Following is the fourth in a series of weekly questions from the Master Plan Committee. Your input is valued. Please post a comment (full names required) or send an email to the committee.
How should Milton address the issue of non-conforming uses so that owners are supported in their efforts to make improvements, but the Town’s character is protected and preserved?
Information boards are on display at Town Hall and the Milton Public Library.
The third question in the series is:
Which transportation improvements do you feel are most important to make?
The second question in the series is:
What are your thoughts about whether and how our school facilities could be expanded to accommodate higher enrollments?
The first question in the series:
What do you think the Town should do to make parking more efficient and to increase its availability?
You can learn more about this initiative of the Master Plan here.
With regard to the discussion concerning home improvements and the protecting of the Towns character the Town must not forget that its zoning by-laws must be adopted and be in compliance with the general law of the state, MGL Ch 40A. The purpose of the general law id quite clear. The burden is on the individual seeking relief from the Town by-law to meet certain criteria. Failure to meet that criteria, whether objected to by abutters or not, must be met. One of those criteria is whether the relief being sought will be a detriment to the public good. This has both a general and specific aspect. How is the abutter going to be affected (the reason why the law requires that owners of property within 300 feet are to be notified), the specific, and the general is what impact will the granting of relief have on the Town in general. Consideration must be given to abutters concerns. To attempt to eliminate this right of objection as noted in the general law is absurd. One may desire to beautify their home but that desire does not trump the rights of those living beside or near that property from being affected and impacted. To attempt to remove the right of objection or have that right be not be considered at the ZBA when the ZBA is considering acting on a petition for variance or special permit is a violation of law and any attempt to adopt any provision that nullifies, minimizes or removes an abutters right of objection must and should be dismissed outright by the Planning Board.
I agree with Mr. Wagner,
The town by law is required to notify abbuters of plans before allowing
them to move forward. A developer purchased a house abutting my
property and proceeded to double the size of the house and add an
enormous deck. He also made a oral promise that he would install a
screening fence when the project was finished.
At no point in the process was I notified by the town and the developer
never put up the fence he just took the money and ran.