05/26/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes Board of Appeals May 26, 2010 the permit does not state that. He quoted from the permit which states: "37. The term • "Applicant" shall refer to the current Applicant(s) and its assignees, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries or any other entity related thereto. Any sale, transfer or assignment of the permit and any sale of more than 50% of the assets or interests in the Applicant shall require Board approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld." Attorney Ford said that the permit states that this request is subject to the Board's approval. The Petitioner is applying for an extension under new ownership, as required by Condition #37, which also states that the Board cannot unreasonably withhold the permit. Mr. Reiffarth asked if the road was going to be extended into the lot. Attorney Michael Ford said the Petitioner is not making any changes to the permit. He said that, if the Petitioner exercises the rights under the permit, the Petitioner is willing to abide by all the conditions in the permit and is not seeking to make any changes. The Board examined Condition #37 of the permit and agreed that the Petitioner is within its rights to request the Extension. No comments were received from abutters. Mr. Reiffarth moved to grant the Petitioner a two-year extension of a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit (SP -06-84). Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mark A Baker: Requests a Finding of Fact under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws • for permission to demolish and replace a pre-existing, non -conforming dwelling on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 116 Main Street (Map 46 Parcel 70) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, Peter Hinden, and Ronald S. Bonvie. Mr. Baker represented his Petition and stated that the subject property is non -conforming pertaining to lot size, but the proposal will conform to the setback requirements. The house has been condemned and consists of a shell built on a few bricks. The proposal calls for demolition of the existing house and construction of a new home. Mr. Baker said that the garage has been repaired and will remain on the property. Mr. Furbush commented on the odd -shaped triangular lot. Mr. Nelson said that the determination has been made that Mr. Baker did not need to file a Petition for a Variance. He said that the existing building is in violation of the side setback requirements, while the new building will conform to the setback requirements. He said that the pre-existing lot does not require Variance relief from the lot frontage and lot size requirements. Mr. Furbush observed that the garage and the driveway look very large. Mr. Baker said that the third door will be removed from the garage and the driveway will be reduced. Some of the concrete area will be replaced with vegetation. 0 No comments were received from abutters. 3