Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Appeals Minutes- July 22, 1998 2. <br /> Mr. Green, an abutter, questioned what type of project is involved, the location of the <br /> septic system, and what size dwelling is proposed. The Building Inspector stated that he <br /> would require 30 foot front setback and 10 foot side and rear setbacks. Attorney Mills <br /> stated that the lot would only accommodate a small house. Mr. Regan stated that since <br /> there has been a building on the property for such a long time, that the proposed dwelling <br /> would be a major upgrade and, further, since the applicant will be staying under the 20% <br /> lot coverage, he was comfortable with it. <br /> Mr. Nelson moved to grant the special permit subject to the following conditions: a single <br /> family dwelling be constructed with a minimum of 30 foot front setback, 15 foot sideline <br /> setback,10 foot rear setback, no more than 35 feet in height and no more than 20% lot <br /> coverage, Building Inspector indicates that the lot is buildable, Mr. Guerrera seconded. <br /> All agreed. <br /> Charles Wils n -Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for <br /> permission to vary the lot coverage requirements to allow 26% lot coverage on property <br /> located in an R-3 zoning district at 87 Uncle Edward's Road (Map 117,Block 211) <br /> Mashpee, MA, (Owner of record: Helen R, Alish). <br /> Members sitting: R. Guerrera, J. Dorgan, R. Nelson. Mr. Regan stepped down from the <br /> Board for this meeting. <br /> Michael A. Dunning represented the applicant. He submitted a memo to the Board along <br /> with a new plan. He stated that only 18% of the lot is covered taking in account that the <br /> porch and deck will bring it up to 26%; and that the by-law is unclear as to whether or not <br /> impervious structures are included. The size and shape of the lot does restrict the use of <br /> the small lot which was created in a 1945 subdivision plan. The Building Inspector stated <br /> that the engineer needs to submit a new plan with dimensions. Mr, Nelson read a letter <br /> from neighbors in opposition concerning parking and road access. He also read a letter <br /> from abutter Judge Kelly opposing the large-size dwelling being constructed on a small <br /> lot. A lengthy discussion followed. Comments from residents in the area: "We would all <br /> like to build garages on our lots, but we're restricted." <br /> i <br /> Wh <br /> Yentertain <br /> variances es when <br /> theIawsare inplace. Dunning responded by saying <br /> that the house is consistent with the other <br /> houses in the area and that is the reason for the existence of the Zoning]Board of Appeals. <br /> i' Mr. Ameno of 76 Shore Drive asked why a variance should even be considered. Other <br /> comments from area residents included: "There is a terrible parking problem up in <br /> Popponnessett." "The land was purchased within the last year and the owner Y e knew these <br /> restrictions were in place. If he wanted to build a bigger house, he should have bought <br /> i; <br /> land in a different area." <br /> Mr. Dorgan moved that the application be taken under advisement and a revised set of <br /> 1` pians be submitted showing the setbacks and the 20% lot coverage. Mr. Guerrera <br /> 1 seconded. All agreed. <br /> { <br /> 1' <br /> l <br /> i <br />