1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes July 12, 1989 Page 4. • Mr. Schindler explained that they came before the Board of Appeals in December and presented the plans and requested a variance. They received a letter in January stating it was approved. Attorney Winn Davis(attorney from the Town of Falmouth) representing Mr. Schindler. Mr. Davis presented the Board with a memorandum from a case in the past. He explaind that what we are here for tonight is for the appeal of the Building Inspector decision. He has three reasons to oppose the appeal. 1) There is a serious procedural flaw in the appeal itself. They did not specify any ground in the letter taking notice of the appeal. He referred to the Rockport case. 2) Whether or not the Board.of Appeals has the right to do it. They certainly have the right under the 5.1 which is the equivalent of Chapter 40A Section 6 previous to non conforming structures and uses to allow alterations, extensions, attachment change etc. of non -conforming structure. This has been done. The plan that had been presented states very clearly that the lot coverage in the zone was 20%, the proposed lot coverage when • completed would be approx. 24%. There is 3,000 squae feet of building, 12,300 square feet of land. 3) The appeal period, has expired. The Board of Appeals did what the law requires them what to do. They sent notices to abutters. They complied with the statLte• Mr. Davis urged the Board to focus strictly on the appeal and he thinks because of the procedural flaw he would ask the Board to uphold the building inspection. Mr. Hanrahan questioned the legal point, why it would be fatal to an appeal. Mr. Davis stated section 15 Chapter 40A states that an appeal must be taken within 20 days from the decision specifying the grounds there of. This language has been interpreted by the Mass Appeals Court in the case he presented as being a mandatory as opposed to a directory. They are not saying you should specify, they are saying you must specify and if you do not the Board of Appeals does not have the jurisdiction to grant any relief. K. Kirrane explained that he would only indicate that he believes there is sufficient specifivation in his letter related to the lot coverage issue that was directed to the Building Inspector, a copy of his letter to the Board of Appeals was • attached, that specifically outlined the appropriate complaint. Mrs.Quinn stated that in essence she thinks the Board realizes that they have a very legitimate problem. The major problem is that in the process they have lost a great deal of money. This structure is 5 feet away from their property.