1/8/1987 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

i Mashpee Conservation Commission Meeting of January 8, 1987 Page 4. Mr. San i ck i s to ted, I ega I l y, the house cannot be moved back and he i s be 1 ng pushed into a request for a variance and they prefer not to do this . He agreed he could approach the Appeals Board for a variance but they might e negative in granting one. He stated he would like, if the Commission does wish to propose that, to offer to what degree the commission wishes. a variance. It will be presented to them that the reason the variance is requested is per the commission' s request, not the c l.i en is and he will go to do exactly what the commission is asking and will request the variance indicated by the comm- ission omm- ission under the condition if they disapprove 'it , this plan will stag as is conforming to zoning . He stated he had no other alternative. Ms duPon t suggested having an architect redesign the house in order to get the bedrooms but in a d i fferen configuration. t Mr. Sanickil asked, if he maintained the setback from the street without going for a variance and chopped of the rear corner of the house so that it would not go beyond the top of the bank, would that be acceptable. Mrs . Ferriday stated there would still be the problem with the containment a 1 i on the edge of the bank. The commission was in agreement that a variance Should be applied for. If denied the plan would be considered as is and a dec i s i on made. Mr. Sanicki stated, "If the Commission wishes for me to go for a variance,. please indicate to me". . .fir. Rosenberg stated i t is up to him, not the commission . 11 I ,m going before the Board and say I 'm here because you sent me, not because I warm to be here. '' Mrs . Pla r tern stated she �.,,jou l d 1 i e to see him go back 20 feet . Mr . Rosenberg agreed. Mr. San i ck i asked if he revised the plan with the same rectangular building maintained would that be acceptable. The commission agreed there was no problem with the shape of the building as long as further off the bank, at least 15 feet off the bank. Mr . Sanickil stated this might pose a problem as sanitary code requires septic tanks 10 feet from the building and 10 feet from the property 1 i ne which may require other variances of which he is not familiar . He stated he is willing to revise the plans if it is not going to be requesting too many variances from the Board of Health or any additional variances with regard to jeopardizing the project. Suggestion was made to continue the hearing to allow the investigation of all possibilities . Mr. Rosenberg stated i f Mr. San i c k i wan ted the commission to close the hearing and consider the appiication as it is , this can be done. Mr. Sanieki suggested a joint agreement to continue the hearing . He wi l 1 apply to the Board of Appeals to a 1 l o this structure to be within 21 feet of the street line. He will reposition the septic system and the well will stay where it is . If the Board of appeals denies this , he will request that the Commission readdress this plan and, If in fact, Mr . Cosgrove wishes to entertain a different a rch i tec to ra l style in an attempt to maintain the setback as required by zoning,