My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/10/2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
11/10/2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2022 5:06:08 PM
Creation date
2/11/2022 2:19:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/10/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
MERRICK, LOUISON & COSTELLO, LLP <br /> Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> December 8, 2004 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Surveyors. These twenty-eight (28) parcels are each subject to the restriction "that no structures <br /> shall be erected thereon",with the apparent intent to preserve the right of passage over the way <br /> identified as Rock Island Road. <br /> For the purposes of the MacKinnon Petitions for Special Permit and Variance, the two <br /> parcels described in the 1991 Deed, containing 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, respectively, are <br /> separated by Rock Island Road, as specifically noted in the description of Parcel 2 in said Deed. <br /> With respect to the zoning relief requested by Mr. Flanders, on behalf of Mr. MacKinnon, you have <br /> requested my opinion as to whether the MacKinnon property should be considered a single 9,000 <br /> square foot lot or two separate lots (containing 3,000 square feet and the second containing 6,000 <br /> square feet). In my opinion,pursuant to the definition of"Lot" set forth in the Mashpee Zoning <br /> By-law, this property should be considered two separate lots for zoning purposes. <br /> The starting point in any analysis of dimensional requirements under a Zoning By-law is a <br /> determination of what constitutes the "lot" to which the zoning requirements apply. This <br /> determination based upon the specific definition of a lot and the related provisions in the Zoning <br /> By-law. The Mashpee Zoning By-law, at Article I,Section 174-3.A. defines a lot as follows: <br /> "The whole area of a single parcel of land undivided by a street, <br /> under one (1) ownership,with ascertainable boundaries established <br /> by a Deed or Deeds of Record, or a segment of land ownership <br /> defined by lot boundary lines on a land division plan duly approved <br /> by the Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Statute". <br /> (emphasis added). <br /> "Lot Area" is defined as "the area of a lot exclusive of any area in a public or private way open to <br /> public use and any body of water". A"Street" is defined in the By-law as follows: <br /> "A public way laid out by the Town under M.G.L. Chapter 82, <br /> Section 21, or other authority or laid out by the state or county, <br /> which is open to travel by the general public and is on record at the <br /> Registry of Deeds or a public or private way duly approved by the <br /> Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Statute, or a way on <br /> record at the Registry of Deeds which is approved by the Planning <br /> Board as a principal means of adequate access to abutting property". <br /> Given the above-referenced definitions set forth in the Mashpee Zoning By-law, and the fact <br /> that a portion of the MacKinnon property, approximately 40 feet wide and 50 feet deep includes the <br /> layout of Rock Landing Road, as depicted in the above-referenced Subdivision Plans, in my opinion <br /> the proposed new structure to be developed on the MacKinnon property is located on a 6,000 <br /> square foot lot. All dimensional requirements and other regulations could be applied to this <br /> proposed structure, accordingly. To construe the MacKinnon property as containing 9,000 square <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.