Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parcel Status topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Halifax ZBA delays decision on disputed 0 Cedar Lane lot, requests title and abatement records
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals postponed action on a request to treat a small parcel at 0 Cedar Lane as buildable after members, the applicant and neighbors raised conflicting accounts of a longstanding wetlands tax abatement and past subdivision. The board asked staff to verify deeds, assessor records and abatement history and will revisit the item next month.
The Halifax Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday deferred action on an application to recognize a small parcel at 0 Cedar Lane as buildable, saying it needs documentation of past tax abatements and subdivision history before voting.
Chair Kasai opened the discussion after a property representative said he wants to build a house on the lot and that a perk test has passed. A committee member raised state-assessor records showing the parcel received a wetlands tax abatement in 2010 and argued that the abatement and prior subdivision could have left the lot effectively unbuildable. “The assessor's office cannot make a determination that a lot is not buildable and thereby prevent a lot from being built upon where it meets zoning and other requirements,” the committee member said, adding that the board needs to confirm who requested the abatement and which parcel it covered.
Neighbors and other residents urged the board to consider tax-policy implications if the parcel's status is changed. One resident noted the assessor’s prior valuation of about $8,900 and said the property sold last year for $75,000, asking whether back taxes or improperly received abatements should be addressed before permitting. The property representative said the parcel is held in a trust and that ownership listings have changed but asserted the lot is under his family’s control.
Board members said they lacked enough verified records — deed copies, assessor filings, the abatement request itself and a clear chain of title — to reach a decision. A committee member moved to continue the matter for 30 days to allow staff to gather documentation; the motion was seconded and the board agreed to re-list the item at the next monthly meeting.
The board instructed staff to verify whether the 2010 abatement applied to the current parcel or to an earlier, larger parcel and whether the subdivision that produced the small lot predated or postdated the abatement. The hearing will return to the board when those records and any clarifying legal advice are available.
