Westport News

The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby submits the following record of the Board’s proceeding and its’ decision on the application of the Tim Lyden, 38 Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA (applicant) and Amy & Tony O’Hara (owner), 426 Hix Bridge Road, Westport, MA for a Variance from Zoning By-Law Article 4.1.3 to continue to utilize grandfather rights for side setback and a 2nd story addition to existing dwelling’s footprint on property known as 426 Hix Bridge Road, Assessor’s Map-38, Lot-28.

RECORD OF PROCEEDING AND DECISION

Pursuant to a Notice of Public Hearing, which was duly published in the Shorelines on January 3, 2008 and January 10, 2008 and posted on the Town Hall Bulletin Board, and mailed to the Applicants, 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 Town of Westport Planning Board and Building Department and the Town of Dartmouth Planning Board and the City of Fall River Planning Board, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at the Westport Town Hall on the above application of a variance for property located on Assessor’s Map 38, Lot  28 and recorded with the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds in Book 4467, Pages 269-270.

January 16, 2007
Chairman Clayton Harrison called the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing to order at 8:00 P.M. Other members present were Gerald Coutinho, Kendal Tripp, Christopher Graham and Donna Lambert.

Mr. Lyden explained what his clients were proposing to do with the property.  The footprint would be smaller than the existing building, which was built around the 1760’s. The new building would be a green building with a second story.

Mr. Coutinho expressed concern that the non-conformance of the building may be expanded with the addition of a second story.  Mr. Coutinho also noted the large increase in living space.  Mr. Coutinho also mentioned the use of an existing shed as living space.

Mr. Coutinho stated he would like plans to be resubmitted showing dimensions.  Mr. Coutinho said the plans should show exactly as to what will be decided and these plans should be placed in the permanent file.

Mr. Graham stated the plans should be engineered plans.

Mr. Coutinho stated that he did not have an issue with the addition of a second floor.

Mr. Tripp noted that other homes in the area are not small in regards to visibility.

Ms. Lambert stated she had no issue with this project if they were replacing what is there currently but with the addition of the second floor, the grandfathering use may be being changed.

Motion made by Ms. Lambert to conduct an on-site visit to 426 Hix Bridge Road on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:00 A.M. Second by Mr. Coutinho.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to continue this hearing after the on-site visit to Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. and to continue the hearing with clear clarified plans showing what is existing, what was torn down and what will replace it; also, an engineer’s drawing of the property and a copy of the deed, submitted before the on-site visit.  Second by Mr. Graham.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Motion made by Ms. Lambert to close the hearing at 9:30 P.M.  Second by Mr. Coutinho.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

January 26, 2008
Chairman Clayton Harrison called the Zoning Board of Appeals on-site meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. Other members present were Christopher Graham, Gerald Coutinho and Donna Lambert.  Also present were Building Inspector Ralph Souza, Architect Charles Eastman, 177 Burgess Avenue, E. Providence, RI and abutter Nancy Rodrigues, 407 Hix Bridge Road.

A review of the property revealed a 12 ft. extension off the back of the building that is not grandfathered and would have to comply with current zoning.  A new foundation will be poured on the same footprint.

After some discussion, it was suggested the applicant request a withdrawal without prejudice and move away from the property line to be able to comply with current zoning.  It was agreed that the architect would submit a letter to that effect.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to adjourn the on-site at 9:30 A.M.  Second by Mr. Graham.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

January 30, 2008
Chairman Clayton Harrison called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.  Other members present were Donna Lambert, Christopher Graham, Gerald Coutinho and Kendal Tripp.

Mr. Tim Lyden was present and submitted a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a request to withdraw the petition without prejudice after the site review was conducted on Saturday, January 26, 2008.

Mr. Lyden stated the building will be moved away from the wall and will now meet current zoning bylaw requirements and no variance will be needed.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to allow the request for withdrawal without prejudice.  Second by Mr. Graham.  The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Motion made by Mr. Graham to adjourn the hearing at 7:05 P.M.  Second by Ms. Lambert.  
The Board voted unanimously in favor.

Adjournment.

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

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.