01/10/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—January 10, 2001 8 Board of Appeals Mr. MacKenzie said that Mr. David Bailey, department head of Assessing, confirmed that the subject lot has always been assessed as a buildable lot. There is also documentation on record at the registry with betterments on the lot when the Town accepted the road as a public way in 1985. The Water Department letter stated that"all the lots were assessed equally, and that this property will receive improvement, benefit '° and advantage"... The Board of Health has approved the proposed septic system. ijjry< 4-: Ms. Shaw replied to Mr. MacKenzie's claim that the Tax Collector assesses lots in Town. She said that the Assessor's Department commits all the taxes and then submits them to the Tax Collector office to mail the tax bills. w Ms. Larson, an abutter, said that she had done research on the Audubon Society's x acquisition of the subject lot. She went into a lengthy dissertation and said that in 1992 the Audubon Society gave Mr. Ellis $66,000 for land in Wendall, MA. In addition, the Mashpee lot was also conveyed to the society "with no monies transferred on paper value of$15,000". Ms. Larson said that the Audubon Society told her that the subject lot is not a buildable lot. Messrs. Brem and Borgeson questioned the reason for the abutters' objection to the proposal when the Petitioner is only requesting a Variance of 5 feet from the frontage R requirements. Ms. Shaw repeated that Mr. Bornstein was denied the ability to develop the subject lot and that abutters bought their lots with the understanding that the Audubon Society owned the abutting lot and that it would not be built on. Mr. Nelson moved to grant a Variance of 5 feet, subject to the following: that the subdivision contained 38 lots. • the plan recorded in the Town Planner's office contains no notation on the signed plan that any of the lots were unbuildable except for Lot 15. • that reference to Lots 40 and 41 as being open space does not affect the subject lot. w� • four lots with less than 60 feet of frontage in the subdivision have houses on them. 11 lots in the subdivision have less than 15,000 square feet. • the proposal meets all setback requirements. }. • the front line of the proposed building would be more than 75 feet from one f lot line to the other. Ms. Elizenberry seconded. All agreed. Ms. Shaw objected to the Decision and demanded that her objection become part of the record. Mr.Nelson replied that it was duly noted and that she has a right to appeal the ZBA's decision.