Were there any reasons given by the ZBA for over turning their original ruling?
I actually don't care whether the clam shack is turned into a residence or not.
What I do care about is a open, equal and fair decision making process.
The way I follow this situation is that 1) ZBA turned down the original request 2) the applicant went to a private meeting with the Mayor who then used the advice of the City Attorney to get the ZBA to reopen the issue due to procedural issues. 3) ZBA overturns their original ruling.
I truly hope I am missing some important details that make this chain of events seem more reasonable.
One would think that the question of ownership would have to be resolved before the ZBA spent time deciding any issue, or in this case deciding the issue twice.
What good is a ZBA ruling if you don't definitely own the land.
Unless getting a ZBA ruling somehow can be used in a land contest to prove that you have more right to that land?
I wonder if the City's (via the ZBA) acknowledgment that the clam shack owner has some degree of rights to this property has hurt the City's rights to this property.
But my mile-away view of this sees the following as an equally likely sequence.
1. ZBA turns down initial request without good cause. 2. Proponent threatens law suit (that seems to work these days.) City atty says, yeah we could lose. 3. ZBA given second chance. Follows regs more closely and finds no reason to overturn initial appeal.
The above is all speculation on my part, but I think it's a plausible scenario.
Does this now give him clamming rights to Joppa Flats? I have a theory that he'll be providing the clams for the po'boys that Hopscotch's will be serving. He'll also be dumping the waste from his renovations at the Crow Lane landfill. He may even start selling clams from his house, using an A-frame sign to promote his business to attract the erosion...err...bird-watchers heading out toe Plum Island. It's all a giant conspiracy, man!!!
11 comments:
So the decision of whether the City owns the land the clam shack on has been decided?
Does anyone have a link to where this was reported?
If this hasn't been decided yet, how can the ZBA grant approval for this conversion?
I haven't seen it reported and recall no mention of that issue in the article.
I suspect though that the question of ownership isn't among the conditions the ZBA considers when reviewing such things?
Were there any reasons given by the ZBA for over turning their original ruling?
I actually don't care whether the clam shack is turned into a residence or not.
What I do care about is a open, equal and fair decision making process.
The way I follow this situation is that
1) ZBA turned down the original request
2) the applicant went to a private meeting with the Mayor who then used the advice of the City Attorney to get the ZBA to reopen the issue due to procedural issues.
3) ZBA overturns their original ruling.
I truly hope I am missing some important details that make this chain of events seem more reasonable.
One would think that the question of ownership would have to be resolved before the ZBA spent time deciding any issue, or in this case deciding the issue twice.
What good is a ZBA ruling if you don't definitely own the land.
Unless getting a ZBA ruling somehow can be used in a land contest to prove that you have more right to that land?
I wonder if the City's (via the ZBA) acknowledgment that the clam shack owner has some degree of rights to this property has hurt the City's rights to this property.
Sorry Anon, I don't have many more details.
But my mile-away view of this sees the following as an equally likely sequence.
1. ZBA turns down initial request without good cause.
2. Proponent threatens law suit (that seems to work these days.) City atty says, yeah we could lose.
3. ZBA given second chance. Follows regs more closely and finds no reason to overturn initial appeal.
The above is all speculation on my part, but I think it's a plausible scenario.
Anyone know more?
The question about ownership is the real stumper.
But let me lay this out...
This building exists.
It has existed on that lot for sometime.
I don't think it's ever been used as a home, but I don't know that for sure. But let's assume it hasn't.
Its existence probably predates any zoning.
So does a grandfather clause come into play?
If the ZBA upheld the building inspector's rejection, does that constitute a taking by the city?
Should the owner of this legal structure and "property" expect compensation for that?
Does this now give him clamming rights to Joppa Flats? I have a theory that he'll be providing the clams for the po'boys that Hopscotch's will be serving. He'll also be dumping the waste from his renovations at the Crow Lane landfill. He may even start selling clams from his house, using an A-frame sign to promote his business to attract the erosion...err...bird-watchers heading out toe Plum Island. It's all a giant conspiracy, man!!!
Word is this is all a front for Karp.
He's turning the clam shack into a hotel.
Truth.
Ha!
No conspiracy theorist here.
But I think it is valid to question why the ZBA would over turn a previous decision.
And I think it is valid to question the entire process as long as it has not been determined whether the city owns that property or not.
Like I said before I don't really care if he gets approval or not, I care about the process.
Same goes for Karp, the landfill or A-Frames.
Scratch that, I don't care about A-Frames at all.
Regards.
No sarcasm aimed your way, anon, you're asking the right questions.
Post a Comment