01/20/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

3. W • Ms. Lane discussed separate lot exemption and read "any increase in area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements of the zoning by-law shall not apply for single and two-family residential use which at the time of recording...." and said these do not apply to an isolated lot. An isolated undeveloped lot may be developed under the zoning in effect when the lot was created. She said an owner can construct according to the old zoning. She said a Building Inspector had asked if once that building is constructed is it then a prior non -conforming structure? She said she believed it was conforming since it was conforming to an earlier by-laws and would not need a Special Permit and if the owner wanted to add on they would not need a Special Permit if the addition met the old zoning. Mr. Hauck said the zoning goes with the lot at the time of formation. Ms. Lane agreed if it is an isolated lot. Mr. Makunas asked for a definition of "isolated lot". Ms. Lane said that at the time it was created it had to comply with the bylaw, it cannot be held in common with any others and has to have had at least 5,000 sf and 50' of frontage. She said this applies to vacant land. Ms. Lane discussed the recent Goldhirsh case -- she said the footprint theory was not valid since the court said the Board had to look at all the factors. The court also said that • the determination of whether there is an increase in the non- conforming nature rests with the Board of Appeals and not the Building Inspector. She said it is possible the case will be appealed. Ms. Lane said there would be cases coming to the Building Inspector that would be so small one would not think they would have to go to the Board of Appeals but the courts have not worked this out. Mr. Hauck asked if everything would have to go before the Board and Ms. Lane confirmed they would. She said the courts have said that the Board of Appeals can allow additional non - conformities by the Section 6 finding as long as they are not substantially detrimental. Mr. Hauck asked if they needed a Variance and Ms. Lane replied that only if the Board so finds. If the Board wants to hold the line they can determine that it is more detrimental and require a Variance. Mr. Makunas asked if it was at the Board's discretion to grant a Special Permit under Section 6 and not get involved with a Variance. Ms. Lane said the Board could add conditions or request reduction in size of additions to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Hauck asked that under Paragraph 4 of 40A if that applied only to undeveloped lots. Ms. Lane replied that it did for new construction. • Mr. Hauck asked about contiguous lots -- "one lot.empty and one lot with a house.on it -- same owner -- is that