05/22/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—May 22, 2002 4 Board of Appeals Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitioner and stated that the Variance relief which the ZBA granted on 190 Waterway to allow for construction of a home will expire in June 2002. He also said that the Petitioner is requesting Variance relief from the lot size requirements on both properties at 184 and 190 Waterway because the lots have been deemed merged. In 1999 Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre obtained a letter of buildability for the property located at 190 Waterway. The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 1999 on the subject property. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted Variance relief on the subject property in 1999 and extension of that Variance in 2000, which extension expired. The ZBA granted Variance relief on the subject property again in 2001. Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner became unaware of a change in the status of the property located at 190 Waterway only when a prospective buyer of the property discovered that the Building Commissioner had reversed his position and determined that the lot is unbuildable due to its merger with the g property located at 184 Waterway. � Attorney Kirrane said that both parcels were valid building lots when Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre purchased them over 40 years ago and remained that way until Mashpee revised its grandfathering clause in 1990. The Petitioner has paid approximately $35,000 in real estate taxes on the undeveloped lot at 190 Waterway. Y Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner is a part-time resident of Mashpee with a principal residence in Wellesley. He stated that the Petitioner was not informed of the j revisions to the Town's grandfathering provisions and failed to separate the ownership of the lots located at 184 and 190 Waterway. Attorney Kirrane said that hardship exists and that the relief sought can be granted without detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the By-law. Attorney Kirrane referred to the proposed construction, which would only encroach on the setback requirements to water and wetlands and, other than lot size would conform current zoning. Mr. Borgeson expressed appreciation for the hardship caused by the change in zoning and admitted that an inequity in the system exists. Mr. Govoni agreed and said that the Board j has been trying to get the By-law changed for years. Attorney Kirrane said that the Board can exercise its discretion and must weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each g � Petition on its own merit. Attorney Kirrane said that the individual homeowner does not always understand changes in By-law. Mr. Govoni said that some of the people who owned abutting lots voted at Town meeting to change the above-referenced By-law and did not even realize that the change would adversely affect them. Mr. Brem said that the Board should look at the `legal aspect, the moral aspect and the ethical aspect' of the situation. He said that the Board should use its discretion to render a fair and right decision. Mr. Brem said that the Town never notified the Petitioner of the change in status of the subject property, the Town continued to assess and tax the subject property as a separate and buildable lot and the Town continued to take the Petitioner's i