Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />DECISION APPEAL OF ZONING/BUILDING OFFICIAL <br />Petitioners, John and Susan Fish <br />RE: 89 Industrial Drive (Map 88 Parcel 27) <br />Mashpee, MA 02649 <br />AP-2019-55 <br />The Trust controls the development of the land but doesn't relieve them of the obligation <br />of complying with the Zoning Bylaws. Any parcel that is purchased would require a Special <br />Permit by the Zoning Board. <br />Chairman Furbush asked Charlie upon what he based his decision. Charlie said he does not <br />have the authority to enforce because it was under the Trust and is not a Zoning issue or a <br />Special Permit issue. Mr. Furbush asked if Zoning is involved in this case. Charlie said it <br />would be if there was a Special Permit, but there would be no requirement to maintain the <br />50 ft. buffer. <br />Charlie addressed the Attorney quoting that he said "may require a greater buffer than 10 <br />ft. for parking." Attorney Senie believes this case is a Zoning issue and a Special Permit <br />should be in place. He said because this is a parking facility without a principle use and to <br />keep trailers and boats on this property is an activity that requires a Special Permit. The <br />property owner is using the property to clear it, treat it and beginning to use it in a <br />commercial fashion without permitting. Attorney Senie believes that a Special Permit will <br />be applied for, and they will ask for a privacy fence to be put back at the 50 ft. mark, and <br />that new soil be brought in and be revegetated. <br />Charlie asked the Attorney if the property was being used prior to this owner. Attorney <br />Senie said it was primarily a vacant lot and that the Mashpee Water District who owns the <br />property to the west was using a portion of this property to store more piping. Charlie asked <br />the Attorney if he agreed that that lot was partially cleared to store equipment for the Water <br />Dept. Attorney Senie said that the Water Dept. always observed the 50 ft. natural buffer at <br />the end of their property, and never did any activity in the 50 ft. that was just removed. <br />Charlie said he didn't do a survey but that in his opinion there was some equipment closer <br />than 50 ft. Charlie said that on page 7 of the presentation there's a picture that shows some <br />equipment that is used to move pipes. Charlie also wanted to know how many boats were <br />stored. Attorney Senie said there is only one boat. Charlie wanted to know how long that <br />one boat has been stored. Mr. Senie said that his client could answer that question. Charlie <br />asked the Attorney when he first came in for the cease and desist was it based upon clearing <br />into that 50 ft. buffer. Mr. Senie said; yes. There was no Special Permit issued. Charlie said <br />he doesn't believe he has the authority to enforce a private agreement that has expired for <br />a 50 ft. buffer. Attorney Senie said he is not asking anyone to enforce that agreement. <br />Attorney Senie said that what is missing is an application for a Special Permit, and if that <br />had been submitted, the Board would have had the opportunity to consider whether it <br />should impose a greater natural buffer than the 10 ft. that is always required. <br />3 <br />