8/12/1992 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

r TOWN OF MASHPEE Board of Appeals Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 1992 The Mashpee Board of Appeals held a meeting on Wednesday, August 12, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board members present and acting throughout were: John J. Friel, Michael A. Makunas, Edward M. Govoni, Arnold D. Mindick and Jamie Regan. Zoning Enforcement Officer William F. Hauck was in attendance. Mr. Friel called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. _Elizabeth A. Connolly -- Requests a Special Permit under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to expand a non-conforming structure with the replacement of a seasonal cottage with a year-round home in an R-3 zoning distract on property located at 39 Kim Path (Map 117, Block 91) Mashpee, MA. (Owner of record: Louis McMenamy TRS.) Members sitting: J. Friel, M. Makunas, E. Govoni Edward Connolly Jr. represented the applicant. He presented plans for a new home to replace a seasonal cottage. He explained that the structure will not be on the exact footprint and will be 1% larger. He explained that the present structure is in disrepair. The proposed height is 28'6". He explained that the structure has to be moved closer to the street to allow for the new septic system. Mr. Makunas questioned if any Variances were required and stated that Special Permit could not be issued if Variances were necessary. The Board determined that a Variance on front setbacks on corner lots would be necessary. Mr. Makunas moved to continue the hearing to September 9. Mr. Govoni seconded. All agreed. Mr. Friel stated fee for Variance would be waived. Nicholas A. and Eugenia Koulouris - Request a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-Laws for permission to vary the side line setback requirements in an R-3 zoning district on property located at 73 Shore Drive (map 117, Block 345) Mashpee, MA. Members sitting: J. Friel, M. Makunas, E. Govoni Attorney Michael Dunning represented the applicants. He explained that a deck had been constructed in 1984. At the time the Building Inspector stated that no permit was required. A survey of the property in 1988 determined that the deck encroached 2' on the neighboring property. In 1992 the Building Inspector cited them for a violation. Mr. Dunning stated that the owners would like to remove that portion of the deck that encroaches on the abutters property and request the Variance to maintain the balance of the deck. He said he considered that the Building Inspector made a significant mistake in not requiring a permit. Mr. Friel noted that there were sideline setback requirements in 1962 and Mr. Dunning agreed that mistakes had been made in the placement. Mr. Govoni asked if the owners had a plot plan and Mr. Koulouris said they did not have one when the property was purchased. Mr. Makunas asked if there was any documentation to prove that the Building Inspector did not require a permit.