10/14/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14,2020 161 Timberlane Drive: Petitioner, Thomas F. Smith requests a Variance under §174-33 of the Zoning Bylaws to allow for relief of constructed timber access stairs within the setback to the wetlands, on property located in an R-5 Zoning District,Map 22 Parcel 16C, Mashpee, MA. (Owner of record: Janice Leonard, Trustee of the 161 Timberlane Drive Realty Trust). (Continued from September 23, 2020 bearings at the request of the Attorney). Attorney Chris Kirrane represented the three (3) petitions. These hearings were continued by Attorney Kirrane after a discussion with the Board regarding a 1969 ANR plan of the neighborhood. A request was submitted to Town Counsel to review the Pile, and the site plan needed to be revised. Attorney Kirrane read an email dated October 14, 2020 submitted by Charlie Maintanis into the record;"Town Counsel's opinion is that the setback requirements in affect at the time of the definitive plan endorsement in 1966 would apply and the provisions of Bylaw section 174-21 would be applicable, I agree with his opinion. We requested a site plan showing all existing conditions, will you have that for tonight's meeting?"The site plan was submitted to the Board. Chairman Furbush confirmed with Charlie that the site plan was satisfactory. Charlie said lie agrees with Town Counsel's opinion. The front foyer and the concrete slab meets the 20 ft. setback to the front property line.There are no issues with the first two petitions, and they can be withdrawn. Mr. Bonvie said that the applicant should ask for a withdrawal of both the Appeal and the Variance. The third Variance is the stairway to the pond. Mr. Bonvie said in regard to the 1966 plan, he could presume that Section 174-33 never existed in 1966 and in his opinion believes the applicant would not need to seek and obtain relief under Section 174-33 because this did not exist in 1966. Charlie said it's a separate issue. The Board has granted relief from this bylaw in the past, and was not questioned before. This issue does not fit into those setback requirements that existed back in 1966 or 1967. Mr. Bonvie said that as long as the lot was not owned in common ownership during that time period in 1967, and 5-8 years later it was under the existing zoning bylaw and the existing zoning, the only thing that is not inclusive is any changes to Conservation or any changes to Board of Health. In his opinion, if Section 174-33 did not exist the applicant does not fall under that bylaw. Mr. Furbush polled the Board asking their comments. Mr. Reiffarth said he believes that Section 174-33 did not exist back then.Mr.Gould agreed the same. Sharon said that there's no indication when this bylaw came into effect. Scott had no comments. Bill agrees with Ron, and would like to hear Charlie's comments. George, had no comments. 6