Westport News

The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby submits the following record of the Board’s proceeding and its’ decision on the application of Kathleen Harrison-Beauregard (applicant/owner), 127-I Pettey Lane for a Variance from Zoning By-Law  Section 9.9.2 to construct two forty (40’) feet high wind turbines on property located at 127-I Pettey Lane, Assessor’s Map-73, Lots-32 & 33.

RECORD OF PROCEEDING AND DECISION

Pursuant to a Notice of Public Hearing, which was duly published in the Shorelines on November 16, 2006 and November 23, 2006 and posted on the Town Hall Bulletin Board, and mailed to the Applicants, Attorney on Record, Abutters, Owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the Applicants, the Towns of Westport and Dartmouth Planning Boards, Town of Westport Building Department  and the City of Fall River Planning Department, a Public Hearing was held on Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at the Westport Town Hall on the above application for a variance as to property located on Assessor’s Map 73, Lots 32 & 33 and recorded with the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds in Book 5104, Page 242.

December 6, 2006
The hearing was opened at 9:48 P.M. with Chairman Harrison reading the Public Hearing Notice and Abutters List aloud.  Other members serving were Gerald Coutinho, Christopher Graham, Kendal Tripp and Glenn Mauk.  Also attending was Town Counsel Kathleen O’ Donnell.

Mr. Harrison stated that a letter dated November 17, 2006 was received from Attorney Beauregard, representing Kathleen Harrison-Beauregard requesting a continuance on this petition to either January or February, 2007.

Mr. McNally, Building Inspector stated that he denied this application because there are no by-laws that address wind towers.  Mr. McNally stated that he sent information regarding communications towers to the applicant regarding setbacks, which are simple.  Mr. McNally said that he based his decision to deny the application upon section 9.2.2 of the by-law.

Mr. Mauk stated that there are no regulations to deal with this application.

Ms. O’Donnell stated that the application should be withdrawn without prejudice because there is no information to speak on.  The Town is not even sure if the applicant has asked for the right relief.  Ms. O’Donnell felt that this application should not be morphed into the wireless telecommunications tower bylaw.

Motion made by Mr. Mauk to continue this hearing to February 7, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.  Second by Mr. Coutinho.  The Board Voted Unanimously in Favor.

February 7, 2007
Chairman Harrison called the continued hearing to order at 7:00 p.m.  Also serving on the petition were Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Tripp, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Graham and Mr. Mauk.

Mr. Harrison stated that a letter dated February 7, 2007 was faxed from Attorney Beauregard today requesting another continuance until either April or May, 2007.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to continue the hearing to May 30, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.  Second by Ms. Lambert.  The Board Voted Unanimously in Favor.

May 30, 2007
Chairman Harrison called the continued hearing to order at 7:00 p.m.   Also serving on the petition were Mr. Coutinho, Mr. Tripp, Mr. Graham, Ms. Hanley and Mr. Mauk.

Mr. Harrison stated that a letter dated May 29, 2007 was received from Attorney Beauregard requesting a cancellation of this hearing with no further hearings to be scheduled.

Mr. Coutinho stated that technically, Attorney Beauregard was representing Ms. Kathleen Harrison-Beauregard, so the letter is admissible.

Motion made by Mr. Graham to deny the petition of Kathleen Harrison-Beauregard for a variance at 127-I Pettey Lane for the construction of two 40’ wind turbines, due to the applicant’s letter of request.  Second by Mr. Tripp.  The Board Voted Unanimously in Favor.

The hearing is closed at 7:10 p.m.

Chairman Harrison advised that any aggrieved party has twenty (20) days to appeal the Board’s decision once it is filed with the Town Clerk.

The Board noted that any and all other relief not specifically granted is hereby denied because it was not pursued during the public hearing and, therefore, the burden of proof was not satisfied.

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals may appeal to the Superior Court Department in which the land concerned is situated or to the Land Court Department or to the division of the District Court Department within whose jurisdiction the land is situated by bringing an action within twenty (20) days after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk.  Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint shall be given to such Town Clerk as to be received within such twenty (20) days in accordance with M.G.L.  Chapter 40A, Section 17.

Upon expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of this decision, without an appeal filed for the dismissal or denial of an unsuccessful appeal, it shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners to obtain the signature of the Town Clerk to the certification and to record
this decision and the certification of the Town Clerk in the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds.

If the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of granting such a variance, they shall lapse and may be re-established only after notice and a new hearing pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 10.

UNDER MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS, THIS DECISION AND NOTICE OF FINDING SHALL HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT UNTIL IT IS RECORDED IN SAID REGISTRY OF DEEDS.