01/13/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13,2021 190 Monomoscoy Road: Owner, Kevin Cayer requests a Variance under §174-31 of the Zoning Bylaws to vary the front setback, lot size, and frontage requirements to allow for construction of a single-family residence on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, Map 114 Parcel 41A, Mashpee, MA. 190 Monomoscov Road: Owner, Kevin Cayer requests a Variance under §174-33 of the Zoning Bylaws to vary the frontage, lot size, and front setback requirements to allow for construction of a single-family residence on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, Map 114 Parcel 41A, Mashpee, MA. Attorney Kirrane represented these petitions for the property owner. The Variance petition that was filed under §174-31 was filed in December, and the §174-33 was filed in January, 2021. Attorney Kirrane wanted the Board to hear both petitions at the same meeting. He provided the Board a written narrative, a site plan of the property, and proposed dwelling plans. The lot has a little over 10,000 sq. ft. and has 141 ft. of frontage along Monomoscoy Road. This lot was in a combination of five lots in a 1913 subdivision plan and is located within the wetlands resource area on both sides. He also provided a lot status letter that was prepared by Attorney J. Alexander Watt back in 2019. Attorney Kirrane believes he can withdraw his request for the lot size and frontage because it is a protected lot, and would be exempt from subsequent zoning changes which occurred over the years long after these lots were created. He also thought that he may be exempt from applying for relief wetland, but rather than go to the Building Department for a building permit, and then be advised to return back to the Board he decided to file for relief from the wetlands. Sharon read and email from Evan Lehrer,Town Planner dated December 29, 2020 into the record. Attorney Kirrane was not familiar that an ANR plan was submitted. His understanding is that there were five lots created in 1913, and those lots would have merged because they were held in common ownership, and also non-conforming.He would argue that these lots were grandfathered at the time when the lot coverage was increased as well as the frontage, and were held in separate ownership at the time, and would not have lost their protected status. He believes that this lot has protection under the bylaw as noted in the Attorney Watt's protected lot status letter. However, he has filed for Variance relief if the Board is uncomfortable with the letter that was submitted. Chairman Furbush polled the Board for comments. The Board wanted to get a better understanding of the Town Planner's comments. 6