04/26/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—April 26, 2000 5 Board of Appeals low" 174-5 LB and 174-5 LC of the Zoning By-laws for permission to erect signage on property located in R-5 and C-2 zoning districts at 93 Old Brickyard Road and 439 Nathan Ellis Highway(Map 72 Blocks 22 and 23)Mashpee, MA. Sitting: James E. Regan III, Robert G.Nelson and Frederick R. Borgeson. r q•' r Mr. Day of Day Sign Co. represented the application and stated that the Design Review Committee has approved the proposal. Mr. Berish, Trustee of Brickyard Marketplace . Nominee Trust, said that this Petition for a Special Permit is to request formal approval for signage. Mr. Berish said that this is the only pedestal sign proposed for the site. Mr. Chris Shute, an abutter, questioned the location of the sign and expressed concern that the sign would impede a motorist's visual ability in trying to gain access to Route 151 from a side street. Mr. Berish stated that the sign is small and would be located well p back from the curb. Mr. Nelson informed Mr. Shute that, according to the plan,the sign would be placed over 40 feet back from the edge of Route 151. Mr. Shute commented that the proposed placement of the sign would not seem to impede visibility. ° No other comments were received from abutters. Mr.Nelson moved to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Borgeson seconded. All agreed. Stephen Berish—Requests a Variance from Sections 174-31 and 174-33 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the rear and side setback requirements and the setback requirements from the water and wetlands to allow for construction of a jacuzzi, spa and deck on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 37 Keel Way(Map 120 Block 133) a Mashpee, MA. ► °R� Sitting: James E. Regan III, Richard T. Guerrera and Frederick R. Borgeson. Mr. Wayne Tavares of Tavares Land Design represented the applicant and stated that the total lot coverage would not exceed 10% with the proposed construction. He referred to a '• . large drawing of the proposal. The proposed setback would match an existing setback ' ° granted by the Board in a previous decision. The Conservation Commission has approved the project. Mr. Nelson visited the site and stated that it has been staked out. He agreed that the proposal would be no more detrimental than the existing construction. w n: No comments were received from abutters. e Mr. Borgeson moved to grant a Variance of 10 feet from the rear and side setback requirements and a Variance to the water and wetlands to allow for construction within a k"A .so ► 'r resource area, subject to criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and findings 1, 2. Mr. Guerrera seconded. All agreed. r: o}, i, lU:a,iNs' bmu. qym 1, :ILI'IIn1 °