Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

30 Page 6 -- November 25, 2002 Z~B. frontage requirement and a special permit to construct more than one building. The neighbors appealed, claiming the easement was overburdened. Here, they contended "after-acquired property-.., may not be added to the dominant . estate without the express consent of the owner of the servient estate (and) absent such consent, the use of an easement to benefit property located beyond the dominant estate constitutes an overburdening of the easement." The lower court affirmed the decision, and the neighbors appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly granted the variance; and the special permit was unnecessary. The unique shape of the lot was not like the shape of others in the area, and, without a variance from the bylaw's frontage requirement, the lot would not be buildable. Thus,.a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or the bylaw would involve substantial hardship. The court also examined the prospective activities of the-facility and con- cluded the easement wasnot overloaded. Additionally, the proposed use of the land was agx/cultural and did not require a special permit. Citation: Bareman v. Board of Appea'ls of Georgetown, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. Of-P-31 (2002). see also: McLaughlin v. Selectmen of Amherst, 664 N.£.2d 786 (1996). see also: Boorstein v. Massachusetts Por~ Authority, 345 N.E. 2d 668 (1976). Condominiums -- Condo association seekS removal of seasonal use restriction Town denies request NEW YORK (10/17/02) -- A condominium association represented 11 units constructed for seasonal use i.n the Lake George area. On July 20, 2000, the association sent a letter to the planning board, asking the seasonal-use restric- tion on condominiums be removed and the owners be allowed to make changes and alterations to their units. After a public hearing, the board denied the petitioner's request on the dual Founds that the parcel did not meet the town's requirements for density and there had been no upgrades to the existing septic and water systems. The board pointed to the Shoreland Overlay District, which required one acre of'land per residence, The association answered that their condominium units' status was a preexisting nonconforming use. The association appealed, to the lower court, which affirmed'the board'S' decision, finding there was sufficient evidence-to support, the decision. The association appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The decision was. reversed because there was no rational basis for denying the request The court noted the board's'decision had to be upheld unless it was found