05/10/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—May 10, 2000 7 Board of Appeals enw' Mr. and Mrs. Alexander, abutters, reviewed the plans and expressed opposition to the proposal because of the small size of the lot and the small size of the proposed house. Mr. Govoni referred to 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws which states: "12Any water of wetland as defined under MGL C. 131, § 40, any existing or proposed street, any r '� roadway right-of-way or easement twenty(20) feet or more in width or any overhead utility right-of-way or easement twenty(20) feet or more in width may not be counted toward minimum lot size requirements. ., 1 Mr. Sanicki said that there is no easement of 20 feet or more in width on the lot. Mr. A" Nelson questioned the amount of upland on the lot. Mr. Sanicki stated that it amounts to � approximately 5300 square feet. �... •GIA Mr. Albert Lawton expressed his objection to the proposal on the basis of the small size ';''•"k of the lot. The Board members said that they would conduct an on-site visit of the lot. Mr. Govoni moved to take the hearing under advisement until June 28, 2000. Mr. Regan seconded. All agreed. w` PUBLIC HEARINGS Dunhill Companies, Ltd. —Request an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's Decision •i„ to Deny a Building Permit to allow for construction of a single-family home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 3 Bight Circle (Map 106 Block 12) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Edward M. Govoni, James E. Regan III and Robert G.Nelson. �°`• Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the applicant and said that the lot has been held in separate ownership since 1964. He stated that the applicable zoning would be the R-5 zoning in effect at the time that the lot was created. Attorney Kirrane also stated that the < proposed location of the single-family dwelling is 23 feet from the front setback requirements on Bight Circle.No Variance is required from the sideline and rear setback ° requirements. AAt d1�1 Ir Chapter 40A, Section 6 provides grandfathering protection for any lot intended for single-family or two-family use. That statutory provision says that changes.in '6s dimensional zoning by-laws do not apply when the lot has not been held in common A ownership with adjoining land. plp Messrs. Govoni and Nelson questioned the discrepancies between the ZBA's plans and the plans that the Conservation Commission approved for this lot on February 9, 1999. •iZ¢A� r' Attorney Kirrane said that he is only seeking a determination on which frontyard setback 1N� dimension is applicable. Any change on plans approved by the Conservation Commission would require the applicant to file an amendment with the Commission. ' s