I'm a bit surprised by the torching Larry McCavitt is getting on the Daily News comments.
Granted, people are tired of his act. I get it. He seems to grab ahold of an issue and never let got.
Fine.
But, basically his lawsuit points out that at least some of Mark Roland's clam shack (which I have no problem with him living in) sits on city land. Some comments in a previous post suggested the same thing.
And city records, according to the Vision database, seems to back that up. Mark Roland's lot at 269 Water Street is 820 square feet. His building, with deck, is 1210square feet.
So on what land is the other 390 square feet sitting?
Again, I don't mind his living there, and I didn't really have a problem with the ZBAs' review. But the ZBA doesn't need to do a title search as far as I know. They assume the proponent has ownership since no sane property owner would let some neighbor propose a project on their own property.
Or would we? No one has said this but perhaps the thinking is the land isn't worth much so why bother? If so, that's a dangerous precedent we're setting.
If not I hope someone can explain things.
PS Credit where credit is due, the Current had the story last week.
Granted, people are tired of his act. I get it. He seems to grab ahold of an issue and never let got.
Fine.
But, basically his lawsuit points out that at least some of Mark Roland's clam shack (which I have no problem with him living in) sits on city land. Some comments in a previous post suggested the same thing.
And city records, according to the Vision database, seems to back that up. Mark Roland's lot at 269 Water Street is 820 square feet. His building, with deck, is 1210square feet.
So on what land is the other 390 square feet sitting?
Again, I don't mind his living there, and I didn't really have a problem with the ZBAs' review. But the ZBA doesn't need to do a title search as far as I know. They assume the proponent has ownership since no sane property owner would let some neighbor propose a project on their own property.
Or would we? No one has said this but perhaps the thinking is the land isn't worth much so why bother? If so, that's a dangerous precedent we're setting.
If not I hope someone can explain things.
PS Credit where credit is due, the Current had the story last week.
PPS I wrote this yesteray but never published it. Over that time Mr. X came out with this. Looks like we agree on something.
1 comment:
Reading the suit here:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newburyport/town_info/government/x1311854893/Full-text-McCavitt-suit-against-clam-shack-owner
It looks like a lot more is being claimed then just the right to put in a shower: "Roland claimed that his existing lot had 51,513 square feet"
An acre of land is 43,560 square feet, so this is a significant claim.
Assuming that what McCavitt has outlined is true, then he is right to question why the City did not counter Roland's claim of ownership.
I am not a McCavitt fan, but the DN isn't doing him any favors by printing quotes that refer to his suit as being filled with "reckless misstatements and irrelevant rants..... that resemble a bizarre manifesto." Seems like the DN should have asked the person who made this quote to provide some specific examples of what they were referring to.
Post a Comment