12/12/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Jeannette J. Lazarovich V-0 1-127 2 Board of Appeals I ; At the continued hearings on January 9, 2002, Mr. Nelson said that research conducted by the Board found that under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 6 regarding "separate lot" and "common lot", exemptions apply to vacant land i. and are not available to a lot which already contains or which once contained a structure. i Attorney John L. Kowalski of Clark, Balboni & Gildea stated that the subject lot is not a buildable lot and asked for a continuance of the Board's decision to allow him an opportunity to prepare a statement. Attorney Kowalski attended the December 12, 2001 Public Hearings, was aware of the Boards' decision to continue the Petition until January 9, 2002 and had sufficient time in which to prepare a brief. j Mr. Nelson said that the Board's decision to grant the Variance is based upon precedents set by Dial Away Co., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Auburn, 41 Mass. App. Ct 165, 168 (1996); Willard v. Board of Appeals of Orleans, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 18 (1987). I� No other comments were received from abutters. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject property is located at 11 Pondview Avenue and consists of 11,532 square feet of land. s , SPECIFIC FINDINGS ` The Board determined that: 1. the subject lot, which complied with the minimum area, frontage, and lot width requirements, if any, in effect at the time the boundaries of the lot were defined by recorded deed or plan may be built upon or used for single-family j residential use, notwithstanding the adoption of new or increased lot area, frontage or lot width requirements,provided that: the lot had at least 5,000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage at the time the boundaries of the lot I A were defined. . . .". a 2. the subject lot appears on a recorded subdivision plan and is clean intended � J pP p Y to stand on its own and not as part of adjacent developed land. 3. the subject lot is larger than many developed lots in the immediate area. 4. without relief the lot could not be used for a residence, the purpose for which it had been laid out and for which the balance of the undersized lots in the subdivision were being used. 5. the subject lot has been maintained as a separate buildable lot on the Assessor's Records and is subject to betterments from the Water District. 6. the subject lot has been taxed as a separate and buildable lot and is subject to j betterments from the Water District. r 7. that desirable relief could be granted consistent with the planned area in which the subject lot is located. I