HomeMy WebLinkAbout55 Betty's Pond_ZBA Memo_26MEMOTo:Chairman Dewey, Zoning Board of Appeals, Anna Brigham, Senior PlannerFrom:Brian Florence, Building CommissionerDate:2/3/2026Re:55 Betty’s PondThe Building Division was asked to
take enforcement against a property owner who constructed a deck without permits and allegedly constructed it over a property line. This office initiated a building code enforcement
action concerning the deck and required that the owner obtain a building permit. The owner was cooperative and did obtain a permit as instructed. I reviewed the matter for zoning.
I observed that the owner had survey markers placed by a surveyor. The deck was constructed within the property lines, although it did not meet setback limits. The deck was constructed
on top of an old patio supported by a retaining wall. I made the following findings:
The “retaining wall” as it were, encroaches into the road layout by a few inches.
The deck was constructed on top of the patio and retaining wall but contained within the property limits unlike the retaining wall itself.The retaining wall was in place prior to current
ownership.The retaining wall is well over 10 years old and according to historic flyovers in our GIS system I would estimate that it is decades old.
The patio supported by the retaining wall represented a pre-existing nonconformity as it relates to setback limits. Meaning that as long as the recently permitted deck was located within
the property, it enjoyed the status of a pre-existing nonconforming setback limit.Retaining walls are exempt from the setback limits as they are considered to be a landscape feature
and not a structure as defined by the ordinance.The road is a private road and is the property of certain owners on the street.The retaining wall represents a property dispute, not a
zoning violation. It is not the zoning enforcement officer’s role to settle a property dispute.The building code matter was appropriately enforced, and we determined that the retaining
wall was unenforceable.I found that even if the retaining wall could be considered a zoning violation it’s removal was unenforceable due to M.G.L. Ch. 40A Section 6 due to its age.This
is a chronology of our enforcement activities at this property.1)12/6/24 Complaint received on property at 55 Betty’s Pond Road for deck constructed without a building permit.2)12/10/24
Site inspection observed a deck constructed at 55 Betty’s Pond Road. Deck appeared to be constructed quite some time ago.3)1/17/25 Spoke with property owner of 55 Betty’s Pond Road.
Set up future site visits to discuss.4)1/31/25 Site inspection conducted with me and Chief Local Inspector. The owner of the propertywas present. Survey markers were in place depicting
the property line.5)2/28/25 Determination was made for no zoning enforcement action as per M.G.L. Chapter 40 Section 7. Notice of Determination sent to property owner and verbally communicated
of no enforcement action.6)No appeal submitted within the allowed time period.The complainants were advised of their rights to an appeal; they chose not to do so. Any appeal at this
point would be considered both untimely and a repetitive petition.