Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Mark& Susana Gorstein A-01-25 3 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Commission approved this proposal that is so close to the wetlands without an A <br /> environmentally sensitive plan. Attorney Kirrane said that the plan does show drywells B <br /> and that not much more is required in terms of drywells in a residential development. <br /> Attorney Roberts challenged the validity of the Variance, V-99-24,that was <br /> granted in April of 1999 and stated it has lapsed. <br /> Attorney Kirrane stated that he filed an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's <br /> Decision to Deny a Building Permit on October 30, 2000, still within the 6-month period <br /> of the extension that was granted to the original Variance. He said that the Appeal is still <br /> pending,that his clients' rights have been preserved and that the Variance is valid <br /> i <br /> Attorney Roberts stated that the proposal would exceed the allowed lot coverage. <br /> Attorney Kirrane submitted documents that prove that the subject lot has been <br /> held in separate ownership since 1976 and that the <br /> P p Massachusetts General Laws Chapter <br /> 40A, Section 6 and the Town's grandfathering provisions exempt the subject lot from <br /> having to meet the dimensional lot size and lot coverage requirements of today's Zoning <br /> In view of the foregoing, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the <br /> Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the Building Permit issued for 133 Tide Run <br /> was in violation of Zoning By-laws. <br /> The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to Deny <br /> With Prejudice the <br /> I <br /> Request of the Appeal of the Building Commissioner's Decision to issue a building <br /> permit to 133 Tide Run. <br /> i <br />