Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> ` Mashpee Zoning <br /> 1 Board of Appeals <br /> i ' <br /> property in 1999 and extension of that Variance in 2000, which extension subsequently <br /> expired. The ZBA granted Variance relief on the subject property again in 2001. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner became unaware of a change in the status of the <br /> property located at 190 Waterway when a prospective buyer of the property discovered <br /> that the BuildingCommissioner had <br /> reversed his position and determined I <br /> p ned that the lot is <br /> i <br /> unbuildable due to its merger with the property located at 184 Waterway. Attorney II''JI <br /> I' <br /> Kirrane said that both parcels were valid building lots when Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre <br /> purchased them over 40 years ago and remained that way until Mashpee revised its <br /> grandfathering clause in 1990. The Petitioner has paid approximately $35,000 in real <br /> estate taxes on the undeveloped lot at 190 Waterway. 'i t <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner is a part-time resident of Mashpee with a f <br /> p <br /> principal residence in Wellesley. He stated that the Petitioner was not informed of the <br /> revisions to the Town's grandfathering provisions and failed to separate the ownership of I j <br /> the lots located at 184 and 190 Waterway. Attorney Kirrane said that hardship exists and <br /> that the relief sought can be granted without detriment to the public good and without I� <br /> substantially derogating from the intent of the By-law. <br /> Attorney Kirrane referred to the proposed construction, which would only on encroach <br /> the setback requirements to water and wetlands and, other than lot size, would conform to <br /> current zoning. �! <br /> Mr. Borgeson expressed appreciation for the hardship caused by the change in zoning and �! <br /> admitted that an inequity in the system exists. Mr. Govoni agreed and said that the Board <br /> has been trying to get the By-law changed for years. Attorney Kirrane said that the I j <br /> Board can exercise its discretion and must weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each <br /> Petition on its own merit. Attorney Kirrane said that the individual homeowner does not <br /> always understand changes in By-law. Mr. Govoni said that some of the people voted at <br /> Town meeting to change the above-referenced By-law and did not even realize that the <br /> change would adversely affect them because they owned contiguously owned lots. <br /> Mr. Brem said that the Board should look at the `legal aspect, the moral aspect and the <br /> ethical l <br /> aspect of the situation. He said that the B <br /> oard should use its discretion to render <br /> a fair and right decision. Mr. Brem said that the Town never notified the Petitioner of the <br /> change in status of the subject property, the Town continued to assess and tax the subject <br /> property as a separate and buildable lot and the Town continued to take the Petitioner's <br /> money every year. He complained that if`there were two different names on the deeds' i � I <br /> the Petitioner wouldn't be having this problem. Mr. Brem stated that he did not feel that <br /> the Board would be doing anything wrong by granting relief to allow for construction of <br /> a modest home on the subject property. Mr. Govoni reminded Mr. Brem about the I; <br /> opinion from Town counsel. <br /> Mrs. Gabrielle Clemens, an abutter at 196 Waterway, said that she is concerned with <br /> what will happen with the lot and expressed her opposition to the Petition. She said that <br /> the Board should respect the law and support the zoning requirements. Mr. Govoni read <br /> I <br /> 2 <br /> i <br />