My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/12/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision
>
12/12/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 7:01:19 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 2:45:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
ZBA Decision
Meeting Date
12/12/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MASHPEB ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION FOR A VARIANCE <br /> Gooseberry Island Trust&SM Trust <br /> Robert D.Emmeluth,Trustee of Gooseberry Island <br /> 0 Gooseberry Island(Map 100,Parcel 6-0-R), <br /> Mashpee,MA 02649 <br /> V-2018-61 <br /> Attorney John Bowen, with Rackemann, Sawyer& Brewster represents the two 3 <br /> private owners who own the lasttwo houses on the left on the Norih aide ofPunkhornPoiint <br /> Rd.The owners of 80 Punkhorn Point Road are James Atkins and John Weltman,and 84 ; <br /> Punkhorn Point Road,owners,Robert and Michelle Wolpe.Mr.Wolpe was present in the <br /> audience. <br /> Attorney Bowen said these applications are the same as submitted hack in 2013, <br /> and suggested that:under Chapter 40A Section 16 that decision issued by the Board was ' <br /> not really final because the appeal is still pending in Superior Court. He disputes, and <br /> docWt believe tine applicant has any right to pave the mad,or has any right to bring utilities <br /> down the road. Punkhorn Point is a private unpaved narrow road,•and he disputes the <br /> applicant to travel on this road because it Is a private road. <br /> Attorney Bowen said there are several items that are very much undecided,and to <br /> repeat the requests while there's a live action pending in,Superior Court is wasfieful and <br /> unnecessary.He asked theBoard that the requests be denied on these grounds as presented, <br /> and it fails to meet the requirements of the Town's bylaws and also fails to meet Chapter <br /> 40A Section 10 for a variance.The Attomey said that his clients assert ownership to the <br /> Southern boundary and just below Punkhom Poiret Rd,and below that,the Town has an <br /> active claim to that land.Those issues are open:and there will be a decision.The applicant <br /> claims ownership through a`Tease deed"for no consideration and for zero dollars.His <br /> final point is#bat the applicant's claim of financial hardship as current owner of M island <br /> with no money and with no proven way to access it, or any ownership on the part of ' <br /> Mashpee where he thinks he could put a bridge. <br /> Attorney Kate Connolly mentioned that Attorney Bowen was correct,it's simply a <br /> release deed that was taken for no payment,and also financial hardship is not one of the <br /> requirements to prove hardship under the bylaw,it has to be a hardship owing to unusual <br /> circumstances of shape,soil conditions,or topography,and none of those apply. <br /> Ashley LQisher,Shellfish Constable for the Town of Mashpee approached the Hoard <br /> and quoted a couple of points from the bylaw in Chapter 130 Section 57 (Shellfish <br /> Aquaoulture Licenses)for the record.She said that the area is under a grant and because of <br /> this,there cannot be any disturbaace of the licensed shellfish grant area. <br /> W.Gould asked Attorney Wall if he and his client addressed the Tribe's claims, <br /> and how would you repair any damage if there's an issue with pollution regarding their <br /> shellfish grant. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.