Laserfiche WebLink
A <br /> lip <br /> Mashpee Zoning Minutes—July 12, 2000 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Mr. Hauck said that there are no regulations prohibiting the installation of 8-foot high ' <br /> fences. State code requires a building permit for the installation of a fence over 6 feet <br /> high. Mr. Hauck said that recourse may be sought through the courts as a "spite fence". a <br /> Mr. Roche said that the property abutting his lot is used for year-round rental property. <br /> During the summer months, Mr. Roche said that he has encountered problems with noise u� <br /> cars parking on his land and balls being thrown onto his roe y <br /> "maintain good neighbor relations"and"establish the boundary linesto fence <br /> of <br /> that activity from encroaching on our land". Mr. Roche claimed that 30 feet of his ""��p :1 <br /> property along the proposed fence lies one to two feet below the abutting <br /> Mr. Sylvester repeated his objection to the 8-foot high fence and stated that the fence <br /> would impair visibility, 'y <br /> P ty, airflow and breeze. He said that he would have no objections tob """ <br /> a 6-foot high fence. r „ <br /> Mr. Roche claimed that installation of the 8-foot high fence would open up an increased <br /> view for the abutters. <br /> Mr. Hauck said that the Board has the authority to condition the height of the fence under � <br /> a Special Permit. <br /> Mr. Regan said that he has a problem with a fence of that height in that area. <br /> '0 u <br /> Mr° Regan asked if Mr. Roche would consider installing a 6-foot high fence. Mr. Roche <br /> pip <br /> agreed. ��' <br /> Mr. Nelson moved to grant the Special Permit, with the condition that on the northerly <br /> property line, installation of a fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Benefits would w <br /> include the installation of a new septic system and that the new construction woulde <br /> farther away from the water and at a higher elevation than the existing dwelling. Mr. , <br /> Brem seconded. All agreed. u ` <br /> Mr. Nelson moved to grant a Variance of 38 feet from the setback requirements to the ° 4' <br /> water and wetlands and a Variance of 4.3% from the lot coverage requirements, subject <br /> to criteria 1, 2, 3 and findings 1, 2, 3, 4 and that the new construction would be more in <br /> conformance with current Zoning By-laws. Mr. Brem seconded. All agreed. <br /> i4�'iM s•'LII'!. <br /> Robert J. V. &DonnaM. Roche—Request a Special Permit under 174-25.I.9 of the '' <br /> Zoning By-laws for permission to construct a pier, ramp and float on Great River on i <br /> property located in an R-3 zoning district at 6 Great River Road(Map 120 Block 62) "ffi <br /> Mashpee, MA. ;�,, <br /> n <br /> Sitting: James E. Regan III, Robert G.Nelson and Marshall A. Brem. <br /> Mr. Roche represented his application and stated that the proposal calls for construction <br /> of a 6 x 6-foot pressure-treated landing approximately 13 feet off the northerly <br /> P4 <br /> o fi . <br />