04/24/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

- i Mashpee Zoning Minutes—April 24, 2002 4 Board of Appeals subject property on May 9, 2001. Mr. Regan agreed that issues regarding titles in that i! section of Town present a problem for potential buyers. j No comments were received from abutters. Mr. Nelson moved to grant a 6-month extension of Variance, V-01-57. Ms. Elizenberry seconded. All agreed. Donald B. & Evelyn G. McIntyre—Request a Variance from the lot size requirements as required under Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws and that the Board determine that the property located in an R-3 zoning district at 184 Waterway is a separate and buildable lot. (Map 111 Parcel 94) Mashpee, MA. Donald B. & Evelyn G. McIntyre—Request a Variance from the lot size requirements I as required under Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws and that the Board determine that the property located in an R-3 zoning district at 190 Waterway is a separate and buildable lot. (Map 111 Parcel 95) Mashpee, MA. The ZBA office received a fax from Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane on behalf of the Petitioner requesting a continuance of the Petitions due to a schedule conflict. Mr. { Nelson moved to continue the Petitions until May 22, 2002. Ms. Elizenberry seconded. All agreed. NJS Development CompanInc. —Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side setback requirements to allow for construction of a deck to an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning I district at 200 Surf Drive (Map 102 Parcel 43) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Robert G. Nelson, Frederick R. Borgeson and Marshall A. Brem. Mr. Regan stepped down and left the room. Mr. Sullivan represented the Petition along with Mrs. O'Brien, the future owner of the subject property. Mr. Brem questioned the nature of the hardship. Mrs. O'Brien said that I'jll j she has a severely handicapped mother who would be visiting her on occasion at the Ii subject property. Mrs. O'Brien said that the proposed deck would provide easier access I j for her mother. Mr. Brem said that this did not qualify as a hardship as defined by I� Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10. Mr. Borgeson asked why the Ii jl Variance was not requested at the time that the house was constructed on the property. Mr. Sullivan said that original plans called for construction of a patio, which would not �� E u II require Variance relief. Mr. Sullivan said that neither the Association nor the neighbors have expressed opposition to the proposal. Mr. Guerrera asked if the Petitioner would consider installing a ramp to allow for access 'I by a handicapped person. Mr. Sullivan said that a deck is more comfortable. it l i