Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Minutes—February 9, 2000 4 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Sitting: James'E. Regan III Zella E. Elizenbe <br /> g g rry and Richard T. Guerrera. ;. �.•,a., <br /> 1 , <br /> The application for a Special Permit was continued from the December 8, 1999 Public „r, <br /> Hearings because the engineer failed to submit plans at the time of filing the application. <br /> Plans have still not been submitted and the engineer is now seeking an extension of the <br /> deadline for the Board to render a decision. The engineer is attempting to resolve issues <br /> with an abutter, Mr. Sharkansky. <br /> Mr. Regan suggested that the Board should deny the application for a Special Permit <br /> without prejudice. This would allow the applicant to start the application process from <br /> the beginning with appropriate documentation. Mr. Regan expressed concern that the <br /> Board may miss an important deadline to render a decision. The other Board members <br /> agreed. <br /> No comments were received from abutters. <br /> Ms. Elizenberry moved to deny without prejudice the application for a Special Permit <br /> because of the applicant's failure to submit plans to the Board as requested. Mr. Guerrera ' <br /> seconded. All agreed. <br /> David& Kathleen Smith—Request a Variance from Section 174-47.B.5 of the Zoning <br /> By-laws for permission to vary the minimum lot width requirements on property located <br /> in an R-5 zoning district at 2 Maple Street(Map 28 Block 127)Mashpee, MA. <br /> Sitting: Edward M. Govoni, James E. Regan III and Frederick R. Borgeson. ! +" <br /> Mr. Smith and his engineer, Mr. Walcox, represented the application. Mr. Walcox stated '' <br /> that the Smiths acquired the lot with 94 feet of frontage. He said that the figures for the <br /> building setback line did not appear on the subdivision plan. A soil test, septic system <br /> design and plot plan were prepared and submitted to the Smiths by the Sweetser N <br /> Engineering firm. <br /> Mr. Walcox claimed that he faxed a copy of the subdivision plan to the Building ' ^�� <br /> Department and asked for the building setback figures for this particular lot. Mr. Walcox I. <br /> said that he was informed that the minimum setback requirements for this subdivision are <br /> 30 feet. The proposed plot plan was prepared, submitted for a building permit and the <br /> building permit was issued. ' <br /> Mr. Govoni questioned if that was when it was discovered that there is a building setback <br /> line. + ) <br /> , <br /> !1At <br /> Mr. Walcox claimed that the building setback line was faxed to the Building Department ' <br /> before the plot plan was prepared. He said that there is "no math telling you where the q' <br /> setback line is". Mr. Walcox said that it appears to be an"arbitrary line". He stated that -o <br /> the foundation was installed at 31.1 feet from the street. Mr. Walcox said that the <br /> Building Inspector looked at the plan and discovered that the foundation encroaches five <br /> to <br /> +' I RnIAI I <br /> nye <br /> ►M �h, <br />