Laserfiche WebLink
t' Mashpee Zoning Minutes—January 23, 2002 7 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> parcels since 1957, which is 2 years prior to the adoption of Zoning in the Town of <br /> Mashpee. Attorney Kirrane said that the lot is non-conforming because the existing <br /> structures lie within 2 feet of the northerly property line and because current lot coverage <br /> is more than 25% of the lot. Attorney Kirrane maintained that the proposal would not be <br /> substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structures on the <br /> subject property. <br /> Mr. Borgeson asked for the current lot coverage. Attorney Kirrane said that the proposal <br /> would increase the lot coverage from 25%to 33%. He said that the pre-existing, <br /> non-conforming lot does not need to conform to current zoning. Mr. Brem questioned <br /> whether or not the proposal is a change in use. Attorney Kirrane said that there is no <br /> change in use. <br /> Mr. and Mrs. Leo Raftery, abutters at 190 Ninigret Avenue, attended the meeting along <br /> with their daughter, Ms. Barbara Raftery. Mr. Raftery said that there is a property line <br /> dispute that involves installation of a fence between his lot and the Petitioner's lot. Mr. <br /> Raftery expressed concern with the huge increase in lot coverage and the height of the <br /> proposed building. Ms. Raftery said that the whole street would have to be surveyed and <br /> she referred to `old property lines' that had been determined by Cape & Islands <br /> Surveying. Ms. Raftery also said that the Petitioner took approximately 3 feet of her <br /> parents' land on which he installed a fence. <br /> Mr. James F. Mahoney, owner of the vacant lot located at 195 Ninigret Avenue, said that <br /> he had that property perked, that it is considered buildable and that he is opposed to the <br /> proposal. <br /> Ms. Mary Marchant, a neighbor at 186 Ninigret Avenue referred to `old property lines' <br /> and `new property lines' and said that the project would present `an issue for future J <br /> property owners'. Mr. Nelson said that there is no such thing as `old' or `new' property <br /> lines. He said that there is only `THE' property line, which must be correctly shown on a j <br /> surveyed plan. Mr. Nelson said that the ZBA would be unable to render a decision if <br /> there is a question about property lines. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that the likelihood of the entire neighborhood moving their houses <br /> is `slim or none' and the likelihood of the Land Court requiring the neighbors to do so is <br /> `slim and none'. Attorney Kirrane said that the site plan signed by Cape & Islands <br /> Surveying is stamped and verified. He suggested that the plan is accurate and should be <br /> more than enough for the Board to render a decision. <br /> Mr. Brem said that he visited the subject property and that the proposal would be `grossly <br /> detrimental' to the neighborhood. He expressed opposition to the huge increase of lot <br /> coverage from the current 25% to 33% with construction of a 720 square-foot building. <br /> Mr. Brem also said that the property is less than 5 feet from the property line and the <br /> Board would be hard pressed to justify adding to further encroachment within the setback <br /> requirements. Mr. Nelson said that a `permanent structure being erected within 10 feet of <br /> a street line is not things that we want to see in this day and age either'. Attorney Kirrane <br />