Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

Page 2 October 1995 Z.B. Lots Landowner Wants to Make Four Lots Into Two Burke v. Zooming Board of Appeals of Harwich, 650 N.E. 2d 355 (Massachusetts) 1995 In 1929, four neighboring lots were laid out on an extension of a road in the town of Harwich, Mass. Each was less than 5,000 square feet; together, they were 15,691 square feet. In 1975, Toppi bought the four lots, getting one deed for ali. One lot (which was 4,275 square feet) had on it a single-family house and an accessory struc- ture. The town's zoning bylaw called for a !5,000-square-foot minimum lot size for that residential zoning district. However, it allowed single-family homes on lots that when first laid out -- complied with zoning, if they had 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet. The zoning bylaw and state law gave such lots "grandfather" status. After Toppi bought the property, the bylaw was amended twice to raise the minimum lot size in Toppi's district--first to 30,000 square feet and then to 40,000 square feet. Toppi wanted to combine the lot with the structures on it and another to make a new lot of 8,045 square feet. He also wanted to combine the two others to make a new lot of 7,646 square feet. Each new lot would be larger than the 5,000 square feet required to be grandfathered. Burke, a neighbor, challenged Toppi's plan. At first, the town's Zoning Board of Appeals decided against Burke, who then sued the board and Toppi. The board then superseded its earlier decision, finding that the lots Toppi wanted to create were not legal. The court affirmed the board's new decision, finding the board acted within its authority and properly found the proposed lots to be illegal. Toppi appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly affirmed the board's decision that the lot combi- nations Toppi proposed was illegal. However, Toppi could combine all four lots into one grandfathered nonconforming lot of 15,691' square feet. Of the adjoining property he owned, Toppi'could not create two or more lots that were each smaller than t~e current minimum lot size. Under Massa- chusetts case law, landowners could not create dimensional nonconformity if they could avoid or diminish it by using neighboring land they owned. If Toppi combined ail four lots, the lots cbuld be grandfathered as one undersized lot. Planni~g Board of Norwell v. Sere~a, 550 N.E. 2d 1390 (1990). Sturges v. Chihn. ark, 402 N.E.2d 1346 (1980). Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of &tdbury, 204 N.E. 2d 924 (]965). Storage-- Business Owner Appeals Conviction of Outdoor Storage Crime Vaughn v. City of Newport News, 458 S.E. 2d 591 (~rgi~ffa) 1995 Vaughn owned business property in a retail commercial zone of the city of Newport News, Va. He had many items stored outside on the property, includ- ing appliances and pieces of wood and pipe.