Laserfiche WebLink
r' <br /> t <br /> It should be noted that Mr. Saunders was a member of the Planning Board when the original <br /> subdivision plan was approved by the Board on April 15, 1970. As a matter of fact, in what <br /> appears to be a rather blatant conflict of interest, the copy of the subdivision plan on file in A <br /> the Planning Board files, listing Mr. Saunders as the property owner, was actually signed by <br /> Mr. Saunders himself as a Planning Board member along with three other Board members! B B <br /> That aside, it can be safely assumed that Mr. Saunders was well aware of the zoning by-law <br /> and the issue of expiring zoning freezes, but yet made no attempt back then or for 16 years C <br /> to sell or build on the lots. <br /> In 1989, both of the lots listed as Map 36, Blocks 47 E and F were included, along with Block <br /> � C <br /> 47, in the approved special permit site plan for a commercial self-storage warehouse project <br /> by Lockstore Realty Trust, James Kerrigan, Tr. That project was never built, but the C-2 <br /> commercial zoning of those lots was clearly recognized by the land owners, the same <br /> Lockstore Realty Trust, who now request approval to build single family residences on the <br /> very same lots they previously sought to build a self-storage facility on. <br /> For the record, it should be pointed out in addition to the legal prohibition on lot size <br /> variances and the history of how these lots came to be "checkerboarded", that they were <br /> bought for a mere $15,000 each and are currently assessed as unbuildable lots for $10,400 <br /> to $10,600 each, whereas the going price for building lots in the area is at least $60,000 to <br /> $100,000, more than the total assessed value of all 6 lots combined. How can any case <br /> possibly be made, even if it were possible to meet the other statutory findings for a variance, <br /> that there is a hardship to be found here? <br /> Knowing the circumstances under which these lots first came to be in separate ownership <br /> 16 years after they became non-conforming, knowing how little was paid for the lots and <br /> how little they are assessed for, and most importantly, knowing that the law says that the <br /> legally required findings to justify lot size variances can not ever be found, I trust that the <br /> ZBA will do the right thing and deny these variance requests. <br /> : I <br /> r <br /> 3 <br /> •Page 3 <br /> i <br /> i <br /> I <br />