Laserfiche WebLink
May 18 04 09:09p p. 16 <br /> "[Aldjacent lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a single lot for <br /> zoning purposes so as to minimize noncon formi ties .. . ." Seltzer v-Board of Appeals of Orleans, 24 <br /> Mass. App. Ct. 521, 522 (1987). Before availing himself of a nonconfonming exemption. the <br /> landowner must"includz[)his adjacent land in order to minimum the nonconformity. . : sack . <br /> Board of Appeals of Westwood,47 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 736 (1999). See also Preston v. Board of <br /> Appeals of Hull,51 Mass.App.Ct.236,238(2001)(recognizing general rule of merger consistently <br /> applied before and after the enactment of St. 1975,c_ 808). <br /> If locus cannot be developed due to inadequate tot size and frontage,Ellis contends that <br /> the residences on lots 29 and 31 were thus constructed illegally. While that question is not before this <br /> court, it is quite likely the statute of limitations contained in G.L. c. 40A, § 7, for land developed in <br /> accordance with a.duly issued building permit.would have long run. <br /> In accordance with the foregoing, this court finds that the. Land Space Requirements <br /> Table found in§ 174-31 of the Mashpee Code governs the development of locus. As such,locus fails <br /> to meet the minimum size requirement of 80,000 square feet and contains less than the requisite 150 <br /> feet measured forty feet from Deerfield Road between side lot lines.15 <br /> Based upon the forgoing,judgment shall also enter favor of plain 'ffs on Count Il <br /> of the amended complaint. �. <br /> . t <br /> Leo J. L mbardi <br /> Justice <br /> Dated: December 29,,2004 <br /> t <br /> "The common boundary with lot 40 measures 145 feet and constitutes to widest part of <br /> locus. <br /> 15 <br />