09/08/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes - September 6, 1993 2. • Attorney Jeremy Carter, representing an abutter A. Kroll, presented a petition from residents in the area opposed to the application. He said he agreed with the Town Planner's memo that the lots do not meet the current zoning of 40,000 St. He said the by-laws do not deal with grandfathering structures or uses and that the applicant should apply for a variance for lot size. He said the road is 12' paved of 25' width. He said the environmental issues were considerable. He said he would rely on the Planner's comments and said there was no hardship. He said he doubted if Conservation would approve it. Mr. Govoni asked for information on deeds. Mr. Clark said vacant land in 30 and 31 are in one deed from 1960 and pre -dated zoning. Mr. Makunas said they should determine if 30 and 31 is a stand-alone lot. Mr. Clark asked if the contiguous ownership applied to lots that have been improved but does not apply to contiguous lots one of which is improved and one of which is not improved. If so, he said this would fall within that interpretation. Mr. Makunas said if it can be determined that this is a stand-alone lot the lot reverts to earliest zoning and is buildable without a Special Permit. He said • that because there is a structure on the lot that changes the picture. Mr. Friel asked if they wanted two lots and Mr. Clark said they wanted one lot. Mr. Govoni questioned if it was adverse possession. Mr. Clark said the infringement on the lot line of the garage and driveway construction was a mistake. Mr. Friel commented that the residents must be satisfied with the road since it was recently repaved. Mr. Jones said the dock was on the property when it was purchased. Mr. Makunas questioned if the lot was "improved" since a dock and part of the garage were on the lot. Mr. Clark said they were willing to accept the Board's interpretation. Mr. Carter said the Board could not grant a permit on the expansion of a non -conforming structure because there were no plans for the changes. Mr. Makunas said if they wanted to expand a non -conforming structure the Board would require plans of the proposal. Mr. Carter said Mr. Clark cannot have a declaratory judgment from the Board. Mr. Makunas said petitioner should decide if they wanted to apply for an expansion of a non -conforming structure and, if so, should provide plans. Mr. Friel moved to continue the hearing until November 10. Mr. Makunas said there was sufficient difference in a petition to expand a non -conforming structure from the present petition. Mr. Govoni seconded. Mr. Makunas opposed.