10/10/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

TOWN OF MASHPEE Minutes-Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, October 10, 2001 The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members present were Chairman Edward M. Govoni, Vice Chairman James E. Regan III, Clerk Robert G. Nelson and Associate Members Zella E. Elizenberry, Marshall A. Brem and Frederick R. Borgeson. Associate Member Richard T. Guerrera was not present. Building Commissioner Russell W. Wheeler attended the meeting. � I PUBLIC HEARINGS Paul D. & Theresa Kelly—Request a Variance from the lot size requirements as required in Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws and that the Board determine that the property located in an R-5 zoning district at 82 Sunset Circle (Map 64 Parcel 15) Mashpee, MA. is a separate and buildable lot. Paul D. & Theresa Kell —Request a Variance from the y q lot size requirements as required in Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws and that the Board determine that the property located in an R-5 zoning district at 22 Sunset Circle (Map 64 Parcel 16) Mashpee, MA. is a separate and buildable lot. Sitting: James E. Regan III, Robert G. Nelson and Frederick R. Borgeson. Mr. Govoni stepped down and left the room. Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitioner and stated that the Petitioner owns two abutting lots. The Petitioner purchased and developed the first lot in 1971 and then purchased the adjacent vacant lot in 1977. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly purchased the adjacent vacant lot with the objective of selling it to supplement their retirement income. Attorney Kirrane said that the Town has taxed the subject lots as two separate and buildable lots. However, the Zoning By-laws have changed the status of the two lots, which are now I considered one buildable lot. Mr. Kelly attended the meeting. I Attorney Kirrane said that each of the lots exceeds 10,000 square feet in size and each exceeds the minimum frontage requirement. He said that the Petitioner has made a significant investment and that to force the combining of the two lots would incur a j substantial financial hardship. Attorney Kirrane said that the size of the subject lots is consistent with most of the other lots in the area and that the development of the vacant lot could be done so without any adverse effect on the Town. Mr. Brem questioned how long the Petitioner has been receiving two separate tax bills on the properties. Mr. Kelly indicated that he is still receiving two tax bills. Mr. Borgeson stated that the Board recently denied a similar Variance request. He said that he understands that the owner would incur a hardship, but that the strict i