. Blythe did not exercise his rights under that Special Permit and it expired. 6 . On or about August 27, 1997, Blythe filed with the Board a new petition again seeking permission for a Special Permit to construct a pier, ramp, and float. Attached to the new petition, and to be used in deciding on the merits of the petition, was the same site plan submitted with the petition in 1992 and not updated to current conditions . 7. On September 24, 1997, the Board conducted a public hearing on Blythe ' s petition. At the hearing, Blythe made no verbal presentation but relied exclusively on the plan submitted to support his position. Blythe was not questioned by the Board. 8. During the course of the hearing, Siegfried, through an expert witness, presented evidence to the Board that Blythe' s five year old plan had not been updated and that, due to changes brought about by tides, erosion, and other natural conditions , the plan no longer accurately represented conditions at the site. The expert witness informed the Board that Blythe ' s plan inaccurately depicted the state of environmental conditions, the location of vegetation including salt marsh, the locations of boundaries and tidal water marks , the depth of the water involved, and the location of moorings. The expert explained to the Board that any decision with specific findings based on the Blythe plan would not address current conditions . 9 . In addition, Siegfried, through counsel, raised to the Board the issue of his riparian rights and how the granting of the Special Permit for construction of a dock interfered with his ability, and the ability of adjacent homeowners, to exercise their riparian rights . The Board refused to consider this issue. 10. The Board granted the Special Permit, as set forth in a decision dated October 6 , 1997, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. 11 . Siegfried is aggrieved by the decision of the Board in that the structure would interfere with the exercise of his riparian rights, would adversely impact on the value of his property, and significantly interfere with the use and enjoyment of his land and access to Poponesset Creek. 12. The decision of the Board is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 174-24 (C) ( 3 ) , requiring any application for a Special Permit to be accompanied by a site plan that accurately details, inter alfa, existing wetlands, water courses, and significant slope or other natural features .