12/12/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—December 12, 2001 3 Board of Appeals Hearings to allow Petitioner an opportunity to submit engineered plans as requested by j the Board. Paul D. & Theresa Kelly—Request a Variance from the lot size requirements as required i 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 j a separate and buildable lot. Continued from October 10 and November 14, 2001 Public Hearings to allow Petitioner an opportunity to submit engineered plans as requested by the Board. Sitting: Robert G. Nelson, Frederick R. Borgeson and Marshall A. Brem. si AttorneyKevin M. Kirrane ane represented the Petitioner and referred to the submittedP lans. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly are the current owners of the developed property located at 22 Sunset Circle and a vacant adjacent lot located at 82 Sunset Circle. The Petitioner wants to sell the vacant lot to supplement retirement income. Mr. Kelly attended the meeting. j 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. Each of the subject lots contains more than 14,000 square feet of land. Attorney Kirrane referred to the plans that show a proposed dwelling on the subject property located at 82 Sunset Circle (Map 64 Parcel 15) would be able to maintain a significant amount of buffer from the adjacent properties. 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 30 and 24 years as separate and buildable. Attorney Kirrane asked the Board to grant relief to the Petitioner because of the following: • on the basis of significant hardship for the Petitioner. < � • that the subject property has an unusual shape, being bounded on two sides by Sunset4 Circle. 2 • the fact that the Town has taxed the two subject properties as separate and buildable lots. • the fact that the Petitioner has paid taxes for decades on the two subject properties as separate and buildable lots. • that the size of the subject lots is consistent with the neighborhood. i ill • relief sought can be granted without detriment to the public good. • relief sought canbe granted without substantially derogating from the intent of the By-law. Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner would be willing, as part of a deed restriction, to reduce the length of the proposed building envelope and maintain the 20-feet buffer of �r the lot in its natural state. �II � i