Just a quick follow up on yesterday, a commenter pointed us to this full text from The Current.
From the suit:
6. The property identified as 269 Water Street is Lot 30-15 on the Newburyport Tax Assessor’s Map. This Lot consists of 820 square feet of land as set out on the Assessor’s Map. The entirety of the lot is covered by the clam shack. There is no open or unoccupied land whatsoever at or on 269 Water Street. Roland is identified as the owner of 269 Water Street on the Assessor’s Map. Lots 30-10 through 30-14 (on the westerly side of 269 Water Street) and Lot 30-17 (on the easterly side) are identified as owned by the City as set out in the Assessor’s Maps.
7. Even though he identified the property at issue as 269 Water Street (which is 820 square feet), in his Application and accompanying materials, Roland claimed that his existing lot had 51,513 square feet; 97.5 per cent “open space” (269 Water has zero open space); and 302.3 feet of frontage on Water Street (269 Water Street has approximately 60 feet of frontage). These dimensional claims rest in part on Roland’s claim that in addition to 269 Water Street (Lot 30-15) he owns all of the City’s filled tidelands property consisting of Lots 30-10 through 30-14 together with Lot 30-17. These additional City Lots comprise 3,450 square feet according to the City records. In addition, approximately 47,000 square feet of Roland’s purported lot is based on his claim of ownership of the actual tidelands or mud flats below the seawall down to the mean low tidal line. All of these tidelands or flats are also owned by the City though they do not appear on tax records because the area is active tidal land. (Lots 30-10 through Lot 30-17, including 269 Water Street, together with the 47,000 square foot tidal area, the “Locus”).
First question, are these figures correct? Is this truly what he's claiming?
Second, over an acre of land with 302.3 square feet of frontage. What's the minimum lot size and frontage in that area? Would these dimensions allow him to build a larger house in the future?
Again, I have no issue with his living there. But we should make sure his shack isn't sitting on our land.
7 comments:
Folks, someone left a comment with a link to the vision site. I thought I published it but I just don't see it. If that person wants to try again, I'd appreciate it.
I told somebody (a long-time Mass resident) our latest local joke; I.e., we gave an occupancy permit for a house that's bigger than its lot.
The immediate response was, "Who did he pay off to get the permit?"
No further comment.
Wow, you found the one cynic in Mass.
Let me reiterate. I'm not suggesting anything like that occurred.
I am also not suggesting a payoff.
However, it is a fact that there was a meeting between the Mayor, the city solicitor and the resident of the clam shack and his attorney. After this meeting this issue was reopened before the ZBA (it had been previously denied) and was passed.
At the time the Mayor explained that the meeting was because a "taxpayer came to him who didn't believe he received a fair shake at the hearing because of filing errors." (From This DN story: http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_112060054.html)
It would be nice if the mayor extended a similar courtesy to other taxpayers who don't feel that they are getting a fair shake and explain why the City chose not to contest the ownership of this land.
For what ever reasons, the Mayor chose not to do this, and now looks like he will be forced to do so in court.
Or a more simple solution would be for the City to contest the ownership of these parcels. Then McCavitt's suit becomes irrelevant, and this issue can be resolved out in the open with a lawful ruling.
I think that's a fair statement.
Maybe this is the link you want? If it's correct, the house isn't even on the lot he owns.
http://gis.nbpt.us/
No it wasn't, but damn if that isn't a cool site.
Post a Comment