LYNN — The neighbor of a Judge Road subdivision, the Village at Stoney Brook, is suing the city, including its Zoning Board of Appeals and chief building inspector, alleging that building permits were improperly issued to the owner of the property, who is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Kevin Ronningen, of 214 Judge Road, alleges in a complaint filed in Essex Superior Court by his attorney, Kevin Geaney, that building permits issued in July for two contiguous lots at 220 and 226 Judge Road, or lots 50A and 50B, exceeds the 49 lots allowed in the property.
Also listed as a defendant in the suit is Charles Peterson, trustee of the Urban Street Realty Trust, the owner of the property. According to the complaint, a deed from June 20 conveyed the property to Peterson.
The complaint cites a memorandum of conditions that Ronningen claims was filed by Michael Donovan, the city’s Inspectional Services Department chief and then-acting commissioner of the Planning Board, which limits the subdivision’s plan to 49 lots only, with additional lots subject to further approval by the board.
The complaint alleges the Planning Board endorsed a plan in 2002, which was apparently submitted by Stoney Brook Realty Trust, that reapportioned the area comprising two of the lots resulting in three lots including the subject Lot 50, which the suit claims exceeds the number of 49 allowable lots and did not receive further approval from the board.
A 2006 plan divided Lot 50 into two lots, identified as Lots 50A and 50B. But Ronningen says in the complaint that neither lot benefits from enough frontage to constitute separate building lots.
The dimensional requirements for the zoning district the subdivision is located in includes a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum linear frontage of 75 square feet, according to the complaint.
On June 26, Ronningen became aware that the building permit applications had been filed for the two lots, and later spoke with Roger Ennis, the city’s chief building inspector, about his concerns with the project. He alleges Ennis told him building permits were issued on July 10, leading him to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 6.
Prior to the hearing, held on Sept. 18, Ronningen claims he was told that the building permits were issued on July 3 instead, making his appeal late, as there’s only a 30-day timeframe allowed.
The ZBA denied Ronningen’s appeal of the issuance of the permits, which he claims in the lawsuit was likely due to not filing his appeal in time.
Ronningen claims he learned the building permits issued identified a prior owner of the subject property, rather than Peterson. Part of the basis of his lawsuit is those permits should be stricken as they were improperly issued to the subject property owner.
George Markopoulos, the city solicitor, said Donovan has given the opinion that both 50A and 50B are buildable lots. He said both are located in a single-family residence district, contain frontage on an established public way and have sufficient area to be used for a single-family residence.
Markopoulos said it’s the law department’s belief that there being a limit of 49 lots for the subdivision is incorrect. In addition, he said the claim that there can’t be two separate lots for Lot 50 directly contradicts the opinion that Donovan has given that they are two separate, distinct buildable lots.
“There’s nothing to prohibit a petitioner from coming in that has significant area and frontage to request a building permit and that’s what this petitioner did,” Markopoulos said. “Our City of Lynn Board of Appeals obviously felt confident in the explanation the Building Department gave to issue the building permits and denied the petition of the petitioner.”
