Westport News

Dear Ms. Samson:

The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby submits the following record of the Board’s proceeding and its decision on the application of Sat Dav Khanna, 10 Keith Drive, Westport, Massachusetts and William S. Larrivee, 27 Monique Drive, Westport, Massachusetts for a variance from Zoning By-Law Article 7, subsection 7.5 to divide the real estate (Assessor’s Map 61, Lot 3V) into two (2) lots of approximate dimensions of fifty (50) feet width and two hundred (200) feet depth; and convey the newly created lots sharing the common boundary with Assessor’s Map 61, Lot 3U and with Assessor’s Map 61, Lot 3W.

RECORD OF PROCEEDING AND DECISION

Pursuant to a notice of public hearing, which was duly published in the Shorelines on March 23, 2006 and March 30, 3006 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 Westport and Dartmouth Planning Boards and the Fall River Planning Department, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at the Westport Town Hall on the above application for a variance as to property located at 10 Keith Drive, Westport, MA, as shown on Assessor’s Map 61, Lot 3V and recorded with the Bristol County (S.D.) Registry of Deeds in Book 1718, Page 622.

As grounds for the application, the Inspector of Buildings, John McNally, denied the Applicants due to Article 7, Section 7.0 (Intensity Regulations).

The hearing was opened by Chairman Clayton Harrison at 7:40 p.m. Other members present were Gerald Coutinho, Christopher Graham, Donna Lambert and Kendall Tripp.

Chairman Harrison read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Shorelines.

The petitioners and Attorney David M. Assad were not present.

Abutters present:    Edna A. Petruzziello, 32 Monique Drive, Westport, MA
            Kenneth L. Souza, 28 Monique Drive, Westport, MA

Mr. Coutinho questioned Ms. Charlene Wood why there were two different abutter’s lists.
Ms. Wood stated that one was received from Attorney Assad with the application and the other abutter’s list was from the Board of Assessors’ Office.  The Zoning Board of Appeals must use the abutter’s list from the Assessors’ Office.

Mr. Coutinho stated that Mr. Khanna owned two lots.  Mr. Khanna lives on the corner of Monique Drive and Keith Drive on one lot and the other lot he owns is on Keith Drive and the two lots abut.  The two applicants basically want to take this undersized lot, according to our current by-laws, divide the lot and deed half of it to Mr. Larrivee. Mr. Coutinho noted that they want to take a non-conforming lot and create one lot a little less non-conforming and the other lot a little more conforming. The applicant refers to hardship; however does not indicate any specific hardship in this situation. In order to grant a variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals must specifically find that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not see any hardship presented.

Mr. Coutinho then questioned Ms. Kathleen O’Donnell, Legal Counsel, whether it is possible for the applicant to provide a permanent, perpetual easement for the property without the actual transfer of deed.  Ms. O’Donnell stated yes, it could be done.  

Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Khanna’s lots being merged by law and splitting the lot would create one lot to be more conforming and the other more non-conforming.

Mr. McNally, Building Inspector, was present and stated that he denied the applicant because the Zoning By-law will not allow the split of the lot because it is under 60,000 sq. ft.  Mr. McNally stated that to the best of his knowledge, they were not looking to build anything.

Abutters were called upon for input.

Edna A. Petruzziello, 32 Monique Drive stated that her concern was mobile homes on the property that were occupied, especially during the summer months. It looked like a mini
campground and should Mr. Khanna get the extra property, the number of mobile homes may grow and all the neighbors have well water which may be affected.

Kenneth L. Souza, 28 Monique Drive stated that Mr. Larrivee is already using this property.  Mr. Souza’s property is directly across the street and his concern was should a well or a septic system be put in, this would affect him. He was opposed to the variance being granted.

Motion made by Mr. Coutinho to deny the variance request on the grounds of:
1. No hardship has been shown, owing to circumstances of the shape of the property or an existing structure.
2. No hardship has been shown in the material submitted.
3. There is a partial solution, if not a total solution, to what is being requested, through other legal means.
Second by Ms. Lambert.  All in favor of denial of the variance, unanimous vote by Kendal Tripp, Christopher Graham, Clayton Harrison, Donna Lambert and Gerald Coutinho.

Chairman Harrison advised that any aggrieved party has 20 days to appeal the Board’s decision after filing 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 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 so as to be received within such twenty (20) days in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17.