Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />February 9, 2011 <br />Minutes <br />• that the owner should be required to adhere to the subdivision plan as approved by the <br />Planning Board and as recorded at the Registry. Mr. Bonvie said that the owner could <br />consider requesting a Variance from the ZBA in order to build on the lot. <br />Mr. Bonvie suggested that the Petitioner should investigate what the Planning Board <br />meant by the initials `BL." Mr. Furbush said he has not come across anything in the <br />Zoning By-law that refers to a building line. Attorney Gildea agreed, but asked the <br />Board to require the owner to comply with the approved plan. <br />Building Commissioner Richard Stevens said that there is no definition in the Zoning By- <br />laws about a building line. He said that he can only enforce the setback requirements for <br />a cluster subdivision, 30 in the front, 15 on the sides and 20 in the rear. The owner of the <br />subject'property has not even applied for a Building Permit yet. <br />Attorney Gildea quoted Section 174-21.1) of the Zoning By-laws, which states: `Building <br />lots in cluster subdivisions created under previous provisions of the Mashpee Zoning By - <br />Law not requiring a special permit may be developed pursuant to the lot size, frontage <br />and setback regulations applicable to the original approval of said subdivision, but <br />subject to any other currently applicable provisions of this by-law." Attorney Gildea said <br />that other developed lots -in the subdivision have constructed behind the `BL' line. Mr. <br />Bonvie said that there is a substantial difference between "maybe" and "will be". He <br />suggested that the word "maybe" indicates that it is up to the Building Commissioner's <br />interpretation which By-law requirements should be applied. <br />• Mr. Stevens said that the subject property is a buildable lot, but the owner has not applied <br />for a Building Permit. Mr. Reiffarth pointed out that the three abutting lots are twice the <br />size of the subject property and could easily comply with the 60 -foot setback. He said <br />that the owner of the subject property has a significant hardship to conform to the 60 -foot <br />setback. <br />Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented Mr. and Mrs. Marsolais, owners of the subject <br />property. He said that he agrees with the Building Commissioner and that the setback <br />requirements as set forth in the By-laws should be enforced. Attorney Kirrane said that <br />Section 9.42 requires certain restrictions on lot developments in a cluster subdivision. <br />The first items of the Section set out the creation of the plan and Provisions S and 9 <br />define the construction of a dwelling. He suggested that the intent of having the `BL' <br />line on the plani is to demonstrate (in a cluster development with undersized lots and <br />reduced frontage) that the subject lot, particularly on a cul-de-sac, has sufficient width <br />and shape to enable a building to be placed on that lot consistent with the requirements of <br />the Zoning By-law 30 feet from the front, 15 side and 20 rear setbacks. Attorney <br />Kirrane reiterated that there is no definition in the Zoning By-laws for a building line. He <br />said that if BL' was intended to be the setback line when the Plan was approved, then the <br />lots would be required to be 100 feet wide. <br />Attorney Kirrane said that the Conservation Commission has approved plans for a three- <br />bedroom dwelling which does comply with the 30 -foot front setback requirements on the <br />subject property. The Rivers Protection Act also restricts placement of the dwelling. The <br />2 <br />