AMESBURY — Even if a judge rules that an appeal of a building permit issued for a foundation of a Point Shore home was filed past the 30-day deadline, it won't be the end of the case.
"This case is going to come forward again," attorney Marshall Handly said following a Superior Court hearing in Newburyport this week. "If it goes away here, it comes back (later). There are too many neighbors concerned about it. It's going to have to be decided on its merits."
Last year, Main Street resident Ganson Purcell sued the town and the Zoning Board of Appeals after building inspector Denis Nadeau issued a building permit for a foundation to be built for a proposed single-family home at 445 Main St. The property includes two lots.
The foundation has yet to be built on the parcel, a notable plot of open waterfront land next to historic Lowell's Boat Shop. It's also next to Purcell's house.
Judge Richard Welch heard arguments from attorneys on both sides of the proposed home on Tuesday.
Mark Griffin, representing the lot's owner, argued the appeal of the building permit was filed too late and a recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling, known as Connors v. Annino, backed him up.
The Connors ruling found that an administrative appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the time a building permit is issued if the person who filed the appeal received adequate notice that the permit was issued, according to Griffin.
That was the case with Purcell, who didn't file his appeal until two months after he learned the permit for the foundation had been issued.
No foundation for the proposed waterfront home has been poured, since the permit is tied up in court.
If the case is thrown out, then Purcell will file an appeal when other permits are issued for the project, his attorney said.
Regardless, Handly said, the case should still be decided on the issue of whether the lot complies with a grandfather clause requiring it to be at least 5,000 square feet in area, with 50 feet of frontage.
In his motion, Handly argued that the exemption doesn't apply because the property did not exist as a separate lot prior to the adoption of zoning, but was two separate lots, formerly in different ownership.
In addition, he said the area is not as large as the developers have indicated because they included state tidelands in the total, which is not permitted under town zoning laws.
Joplin Remembers Deadly Tornado, 1 Year Later
Serial Stabbings Suspect Guilty of Murder
Facebook Shares Continue Negative Slide
8 Hurt in Oklahoma Shooting After NBA Playoff
US Airways: Diverted Flight Has 'Landed Safely'
A Few Odd Business Sparks but Europe Gloomy
Revived Focus on Regulation After JPMorgan Loss
Gerard Butler: the Good, the Bad and the Cannes
At Least 25 Dead in India Train Collision
Raw Video: Private Rocket Blasts Off
Boy to Rescuers: 'Do You Have a Plan?'
Doctors and Devotees Debate Barefoot Running
Blacks Seek to Find Their Own Missing
Houston Museum Unveils $85 Million Dinosaur Hall
Chicago Police: 90 Arrested in NATO Protests
Ex-Rutgers Student Gets 30 Days in Webcam Case
Obama Sees Inspiration in Joplin Graduates
Raw Video: Man Saved After Niagara Falls Plunge
NATO: Afghan Exit 'Irreversible'
Catholic Groups Sue Over Contraception Mandate
