2018-03-22-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the lot without conscious control of the lot, doesn't destroy the grandfather status. The non-voluntary acquisition should allow the grandfather status. A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, asked Mr. Foote if his client could deny the devise in the will and have another family member take the title of the will (Technically, yes, but it's been 9 months since the death of Mrs. Tait so it is not possible). The Board Member Alternate, Mr. Cohen, stated that in the Berg case, it doesn't explain a distinction between involuntary or voluntary acquisition. Mr. Cohen asked if there is a driveway (Yes, there's a pre-existing easement on the lot. There's a third lot which is an easement). Mr. Cohen asked if the lot has been used occasionally as a driveway (yes). Mr. Foote stated there is a 14 ft lot. He is not using the lot, he's using the easement. If somebody were to buy this, they couldn't use it either. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked if all 3 lots have merged. Ms. Wood stated that the Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, stated that in his memo, but Mr. Foote disagrees. Mr. Foote stated that he is not giving up the easement or the 14 ft lot because they are combined to make a driveway. Mr. Clifford stated that according to the common law merger doctrine, you cannot own an easement across your own land. Once Mr. Tait acquired the land, the easement ceased to exist. An audience member, Mr. Ricardo Rullo of 48 Grant Street, asked if there has been discussion about what would be put there (yes, there was a building permit submitted). Mr. Ruller asked if they are asking for a variance (no, they are only making a determination as to the Zoning Administrator's decision). The Board voted to close the hearing at 8:32pm. Mr. Clifford stated he will vote to uphold the decision. The merger doctrine operates automatically and it doesn't matter what the intentions are. Even if they were grandfathered lots, the idea that the lot has grandfathered is an equitable concept. The Taits had common control of the parcels. He would be voting to uphold even if checkerboarding occurred. For the purposes of zoning, these lots are merged. On a motion by Jeanne K. Kreiger, and seconded by Edward D. McCarthy, the Board voted 0-5 to grant an ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.2.2.3 to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, dated December 18, 2017, in reference to 0 Grant Street (Map 48, Lot 121 B) (building permit for a new single family dwelling). A 4-1 vote was needed, and therefore the Zoning Administrator's decision was upheld.