Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Minutes—October 13 <br /> 1999 _0 <br /> 4 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Christopher Burden�—Requests a Variance from Sections <br /> d�.--..— ons 174-31 and 174-47 <br /> of the zoning By-laws for permission to vary the frontage •. rY ge and lot setback width <br /> requirements on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 22 East Wa <br /> (Map 89 Block 77 Mashpee, MA. Y `' If <br /> Christo . <br /> pher burden—Requests an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision to deny a <br /> building permit for property located in an R 3 zoning district rlct at 2d East way <br /> (Map 89 Block 75)Mashpee, MA. <br /> hristo her Burden-� q 'ante from S _ <br /> p rden Requests a Vary Sections 174-31 and '`174 47 of the Zoning <br /> By-laws for permission to vary the frontage and lot setback ' <br /> g width requirements on property ���located in an R--3 zoning district at 2 Y(Map 9 East waS Block 7��Mashpee,MA �_:, , <br /> . ;����{��� } <br /> Y <br /> Sitting: Edward M. Govoni, James E. Regan Ell and Robert rt G. Nelson it <br /> Attorney Dan Creedon represented the applicant and submitted nutted a copy of a letter that he sent to <br /> Town Counsel seeking an opinion on the petitions <br /> p p ions for appeals and variances. He referred to the At <br /> plan on record at the Land Court in Boston that does have 'the notation that the lots are not <br /> buildable. Attorney Creedon stated that the tan on record <br /> p at the Barnstable County Registry of <br /> Deeds does not have the above-referenced notation. He info <br /> rmed the Board that the applicant <br /> meets the requirements for a Variance based on the size and shape .'�of the lot. Attorney Creedon <br /> referred to the Variance that the ZoningA <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> granted on a parcel in the same area <br /> as the subject lots. Mr. Donald Priestly sought and was anted • <br /> granted the same relief as Mr. Burden is <br /> seeking now. <br /> r <br /> Mr. Donald Priestly, an abutter at 24 East <br /> Way, stated that the Variance that had been�anted <br /> on his lot should never have beengranted --according to the notation on the Land Court as <br /> plan <br /> recorded in Boston, Mr. Priestly state d that 2 o years ago Mr. Burden steel re ue plan approval <br /> rov <br /> q p al <br /> from the Planning Board. Mr. Priestlyalleges that Mr. • <br /> g Burden gave up his rights to developthe <br /> Tots located at 22 and 26 East Wayas art of <br /> p the negotiation with the Planning Board. Mr. <br /> Priestly stated that Mr. Burden has been paying taxes on the �� " •. p Y g lots as unbu�ldable lots all this <br /> time. <br /> Mr.Burden also stated that y �+one lot passed hands after the Planning Board determination. He <br /> claims that Mr. Burden gave the lot to a gentlemen from out of ' <br /> g town�n forgiveness of a debt. <br /> However, the gentleman was unaware of the fact that the lot was not buildable. Mr. Priestly <br /> said that Mr. Burden should not be comingbefore the Zoning Boar • <br /> g d to seek relief for the lots to <br /> be considered buildable after all these ears. Mr. Priestly <br /> Y y further stated that"when a deal is ;.- <br /> made with the Planning Board, that's the end of the deal". <br /> s. Jane Logan, an abutter at 20 East Way, stated that she had never heard that story before and � <br /> claimed that Mr. Burden was trying to "pull something on somebody". <br /> 0.1 <br /> Mr. Oovoni stated that the ZoningBoard requested an 'q d received a copy of the linen plan as <br /> recorded in the Engineering Department of the Land Court in Boston. The linen l <br /> rota �� pan has the <br /> tion not a separate buildable lot • The ZoningBoard also researched the ' <br /> Planning Board's s q, , <br /> a <br />