09/28/2005 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Pauline Hicks Board of Appeals 23 Hicks Way 2 (V-05-114) the owner and her family since the 1800's. An abutter Mike Kendricki addresses the board as to why he got a public hearing notice. Mr. Nelson informs him that he must abut one of the parcels in question and he looks over the subdivision plan. He has no problem with the board granting any of the variances. Mr. Nelson informs Attorney Mills that to grant these variances would be illegal since the lots are all listed in one name only. Mr. Borgeson states that the Board has granted far larger variances in other situations to deem lots buildable and he feels it would not be fair if Ms. Hicks was unable to build on these reasonable size lots just because the names were not switched off. Zella Elizenberry feels the same way. Another abutter asks the Board why they cant be built on if they were taxed as individual lots for all these years. Mr.Nelson states that what he would like to do and what is legal are two different things, but that the Board is free to vote how they choose. After some fiirther discussion and an assurance from Attorney Mills that no further variances will be required, the Board makes the following vote: Robert Nelson denies the vote, Zella Elizenberry votes in favor, Frederick Borgeson votes in favor, Jonathan Furbush votes in favor and Evano Cunha votes in favor. The motion is caned 4-1. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject lot is located at 23 Hicks Way and contains 42,939 square feet. VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 10 of Chapter 40A requires that the permit granting authority determine that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography which affect this lot and not the district in which it is located and that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the petitioner. SPECIFIC FINDINGS The Board determined that: 1. that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography that affect the subject lot and not the district in which it is located. 2. that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner. 3. that relief may be granted without detriment to the public good.