Zoning violations continue at Maple Street property
Date: 6/20/2013
By Chris Maza
chrism@thereminder.comEAST LONGMEADOW — If a passer-by didn't know any better, they might think someone was trying to sell a pirate ship.
Sitting a short distance from the road at 64 Maple St. is a large, blue sailboat, adorned with skull and crossbones, the words "for sale" and a phone number.
On top of being an eyesore, it's a zoning violation, says Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer Daniel Hellyer, and he hopes it will soon be gone.
The boat, Hellyer explained, is representative of a larger zoning issue at the property of James LeFebvre, which has been ongoing for months.
"That property can't be used for vehicle storage," Hellyer said. "He's got the boat, but he also has a lot of other vehicles he's storing in the back of the property that shouldn't be there."
At last count, according to an April 18 cease and desist letter from Hellyer to LeFebvre, "two enclosed trailers, one van, one vehicle covered with a blue tarp, one stake body truck, one large home trailer, two flat trailers, one pop-up camper, one track dozer and one snow plow blade" in addition to the boat were on the property.
All of these are in violation of Section 7.41 of the East Longmeadow zoning bylaw, Hellyer said.
LeFebvre appealed the decision, but on June 3, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld Hellyer's findings.
Hellyer said the next step would be to begin fining LeFebvre until the violations are remediated.
According to the bylaw, anyone found in violation would be fined $100 for the first offense; $200 for the second offense; and $300 for the third and each subsequent offense. An offense is defined as each day the problem is not rectified.
Hellyer said, however, he has not yet taken that step.
"We have to give him a reasonable amount of time to take care of it," Hellyer said. "I have asked [Director of Planning, Zoning and Conservation] Robyn Macdonald to ask the Zoning Board of Appeals what kind of timetable we want to give him, but I haven't heard a response. I'm not sure where they stand on it at this point."
Hellyer first cited LeFebvre with violations related to vehicle storage on the property on Feb. 4.
According to documents obtained from the Building Department, LeFebvre wrote to Town Clerk Thomas Florence stating his intention to appeal Hellyer's decision. The timestamp on his email was March 6 at 9:34 a.m., however it was not officially received by the Clerk's Office until the morning of March 7, according to the time stamp on the document.
While in his note LeFebvre stated that he received Hellyer's notice via first-class mail on Feb. 15, Macdonald responded to LeFebvre's appeal request with a letter stating that he did not file the appeal in time.
"Pursuant to [Massachusetts General Law] chapter 40A, [section] 15, 'Any appeal under section eight to a permit granting authority shall be taken within 30 days from the date of the order or decision which is being appealed.' The date of the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer is Feb. 4. Thirty days from that date was March 6. Therefore, the filing is not timely as the appeal period has expired," she wrote.
LeFebvre further requested the February cease and desist order be rescinded, but that was denied and the town began the issuance of fines.
However, on April 5, Hellyer reversed the violation decision because it was determined that the notification was not sent legally.
The decision was in response to LeFebvre's argument that Coyote Realty, to which the February notice was sent, didn't exist and therefore he was not notified properly.
Hellyer explained in his letter announcing the reversal that the decision was made "not as a result of any determination that the property was not in violation of the bylaws but rather due to an error in the legal notification to your company of the violation" and he had been advised "the time and related expenses in an effort to enforce the order as issued will in all likelihood be unsuccessful."
Hellyer also warned LeFebvre that if zoning violations were found upon re-inspection, he would be cited again.
