My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/13/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
5/13/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2020 10:29:57 AM
Creation date
8/26/2020 10:26:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/13/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> MAY 1.3,2020 <br /> 8. Conditioned upon the Design Review Committee recommendations from the <br /> meeting minutes dated February 4, 2020 to be included in this decision. <br /> 9. Conditioned upon the Plan Review Committee recommendations from the meeting <br /> minutes dated January 21,2020 to be included in this decision. <br /> 10. Conditioned upon hours of operations as 6: 30 am to 6:30 pm., seven (7) days a <br /> week. If said operational hours are not followed the operation will be considered a <br /> "nuisance". <br /> 11. Conditioned only that one(1) boat to be stored on the site at any given time. <br /> Mr. Blaisdell seconded. Mr. Furbush took a roll call vote. Mr. Blaisdell yes, Mr. Bonvie, <br /> yes, Mr. Gould, yes, Ms. Sangeleer, yes, and Mr. Furbush, yes. The Board voted <br /> unanimously in favor 5 to 0 for a Special Permit to allow for construction of a 9,680 square <br /> foot steel building for use as contractor bays,warehouse, storage, and office space. <br /> OTHER BUSINESS <br /> ADDITIONAL TOPICS <br /> (This space is reserved for topics that the Chairman did not reasonably anticipate would be <br /> discussed.) <br /> Mr. Bonvie wanted to discuss a zoning scenario with the Board. He was asked a setback <br /> question by a resident regarding a raze and replace of a house with a deck that has a pre- <br /> existing, non-conforming situation and the deck setback 5 ft. from the side setback. The <br /> house is located on a lot that requires a 15 ft. setback. This resident two to three years later <br /> decided to rebuild the deck within two ft. of the property line. Ron wanted to know if the <br /> Board can take a closer look at these non-conformities and perhaps re-visit these sites of <br /> these homes that have been re-built in the last two or three years.Ron also mentioned signs <br /> in the industrial parks that may or may not be built within the size requirements under the <br /> bylaws. <br /> Mr,Gould mentioned that the Board is not an enforcement committee,and wanted to know <br /> how these situations are dealt with. Jim Reiffarth said that the Board can only mention <br /> these situations to the Board and to the Building Inspector. <br /> Charlie mentioned that in the bylaws, signs are allowed up to 40 sq. ft., and he doesn't <br /> believe that there are any signs in the industrial park that are close to that size. Charlie said <br /> that he requires any complaints to be given to him in writing, and people tend to write <br /> anything. <br /> Mr. Gould said that you could bring these situations to the Building Inspector. <br /> 8 <br /> i <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.