Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Board <br />Of Appeals Minutes <br />• 1 January 12, 2005 <br />TOWN OF MASHPEE <br />Zoning Board of Appeals <br />Minutes - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 <br />The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, January <br />12, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members James Regan, Robert <br />Nelson, Zella Elizenberry, and Richard Guerrera were present along with alternate board <br />members Evano Cunha and Jonathan Furbush. Board Member Marshall Brem and <br />alternate board member Frederick Borgeson were absent. <br />Mr. Regan brought the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nelson read the last minute <br />continuances for various reasons. <br />Continued Matters <br />Wavne MacKinnon: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws <br />to seek relief from the current setback requirements and landspace requirements in order <br />• to build a new dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 17 Cross Street <br />Map 128 Parcel 21) Mashpee, MA. <br />Wavne MacKinnon: Requests a Special Permit from Section 174-20 of the Zoning By- <br />laws to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild a new dwelling on property located in <br />an R-3 zoning district at 17 Cross Street Map 128 Parcel 21) Mashpee, MA. <br />Sitting: Robert Nelson, Zella Elizenberry, Richard Guerrera. <br />John Slavinsky from Cape & Islands Engineering represented petitioner at this hearing. <br />This matter was continued from December 8, 2004 so that the Board could obtain Town <br />Counsel's opinion as to whether or not there are two parcels or one parcel and what the <br />total square footage is that would be available to work with on lot coverage. Mr. <br />Slavinsky states that the assessor's map shows both parcels are combined and show the <br />board the tax bill and map containing one parcel that is .21 acres or 9,000 square feet. <br />There were 7 different projects in this neighborhood that were granted variances on lot <br />coverage some up to 29%. Mr. MacKinnon would not need a lot coverage.variance if his <br />lot were considered to be 9,000 square feet. If the lot were subdivided today, it would be <br />considered a cluster subdivision due to the small lots and would be allowed up to 30% lot <br />coverage. Mr. Slavinsky further states that if the lots were meant to be separate they <br />would be taxed separately and they are not. <br />• Mr. Nelson realized at this point that the Board does not have a quorum since Mr. Cunha <br />and Nh-. Forbush were not officially a member of the board at the time the hearing <br />conmenced. Therefore he asked Mr. Slavinksy if this testimony tonight could be <br />referred to as informal and Mr. Slavinsky agreed with this. <br />