10/10/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Paul &Theresa Kelly V-01-93 2 Board of Appeals 82 Sunset Circle proposal. He submitted a letter in opposition to the proposal from abutting neighbors at 74 Sunset Circle, Joan and Paul Conley. The Board voted unanimously to continue the Petitions until November 14, 2001 i to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to submit tax bills for the subject lot and the i abutting property located at 22 Sunset Circle. The Board also requested the Petitioner to submit an engineered plan showing the location of a proposed house on the property located at 82 Sunset Circle At the hearings on November 14 2001,Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane stated that the Petitioner has not had an opportunity to review the engineeringplans. Attorney Kirrane p Y requested a continuance/extension of the Petition. The Board voted unanimously to continue the Petition until December 12, 2001. At the continued hearings on December 12, 2001, Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitioner. He stated that at the time that the subject lots were created they conformed to applicable zoning, which allowed development of lots that contained 10,000 or more square feet with a minimum of 100 feet of frontage on a street or way. Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner was unaware of the Town's adoption of revisions to the grandfathering provisions, which took place during the 1980's and 1990's. Although the Petitioner failed to separate ownership of the subject lots,the Town has continued to tax the two lots for over 20 years as separate and buildable. Mr. Walter Philips, an abutter at 32 Sunset Circle, complained that the engineered plan did not show an existing accessory building or location of the septic system. The Board explained that it asked for the plan merely as a guideline to determine if the property located at 82 Sunset Circle could be developed and maintain sufficient buffer from adjacent lots. No other comments were received from abutters. 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. I i