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
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C. <br />ATTORNEYS AT UW <br />• SUITE 1S)00 <br />77 FRANKLIN STREET <br />• LCONARD KOPELMAN <br />DONALD G PAIGE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02'10 <br />16171 45I.0750 <br />CLICAOCTH A LANE <br />JOYCE IRAN. <br />RIC"RD J. ,ALLON <br />PENCE MCNUCT KAHL September 19, 1965 <br />MEMORANDUM TO MUNIC I P A L C L I E N T S <br />TO: ALL SELECTMEN <br />TOWN MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTIVE SECRETARY <br />PLANNING BOARD <br />BOARD OF APPEALS <br />I am often asked to what extent single lots for <br />residential use are protected from changes in the <br />dimensional requirements of the Zoning By -Law. <br />The fourth paragraph of General Laws c. 40A 56 <br />provides protection from increased requirements in Zoning <br />By -Laws, or so-called "grandfather" protection, to two <br />• distinct types of lots of land which were in existence <br />prior to the passage of the restrictive amendment to the <br />Zoning By -Law. The protection afforded to lots which <br />were not held in common ownership with contiguous land at <br />the tmof recording or endorsement is much different <br />under the statute than the protection afforded lots which <br />were held in common ownership with contiguous land. As a <br />result, the issue of common ownership has been the subject <br />of much litigation. <br />The first sentence of paragraph four of c. 40A 56, <br />which concerns lots not held in common ownership, also <br />called "isolated" lots, provides as follows: <br />Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or <br />depth requirements of a zoning ordinance or by-law <br />shall not apply to a lot for single and two-family <br />residential use which at the time of recording or <br />endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in <br />common ownership with any adjoining land, conformed <br />to then existing requirements and had less than the <br />proposed requirement but at least five thousand <br />square feet of area and fifty feet of frontage. <br />This section protects an isolated lot indefinitely <br />from an increase in the area, frontage, width, yard, or <br />• depth requirements of a Zoning By -Law if the following <br />requirements are met: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.