1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U MINUTES September 28, 1988 - 4 - BOARD OF APPEALS SGFS Realty Trust (owner of record: Donald West) Requests a Variance under Section 7.6 of the Land Use Requirements to provide suitable access in an R-3 zoning district on property located at 1075 Great Hay Road (map 117 - Lot 7) Mashpee, MA. Members sitting: W. Hanrahan, R. Halpern, E. Govoni George Benway, representing Donald West, stated that the 5.2 acre plot on Great Hay Road has been in the West family for 35 years. He stated there is access for fire vehicles and the owner is petitioning for permission to build one house on the site. Mr. Hanrahan stated that the Board had received a letter from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in opposition to the petition. Mr. Benway noted that the State of Massachusetts is not an abutter but that the Town of Mashpee owns the ajoining land. F. Thomas Fudula, Town Planner, commented that Town policies have been consisted in refusing building permits on dirt roads and roads which are not regularly plowed in the winter. He said that.the State has done some controlled burning in the area, described as a pine barren, and a residence on this_lot would prevent future burning. • Mr. Benway showed pictures of the land and the'road and said that the lot was not a pine barren. He presented a letter from the Fire Dept. saying that the lot was accessible by Fire Department vehicles. Attorney Kevin Kirraine, representing SGFS Realty Trust, said that Great Hay 'Road has been open to the public and is shown on a 1877 map. He reported that 25 permits have been issued by the Town on roadways that do not comply with the 7.6 zoning by-law. Mr. Fudula responded that permits have been issued on non -conforming lots in areas where there are other houses but not in isolated areas. Attorney Kirraine explained that this was a buildable lot before 1985 and that the loss of property constitutes a hardship. He said it would be a great hardship to have to pave 1200 feet for access to the land. Mr. Fudula responded that the Zoning By -Law should have been challenged at the time it was passed at Town Meeting. Attorney Kirraine questioned if the Public Hearing had been conducted within 65 days of filing the petition and that there may be a technical flaw in procedures. He asked to have record reflect that the petition was filed on July 21 and that hearing date should have been by September 24. Mr. Halpern responded that the 65 -day hearing date is directory and not mandatory. The 100 -day decision date is mandatory. is Mr. Hanrahan moved to continue the hearing to October 12, 1988 so that members of the Board could view the property. Mr. Halpern seconded. All agreed. Meeting adjourned. Mary Tully Elinor Walsh