05/10/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—May 10, 2000 9 Board of Appeals Mr. Hauck said that the two lots became non-conforming when they were under one ownership. The owner had five years in which to separate the lots,which he neglected to do. The lot is now considered part of the abutting lot. ' ► d Ms. Janice Condron, a direct abutter, said that she is the applicant's ex-wife. She told the Board that Mr. Costa bought the lot in 1995 to park cars and that he knew then that it was 4 unbuildable. r Mr.Nelson drew attention to the fact that the other lots in the area are smaller and have a similar amount of frontage. Mr. Brem informed the abutters that the Board has the :h authority to grant a Variance based on hardship for the petitioner. Mr.Nelson moved to take the hearing under advisement until June 28, 2000 to allow the Board to visit the site. Mr. Borgeson seconded. All agreed. r Ms. Dorothy Harper, an abutter, said that the proposed construction would be like a"sore thumb sticking out"by being cramped onto a small lot. John P. &Virginia M. Driscoll—Request a Special Permit under Section 174-20 of '"` 11 the Zoning By-laws for permission to demolish an existing structure and construct a single-family home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 12 Riverside Road (Map 119 Block 113)Mashpee, MA. Continued from April 26, 2000 to allow applicant an opportunity to submit ! .-' ;F engineered plans. , - I Sitting: James E. Regan III, Robert G.Nelson and Frederick R. Borgeson. Mr. John Slavinsky of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the applicants and referred to the architectural plans and the dimensioned engineering plans. The existing house does not conform to current zoning. 20.8% lot coverage is proposed. The existing shed is 2.2%. A new septic system would replace the existing cesspool. ,« Mr. Hauck said that there are no setback requirements for the lot because it was created in 1936. He said that once an existing structure is demolished, it creates a vacant lot requiring the owner to meet current zoning. 'Wil Mr. Regan said that the existing shed is very large. He expressed concern with the Board !p allowing the applicants to let the existing structure remain on the lot until the new a,I '!jpN dwelling is built. The Board discussed conditioning the Special Permit and the possibility of requiring the applicant to either meet the setback requirements or remove the large shed. Mr. Govoni suggested that the existing shed could be removed from the lot for now. The applicant could file for a Variance from the setback requirements for installation of the shed at a later date. iel�' I15 " f