Laserfiche WebLink
plan had to have been lawfully in existence to be protected buildable lots un- <br /> der Section 5.5. <br /> On May 7, 1979, the Zoning By-Laws were amended to require minimum lot <br /> area of 22,500 square feet and minumum lot frontage of 125 feet. This amend- <br /> ment was ineffective as to the lots shown on the 1966 Subdivision Plan, as they <br /> were protected by Section 5.5. <br /> On February 11, 1985, the Mashpee Zoning By-Laws were amended to eliminate <br /> the protection provided by Section 5.5. This amendment was the first amendment <br /> to the Zoning By-Laws which could have affected the lots shown on the 1966 Sub- <br /> division Plan, as they had been protected by Section 5.5- until that date. <br /> In Adamowicz v. Town of Ipswich, the Supreme Judicial Court held that any <br /> increase in dimensional requirements of a zoning by-law shall not apply to lots <br /> of held in common ownership as of the effective date of the restrictive zoning <br /> requirements and had less than the proposed requirement but at least 5,000 <br /> quare feet of area and 50 feet of frontage. The Court wrote that to determine <br /> hether a lot is protected by the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of <br /> A.G.L. c.90A, S6, one must look to the most recent Instrument of record. If, <br /> according to the most recent Instrument of record, a lot were .not held in common <br /> wnership with adjoining land as of the effective date of the zoning change <br /> hich increased dimensional requirements, such a lot is unaffected by the rest- <br /> fictive zoning change, even though a previously recorded subdivision plan re- <br /> reals that the lot was at one time part of land held in common ownership. <br /> As of the effective date of the amendment to the Mashpee Zoning By-Laws on <br /> LAW OFFICE OF <br />'AcCOY & O'CONNOR <br /> 9 10 MACARTNUR BLVD. <br /> BOURNE. MA 02392 <br /> 2. <br />