Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

110 Page 2 -- July i0, 2002 Yar/ance -- H/king club properzy straddles two towns Neighbor disputes special permit so rebuild and enlarge hila'ng lodge iVL{SSACHUSETTS (6/5/02) -- The Appalachian Mountain Club (Aav£C) acquired' an. I 1-acre lot, which included three separate parcels, bisected by the boundary between the towns of Holden and Pmxton. A building on the Holden section of the property was used as a club .lOdge for 50 years until a lire dam- ~ed the building in 1993.' Parr of ~e property in Paxton was used for a parking area for. persons using the lodge. Kosla built his house on property adjoining the ,~MC lot in 1986, located about 400 feet from the lodge. The surrounding area was wooded, ru- ral, mad private. 'AMC sought to rebuild the lodge and requested a var/mace with the town of HOlden for five paved handicapped parking spaces near the buflding's entrance and 21 unpaved spaces. The planned lot was st.ighdy larger than the previous parking area. The variance application f4r the parking 'lot located in Pmxton was fried with the town of Holden, on the assumption paving Was required by the town of Holden's bylaws as a condition for special use permits. AMC assumed the board could grant the variance, even though the land was technically located in Paxton. AMC also filed a special perrrfit application seeking to change the footprint of the or'iginat lodge and some attributes of the ori~inal building, but resulting in essentially the same square footage. The Hotden board granted the parking area variance and the Special permit to expand and rebuild the lodge. Kosla appealed, and the court affirmed the board's decisions. Kosla appealed again. DECISION: Re'~ersed in part. The var/mace was improperly ~anted. but the special perm/ts were prop- erly granted. The paving requirement of the Holden bylaw could not apply t° the park- Lng area located in Paxton, s° the variance was improperly granted. The board lacked the authority to enforce the bylaw or grant relief from the bylaw on Paxton property. The judgment afl, ming the grant of the varianCe was reversed. The Holden bylaw for spec/al permits provided, no nonconform/ng use could be extended, altered, or changed unless specifically allowed by law' or by the grant of a special permit. The record showed the board evaluated the, proposed new lodge, its intended use, and the adequacy of parking space. The board granted the special permit after finding the new building would n°t be substan- tially more demmental to the area. The fact its decision was partially based on its evaluation of the parking area was insufficient reason to find the gent of special penmit improper. Cirariom' Eosia v. Board of Appea. is off-fo&fen, Appeaf.~' COurt of' Massachusetts, No. 00-?-34] (2002). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I