9/25/1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes - September 25, 1996 2. Mr. Govoni moved to take the Petition under advisement. Ms. Hawver seconded. All agreed. Mr. Govoni said he would like to make a site visit to review the proposed plans, John J. Baron II - Requests a Special Permit under Section 174-20 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to rebuild a Dome damaged by fire and add a garage to the existing foundation on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 3 Deborah Bottle Road (Map 71, Block 92) Mashpee, MA. Members sitting; E. Govoni, I Regan, C. Hawver Mr. Baron explained that his home had been destroyed by fire and he would like to rebuild a larger house to include a two car garage under. Mr. Govoni explained that the subdivision was approved in 1983 and that the proposed house would meet the 30 foot setback requirements on front and side of a corner lot. Ms. Hawver moved to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Regan seconded. All agreed. Mr. Regan stepped down from the Board for the Intoccia hearings. Michael T. Intoccia TR.-Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the setback and lot coverage requirements to allow construction of a single family home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 82 Clover Lane(Map 117, Block 126) Mashpee, MA. (Owner of record; Lawrence E. and Catherine E. Warner). Michael T. Intoccia TR. -Requests a Special Permit under Sections 174-17, 174-20, 174- 21 and 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to remove an existing non- conforming residential dwelling and replace it with a new single family home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 82 Clover Lane (Map 117, Block 126)Mashpee, MA. (Owner of record: Lawrence E. and Catherine E. Warner). Members sitting: E. Govoni, C. Hawver, R. Nelson Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the applicant and presented plans for a proposed home to replace an existing dwelling. He said that he was applying for a Special Permit and a Variance although he questioned if Variance relief was necessessary. He noted that the existing dwelling was a five-unit building constructed in the 40's for military barracks. He explained that the building is non-conforming because it is so close to the lot line and exceeds lot coverage. Mr. Kirrane stated that he thought the use and structure proposed is not more detrimental to the neighborhood since the house will have greater setbacks from abutting property lines and the proposed lot coverage will be 21.7% instead of 21.9%.