My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/20/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
01/20/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2023 2:52:27 PM
Creation date
3/14/2022 1:18:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/20/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10. <br />• Lane said it should be observed. He asked about by-law changes. <br />Mr. Makunas asked about the changes in Town zoning in <br />contiguous lots which previously allowed building on adjoining <br />lots under single ownership.. Ms. Lane said the only way to <br />amend this is to change the by-law unless the lots were in a <br />subdivision. Mr. Makunas asked how the Board of Appeals could <br />offer relief and Ms. Lane said they could give Variances. <br />Mr. Hauck asked if selling a lot into separate ownership <br />during a protected period would that be the same as development. <br />Ms. Lane: "If it complied when it was sold into separate <br />ownership it would still comply if it meets the isolated lot." <br />Mr. Hauck: " If it was 10,000 and 75' frontage it <br />conformed." <br />Ms. Lane: " It exceeds 5,000 and had 50' of frontage and <br />was not in common ownership at the time. <br />Mr. Hauck: "The sale of a lot puts it into separate <br />ownership. This only addresses development of a lot." <br />Ms. Lane: "This addresses ownership. You could have an <br />• isolated lot that just came into common ownership and retained <br />its separate distinction then the zoning by-law changed and <br />made it illegal and then it was sold out again , in and out <br />again, when was the last time it was legal and held in separate <br />ownership and if that predated the last zoning by-law change <br />it is buildable". <br />Mr. Makunas discussed the various zoning changes which <br />resulted in so many non -conforming lots. He asked if the Board <br />can grant a Special Permit if there is a zoning violation or <br />do they have to grant a Variance to correct the zoning <br />violation. He asked about constuction of houses on <br />non -conforming lots. <br />Ms. Lane: "You can have a Special Permit to allow <br />construction on a reduced frontage or a smaller lot." <br />Mr. Hauck: "If it's a vacant lot it requires a Variance. <br />If it has a house on it it's a Special Permit and they can <br />allow <br />Mr. Hauck asked about accessory structures such as docks <br />and Ms. Lane said it should be on lot with principal use or <br />zoning could be changed to allow docks on vacant lots. Mr. <br />Friel moved to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. Mr. Makunas seconded. <br />All agreed. <br />Elinor Walsh <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.