Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Appeals William B. and Betsey Gagnebin V-96-1 2. <br /> FINDINGS: <br /> A. General <br /> 1. the subject vacant lots are located at 46 and 50 Hilltop Road (MP 41>a Blocks <br /> 68 and 69) and each consist of 11,250 square feet and 75' frontage. <br /> 2. the lots were created in 1965 as part of the Briarwood subdivision. <br /> 3. many of the lots in the area have been combined to form larger lots. <br /> 4. the lots are located in an R-5 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size <br /> of 80,000 square feet and 150 ` frontage. <br /> 5. the subject lots are pre-existing non-conforming lots in common ownership <br /> 6. Mashpee Zoning By-laws were amended in May, 1990 to eliminate the <br /> protection of two or three adjoining non-conforming lots held in common <br /> ownership provided that the lot contain at least 10,000 square feet and 75 foot <br /> frontage. <br /> 7. the current By-laws state that "Non-conforming lots may be developed as <br /> allowed by M.G.L. c. 40A Section 6" and allows a five year protection from <br /> zoning changes. The five year protection period expired on May 13, 1995. <br /> B. Variance Criteria <br /> Section 10 of Chapter 40A requires that the permit granting authority determine <br /> that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography which affect this lot and <br /> not the district in which it is located and that a literal enforcement of the by-laws would <br /> involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. <br /> C. Specific Findings_ <br /> 1. the granting of this variance would give special privileges to the applicant not <br /> enjoyed by other property in the same classification and vicinity and zoning <br /> district. <br /> 2. there are no circumstances relating to the shape and topography which affect <br /> this lot and not the district in which it is located. <br /> 3. reasonable use can be made of the property without this variance. <br /> 4. relief cannot be granted without derogating from the intent or purpose of the <br /> zoning by-laws. <br /> In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Board of Appeals found that the applicant <br /> did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion duly made <br /> and seconded the Board of Appeals voted unanimously on May 22, 1996 to deny the <br /> application without prejudice. <br />