Home THOMAS PELLEGRITI v. DARREN BAIRD, BRIAN BEATTIE, and ROMEO MOREIRA as members of the WINTHROP BOARD OF APPEALS

MISC 323305

March 20, 2009

SUFFOLK, ss.

Long, J.

JUDGMENT

This case is plaintiff Thomas Pellegriti’s G.L. c. 40A, § 17 appeal from a decision of the Winthrop Board of Appeals which (1) denied his appeal from the building inspector’s refusal to issue building permits for the construction of two, two-family homes on his property at 40R Banks Street, and (2) denied his application for a variance from the frontage requirement (upon which the building inspector’s refusal was based) and the lot area requirement.

The plaintiff’s property is 40R Banks Street, consisting of two lots (C-1 and C-2) as shown on a plan endorsed Approval Not Required by the Winthrop Planning Board on September 12, 1988. Both are vacant land. Lot C-1 meets the minimum square footage requirement for two-family homes. Lot C-2 falls approximately 179 square feet short. Both are interior lots, surrounded on all sides by residential properties. Neither has frontage on a public or town-approved private way as required by the zoning bylaw. The only access to Lot C-2 is through use of a 29-foot wide, 85-foot long easement from Banks Street. Access to Lot C-1 is available only through use of a 24-foot wide, 134-foot long easement over Lot C-2. The plaintiff contends that the planning board’s ANR endorsement is binding on the building inspector and zoning board with respect to access and frontage issues or, at the least (and coupled with the fact that Lot C-2 is nearly large enough to fulfill the lot size requirement) shows that the denial of his variance application was arbitrary and capricious.

For the reasons set forth in the March 20, 2009 Decision issued by the court (Long, J.), I find and rule that the ANR plan is not binding on the board of appeals with respect to access and frontage, and that the board of appeals’ actions in denying the appeal from the building inspector’s decision and denying the variance were within its allowable discretion. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeals are DISMISSED, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

By the court (Long, J.)