My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/08/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
01/08/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2021 5:01:02 PM
Creation date
11/1/2021 10:29:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/08/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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 /> DECISION FOR A MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT(S) <br /> (SP-83-3-008, SP-00-167, SP-02-59) <br /> Petitioner, Shoestring Bay Nominee Trust <br /> Owner, Timothy W. Leedham, Trustee of Shoestring Bay Nominee Trust <br /> 21 Frog Pond Close (Map 90 Parcel 83) <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> SP-2020-06 (MODIFICATION) <br /> Charlie said the existing sheds were not permitted. The 240 sq. ft. building that is called a <br /> shed but it will be used for business purposes. He visited the site and they are existing and <br /> were put in place without the proper building permit,and the Zoning Verification Form for <br /> the smaller shed. If in fact that smaller shed is 120 sq. ft. or less. There's a shed that is 240 <br /> sq. ft. that is not going to be used as a shed, and did not receive a building permit. The <br /> smaller shed that is on the property line closer to the water which is 140 sq. ft. will also <br /> needs to meet zoning setback requirements. It's also closer than 50 ft. to the wetlands. The <br /> larger shed that does need a building permit, it's also closer than 50 ft. to the wetlands. <br /> There are building code issues, height hazard velocity zone issues, and what will be the <br /> intended use. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that this is an existing condition, the shed was there but replaced <br /> with a 10 ft. x 14 ft. shed. It's closer than the 5 ft. than what is shown on the plan. The <br /> larger shed is also a pre-existing condition, and the new building/sheds are no closer to the <br /> wetlands than the existing ones that were removed and replaced. <br /> The Board had a discussion and have concerns with the sheds on,the site plan. Chairman <br /> Furbush does not want the building issues to be ignored. Mr. Goldstein commented that he <br /> doesn't think it's fair to the applicant to stop the site improvements because of building <br /> code issues. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that everything that was done on the site was done after consultation <br /> with the Building Commissioner. It's unfortunate that the Building Commissioner isn't <br /> here to address the code issues. There was no intention to ignore the building code issues. <br /> The reason for this application is for the boat slips and additional parking. Conditions can <br /> be made by the Board on the decision indicating that by the approval of the additional <br /> number of slips, and the reconfiguration of the additional parking the Board will not <br /> approve any structure as is shown on the lot. The buildings situated on the plan conform to <br /> the requirements of zoning and additional permitting has to be obtained to the satisfaction <br /> of the building department. <br /> Charlie asked what the timeline was for demolishing the existing building. Tim said over <br /> the next 30 to 90 days. Charlie asked about the additional paving. Attorney Kirrane said <br /> that a revised plan can be submitted to provide the additional paving to provide access to <br /> the handicapped ramp. What's shown on the plan depicts only the four paved handicapped <br /> spaces. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.