10/09/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Planning Depaidment A ' Memo B To: Zoning Board of Appeals C From:Town Planner CC: Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Town Administrator, Building Inspector, Town D Counsel Date: 11/13/02 Re: Proposed Kerrigan /Curtis/McDonnell (Lettie Lane) and Pendergast lot size variances, scheduled for hearing at your meeting of November-13 j Lettie Lane: You have advertised a series of 6 continued hearings on November 13 regarding unspecified variances from a number of sections of the Zoning By-law identified as "for a lot held contiguously with adjoining non-conforming lot to construct a single family house" with two of the lots located in an R-5 and C-2 zoning district (Assessors' Map 36, Blocks 47 E and F) and 4 others described as being in the R-5 district only (Assessors' Map 36, Blocks 47 A-D). It should be noted that Block 47D actually lies in both the R-5 and C-2 districts, with the majority in the R-5 district. All of the 6 continued hearings relate to lots located on "Lettie Lane", a deteriorated paved subdivision street, with no adequate paved access to the outside world, which has been un- maintained and virtually abandoned since the early 1970s. The only roads to which Lettie Lane connects are dirt roads with no formal public or private Jayouts, all crossing over Town- owned land. The subdivision plan of the lots contains no reference to road covenants and the Planning Board's files contain no record of covenant releases for Lettie Lane. The variance request apparently includes one from the fire protection access requirements of Section 174-32 of the Zoning By-law. However,the primary request appears to be for a variance from the minimum lot size requirement applicable to these lots. Minimum current lot size required in the R-5 district is 80,000 square feet. Minimum lot size in the C-2 district is 40,000 square feet. Based on the opinion of Town Counsel, that of the Mass. Dept. of Housing & Community Development's zoning expert Donald Schmidt (as clearly stated in the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative zoning workshop attended by my staff and Building Inspector Russ Wheeler on November 7) and on all applicable court decisions, there can be no such thing as a legal lot size variance, and any such variance would be illegal. The basis for these opinions and court decisions is that a variance of lot size can not possibly meet the required findings for variances spelled out in MGL Ch. 40A, Section 10 that the relief F a S •Page 1