03/10/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2021 190 Monomoscoy Road: Owner, Kevin Cayer requests a Variance under §174-33 of the Zoning Bylaws to vary the frontage, lot size, and front setback requirements to allow for construction of a single-family residence on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, Map 114 Parcel 41A, Mashpee, MA. . (Continued from the ZBA hearings February 10, 2021 at the request of the Board). Chairman Furbush commented that Town Counsel sent a response to the Building Commissioner. Mr. Ganzenmuller read the email dated March 4, 2021 into the record. Mr. Furbush read an email from the Town Planner dated March 4, 2021 into the record ed than the request to vary the lot size is likely to setbacks on this particular lot are under the current bylaws or the 1967. Attorney Kirrane mentioned that at the last hearing, he was about to withdraw his request for the lot size variance, and the frontage variance because of the protected lot status information that was submitted to the Board. As a result of his suggestion to be withdrawn was because of the protected lot status that the Building Commissioner did make contact with Town Counsel. He believes Town Counsel has agreed that there is no need for lot size variance, or frontage variance because of the fact that the lot constitutes a protected or grandfathered lot under zoning. He applied for variance relief relative to the frontage and also to the wetland setback because the wetland setback was not in effect when these lots The Building Commissioner should have made a determination that because of the protected lot status that no relief at all is needed in this particular case because of the dimensional requirements, and he could just issue a building permit. But in an effort to be sure that all the bases are covered, he applied for the relief from the wetlands setback, and the front yard setback assuming that the front yard setback was 40 ft., in this R-3 zoning district, and there is only 25 ft. depicted. The plan shows the 50 ft. setback from the wetlands runs right through the middle of the lot, which is another provision that could be complied with, and could not be built on even with the intrusion of the 50 ft. setback criteria. Attorney Kirrane said that he believes the setbacks from 1967 apply, but not sure what the setbacks were back then. to vary the lot size, etc., but Town Counsel is saying that the lot is grandfathered. As a result, the Board does not have to vary the lot size, and that Attorney Kirrane and the applicant do not require to obtain any relief, referencing to lot size, frontage, etc. But several years ago they altered 40A Section 6 does not include protection for side yard, front yard. He believes the applicant does not need a variance in reference to frontage, lot size, dimension of the lot, etc., but in his opinion, he would need relief from any dimensional requirements from side yard, front yard, and wetland setbacks that cannot be met and exist today. 4