08/10/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

will be less than 50 feet from the boundaries. Even if Mr. Cook was eligible for consideration under this provision, he would require a Special Permit. This segues to my clients' next contention. Section 174-24(J) of the Bylaw provides that "[w]here a use is not specifically listed in Section 174-25 Table of Use Regulations, said use may be allowed if a finding is made by the Zoning Board of Appeals that said use may be allowed in a specific district on the basis that it is substantially similar in its construction, operation, traffic and environmental impact to a specific use allowed as of right or by special permit in said district and it is substantially dissimilar from any uses prohibited in the district." Aquaculture is substantially dissimilar from agriculture. Consequently, Mr. Cook is not eligible to seek relief under Section 174-24(J). Furthermore, even if the activity was substantially similar to a permitted activity, Mr. Cook's proposal does not have the area requirements (i.e., 5 acres), or meet the setback requirements (i.e., 150 feet and/or 50 feet). Even if Mr. Cook's proposal is eligible for consideration under Section 174-24(J), he cannot proceed with his proposal as a matter or right. He would be required to seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. B. The Proposed Aquaculture Grant Is Prohibited By Section 174-62 Of The Zoning Bylaw Which Forbids Development In V Zones Below The High Water Mark. Article XI, Section 174-62 of the Zoning Bylaw prohibits development of land in V Zones below the reach of mean high tide. In pertinent part, Section 174-62 provides: No land within areas designed (sic) as V (velocity) Zones on the Flood Insurance Administration Flood Rate Maps shall be developed unless such development is demonstrated by the application to be located landward of the reach of the mean high tide. Notwithstanding the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Uniform Building Code, all new construction and s