03/14/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Apr 03 O1 11 :44a P. Mashpee Zoning Minutes—March 28,2001 Board of Appeals By-laws,"if a lot falls totally within the ACEC,and I would suggest that this does,then B %I your By-law provides that you're regulated, you're limited to regulation within a hundred feet of a wetland as defined by Chapter 131, Section 40". Mr.Regan asked when the Gorsteins built their house. Mr. Gorstein said that he and his I� wife are the second owners and that their house was built in 1981 or 1982. Mr.Regan it remarked that the By-law dates back to 1979 and that it seemed"funny"that it's okay for the Gorsteins to have a house within the ACEC,but it isn't okay for the Glass family. Attorney Roberts said that she was not suggesting that. 1' Mr.Brem questioned the reason for the Appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision to issue a building permit for 133 Tide Run. Attorney Roberts said that the Gorsteins are challenging the decision because they want the proposed construction to"comply with code". i Attorney Kirrane commented that the issue of building within the ACEC"is a moot point. They(Glass)came in before this Board in May of 1999 and this Board granted them a Variance to develop this particular structure on this particular Iot. So they have already gotten a Variance from this Board to develop ve o on this site and p they are building on that footprint". Attorney Roberts replied: "But here is the problem with that. The Variance was granted in April of 1999. They came back before you in April of 2000 to get an extension of that Variance,which this Board granted. They came back before you,I believe it was October of last year, for a second extension and the Board denied that extension. It is my understanding that the Variance has lapsed. I believe that the Building Inspector has expressed that view in something I have seen and reviewed here...There has also been some discussion as to whether the ACEC applies here at all. I would suggest to you that it does and further suggest to you that the Variance that they obtained back in 1999 has lapsed. And if they choose to go forward,they need to come back before this Board seeking a new Variance to construct". Attorney Kirrane stated: "The Decision of this Board to grant the Variance relief was filed with the Town Clerk on May 4th of 1999. That's the date this Decision became formal and in effect. They came back before the Board during the one-year period and I' i extended it from May 4 2000 to November 4h 2000. A Building Permit was applied for Prior to October 30a'of 2000. That Building Permit request was denied by the Building Inspector before October 30"2000,still within that 6-month extension of the Variance relief. I filed an Appeal of that denial on October 30,2000,still within the 6-month period of the extension that was granted to the original Variance. That Appeal is still pending. That Appeal probably becomes moot when the Building permit issued, however,we took all the necessary steps to apply for a Permit. It's not our fault that the Building Inspector denied that permit within that 6-month extension and we preserved our rights by filing an Appeal within that period of time while that Variance was alive. I i suggest that that Variance is still operational and has not lapsed". iti it