Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant withdraws 63 Brockton Ave appeal after long legal exchange; board discusses new variance standard
Summary
An appeal seeking a determination that 63 Brockton Ave is a buildable lot was withdrawn after extended legal argument over lot merger and historical conveyances; town counsel said the lots likely merged in 1962, while the applicant argued long‑standing separate treatment. Board members and town counsel also discussed the July 1 change to the state variance standard and urged applicants to update legal analyses.
Represented by attorney John Danahee, the trustee of 63 Brockton Ave (Lot 225) asked the board to overturn the building commissioner’s determination and declare the 5,000‑sq‑ft lot buildable despite current zoning that requires 10,000 sq ft.
Danahee reviewed historical plans, assessor records and sewer permits to argue the lot was treated separately for tax and utility purposes and that an exception in the town’s bylaws historically allowed smaller recorded lots to be buildable. “Our position is saying this is still buildable a lot,” Danahee told the board, summarizing the submission of early 20th‑century plans, deeds and assessor records.
Town counsel Brian disagreed, saying that at the critical date when the bylaw changed (circa 1962) the lots were in common ownership and therefore merged under the applicable merger doctrine. “In my opinion, these lots did merge back then,” Brian said, and he told the board his analysis supported the building commissioner’s determination. Board members asked staff to accept additional documentation if the applicant pursued a variance or a renewed appeal, and several members urged the applicant to consider the newly revised variance standard that took effect July 1.
After extended argument and public comment from neighbors, the applicant asked to withdraw the appeal; the board accepted the withdrawal. The board and town counsel encouraged the applicant to consult the new variance standard and, if appropriate, return with an updated legal submission or a variance request under current law.
