Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> NOVEMBER 10, 2021 <br /> 4. Conditioned on all Town Department comments read into the record. <br /> 5. Conditioned upon the Board of Health approval of the four(4) bedroom design. <br /> 6. Conditioned that the front retaining wall beyond the 50 ft. setback shall not be <br /> more than 4 ft. tall. <br /> 7. Conditioned upon Conservation Commission's approval of the site plan that was <br /> submitted to Zoning. <br /> 8. Conditioned that changes to the plans will require the applicant to return to the <br /> Zoning Board of Appeals. <br /> Mr. Gould seconded. All were in favor. <br /> Sitting on this hearing are the three regular Board members, Sharon and Brad. <br /> 38 Pleasant Park Drive: Owner, One Village Marketplace, LLC requests an Appeal of <br /> the Building Official's Decision under M.G.L. Chapter 40A §§8 and 15. Applicant <br /> maintains that the lot qualifies as a protected non-conforming buildable single family lot <br /> and should be entitled to a building permit on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, <br /> Map 70 Parcel 165, Mashpee, MA. <br /> Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the request. Also present was Mr. Bornstein who is <br /> the principal of One Village Marketplace LLC. <br /> The application was in front of the Board many months ago to discuss the prospect of <br /> Variance relief and that application was withdrawn. His client applied for a building permit <br /> on one of the two adjoining lots; both are owned by One Village Marketplace LLC, and <br /> was essentially advised that a building permit will not be issued because the Building <br /> Department position is that because both lots were owned by One Village Marketplace <br /> LLC, and both lots do not conform to the current requirements of Zoning, and that the two <br /> lots have merged into one single building lot. <br /> Mr. Kirrane said that this client has appealed the decision of the Building Official on the <br /> following basis. Both lots were benefits of Variance relief if granted by the Zoning Board <br /> a number of years ago. It is his position that those Variance have run in and continue to run <br /> with these parcels of land, and were not Variances that ran to any specific property owner. <br /> Those Variances that were granted but the Board a number of years ago were acted upon <br /> by the fact that the lots were conveyed. It is his position that those Variances remain, and <br /> that the Variance relief was acted upon over several times over the years after the Variance <br /> relief was granted. <br /> 9 <br />