~Abutters suing John Baldwin and Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Deborah Frangesh and Neal Frangesh, abutters to Lot 1 of Zero North Street, filed a complaint against John Baldwin, Pamela Ness Crowley, Andrea Huber, Susan Curtis as Trustee of the Zero North Street Nominee Trust and the Members of the Town of Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals in Massachusetts Land Court on March 28, 2017.
The plaintiffs request that the Court:
Annul the part of the Decision that upholds the building permit on Lot 1;
Rescind, revoke and invalidate the building permit for Lot 1;
Award Plaintiff's costs, expenses and fees in this action; and
Grant the plaintiffs such other relief as it deems just and proper.
Summary of Count I - Zoning Appeal:
When building permits were issued on November 3, 2016, Lot 1 did not exist because the First ANR (Approval Not Required) Plan was not recorded at the Registry of Deeds. When the Second ANR Plan was endorsed on March 22, 2017, Defendant Baldwin admitted that the First ANR Plan had never been recorded and conceded that the recording of the Second ANR Plan would create Lot 1. The November 21st deed from from Defendants Crowley and Huber to Defendant Curtis, which post dated the November 3rd building permit, did not reference the First ANR Plan or Lot 1.
Because Lot 1 for which the building permit was issued did not exist (and still does not as of March 28, 2017), the building permit was invalid and the Decision upholding it should be annulled.
The upland for Lot 1 is less than 40,000 square feet as required by the Duxbury Bylaw. Under the Bylaw, at least 40,000 square feet of upland is required for a buildable lot in the Residential Compatiblity district, and that upland "Lot Area" excludes land in the WPOD. The WPOD line depicted on the ANR plans is not in the correct location according to the Bylaw and Duxbury's official zoning map. The true WPOD boundary transects Lot 1, reducing the upland to less than 40,000 square feet.
Because Lot 1 did not contain adequate upland for a buildlable lot, the building permit was invalid and the Decision upholding it should be annulled.
According to Duxbury Bylaw, six building permits applied for on a contiguous parcel held in single ownership required a special permit from the Planning Board. That provision applies regardless of any division or subdivision of land. The six building permits were issued to the same owner/applicant, at the same time, based on the same site plan. None of those building permits should have been issued without a special permit from the Planning Board.
Because no special permit was sought or granted, the building permit for Lot 1 was invalid and the Decision upholding it should be annulled.
