<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Going to take a little bit of a twist on Jeff’s conclusions. Chapter 40A Section 6 provides a five year protection for lots to be built upon. Based upon what you provided, that window expired in 1985 and neither lot should be build upon. I will let you think about whether the hardship tests are met for the vacant lot. The home that was constructed in 1986. On the built lot, a change in Chapter 40A Section 7 would now grant it lawful pre-existing status to the home as the violation was not enforced for ten years after the structure was built.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My two cents.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dan Fortier, AICP</p><p class=MsoNormal>Retired Planner</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">Jeff Lacy via MassPlanners</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:03 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:dfinn@edgartown-ma.us">Douglas Finn</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">Mass Planners</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Massplanners] Subdivsion Lot surving as 'non-conforming' after zoning change?</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Never sure until either of The Bobs (Mitchell or Ritchie) weigh in, but my guess is the lots merged for zoning purposes after the 1980 vote. This was because they were then still in common ownership and the so-called Merger Doctrine says they merge to meet the new lot size requirements.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Lot A, by itself was not a legal building lot. But because a building permit was issued in error and never challenged within 7 years thereafter, the structure and use may remain. However, they are unlawful and not subject to the 40A:6 provisions for altering lawfully nonconforming structures. No expansion of the use should occur absent a zoning variance.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Lot B, even if now in single ownership, remains not a building lot absent a zoning variance. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Despite, the Lot B owner could make economic use of the lot by selling to owners of Lot A in order to cure the zoning problems there. This would make Lot A fully conforming and allow for expansions, etc.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jeff Lacy<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Rural Planning Associates <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>(413) 230-9693<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Aug 30, 2023, at 2:11 PM, Douglas Finn via MassPlanners <massplanners@masscptc.org> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Greetings, folks - <br><br>Back again with an interesting story. Here goes...<br><br> - A subdivision, creating a series of lots of about 1 acre, was approved and recorded in 1977. <br> - The developer began selling lots shortly thereafter.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> - In 1980, the Town changed its zoning to require lots to have a minimum of 1.5 acres (60,000 square feet)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- At the time of the zoning change, the developer still held title to two adjacent lots.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- One of these two lots (lot "A") was sold in August 1981, the other (lot "B") in October 1981.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Lot A was developed for residential use in 1986.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Lot B lot remains undeveloped, but has been held by the original buyer since that time.<br><br>Now comes someone wishing to develop the lot.<br><br>Does that lot have status as pre-existing non-conforming?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If not, did that lot lose that status in 1980? or at some later point?<br><br>Any section of the General Law, or any Case Law that you could cite would be very helpful.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#222222'>Thanks,<br><br>- Doug.</span><br><span style='color:#222222'><br></span>============================<span style='color:#222222'><br clear=all></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#222222'>Douglas Finn<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#222222'>Assistant Pro Tem<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#222222'>Edgartown Planning Board<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#222222'>508-560-6602<br></span><span style='color:#222222'><a href="mailto:dfinn@edgartown-ma.us"><span style='color:#1155CC'>dfinn@edgartown-ma.us</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>-- <br>MassPlanners mailing list<br>MassPlanners@masscptc.org<br>http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>