by Frank Schroth

Last night the Board of Appeals overruled an enforcement order by the Building Commissioner. The order was regarding an accessory structure on the property of Esther Jepson. The structure, a barn, had been built out and was now housing her son and his family. The work had been done in violation of a covenant signed by the Jepsons that promised the property would not be split up into two buildable lots.

The Building Commissioner sought to have the work which was not properly authorized removed. Ms. Jepson appeared before the board and apologized for failing to scknowledge the covenant in having the work done. She sought relief from the order stating that the her son was essentially working for her, mowing the lawns, plowing snow and maintaining the grounds etc and other tasks that allowed her to stay in her home.

A neighbor, Mr. Fandrey, who recently had an open space special permit denied, wrote a letter in objection to providing relief. He argued that he was going through proper channels to develop his property and that the Jepson’s had done an end run around the zoning process and created a separate residence without observing proper procedure and obtaining requisite permits.

Joe Prondak, the building inspector, acknowledged that he might have considered the issue differently if he had heard the evidence given by the Jepsons prior to the order. In overruling the order the appeals board cited the provision in the covenant that allowed for changes to the accessory structure if proper permits were obtained. Second, they cited the zoning bylaw regarding accessory structures which allow for a person working on the property to live there. It does not make any reference to whether that person is a relation to the owner. Lastly, Mr. Leonard, the chair, said that in his experience with the law, demolition was done only as a “last resort under extreme circumstances.” The boar did not see any benefit in having the portions of the building that were added demolished.