08/22/2007 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Tuyetchi Fisher—Rodden 6 Owner of Record: Meder Electronics SP-07-46 still showing that she is advertising massages and that is not a medical use. He states that the list provided is deficient. Attorney Kirrane states that the list is adequate. Attorney Patrick Brady mentions that the advertising still refers to walls-in clients and retail. Mr. Reiffarth mentions that the advertising does not mention calling for an appointment and therefore one must deduce that it is walk-ins. Mr. Nelson reads all the letters submitted by abutters both in favor and against the project. Mr. Nelson asks the Board if they are ready to take a vote. They are ready. Jonathan Furbush makes a motion to deny the matter without prejudice. James Reiffarth seconds the motion to deny. A roll vote is taken. Jonathan Furbush votes to support the denial. James Reiffarth supports the denial. Robert Nelson supports the denial. Zella Elizenberry votes against the denial. George Bolton votes against the denial. The motion is carried to Deny. 3-2. The Board discusses at length the symantics of how the vote was made. The Board discusses what the outcome of a 3-2 vote means. Does the Board need 4-1 or is majority acceptable. This will be discussed with Town Counsel as to what a 3-2 vote to Deny the Motion means. The Board believes that the Motion to Deny is carried therefore not allowing the applicant to have the Special Permit to open the skin care place. After meeting with Town Counsel it was determined that 4 affirmative votes must be given to approve a motion. Therefore, although the motion was made to "deny"there were still not 4 affirmative votes. The Motion t0 Deny is Carried. The Board determines by their voting that there is not enough criteria to grant a Special Permit in this instance. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject property is located at 766 Falmouth Road and is Unit 7 in the Madaket Place Building. In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicant did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Special Permit. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-2 to DENY the Special Permit on September 26, 2007 to grant a Special Permit.