Laserfiche WebLink
opr 03 01 11 : 45a <br /> P. 6 <br /> Mashpee Zoning Minutes—March 28,2001 g <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> i <br /> Attorney Roberts suggested to the Board that it should inquire of Town counsel as to B <br /> whether or not the Variance in question is still valid. 1 <br /> Fourth issue—proposed lot coverage. <br /> Attorney Roberts stated that if the Board takes the view that floodplain is included i <br /> P n <br /> wetlands,then the proposal would exceed the allowed lot coverage. <br /> Attorney Kirrane replied to the issues and referenced his Memorandum Filed in <br /> Opposition to the Appeal of Building Inspector's Decision and maintained that the <br /> Variance is still valid.Attorney Kirrane further stated that it is only because of the ! <br /> numerous series of Appeals by the Gorsteins that the Petitioner has been denied the I <br /> right to proceed with building on the subject property. <br /> Attorney Kirrane also said that he would be very surprised if the Conservation <br /> Commission had approved a plan that did not deal with stormwater management. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that the plan does show drywelIs and that not much more is !' <br /> required in terms of drywells in a residential development. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that the subject lot has been held in separate ownership since <br /> 1976 and that the By-laws now sought to being relied upon came into effect in late !I, <br /> 1980's and early 19901s. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6 (the I' <br /> state grandfathering Provision)and the Town's grandfathering provisions exempt the I <br /> subject lot from having to meet the dimensional lot size and lot coverage requirements I,. <br /> � <br /> of today's Zoning. Attorney Kirrane said that if the Board applied the 1991 Zoning <br /> By-law concerning lot area/coverage issues and deducted wetlands from the lot,the lot <br /> would have no area. The lot is not subject to the 1991 By-laws and is provided <br /> protection. <br /> Messrs.Brem and Wheeler referred to the opinion obtained from Town Counsel dated <br /> December 11,2001 that stated: "If a lot has been created before the adoption of the ! <br /> current set back requirements from wetlands in the Zoning by-law,then the lot will be <br /> buildable from a building and zoning perspective... Additionally,the Conservation <br /> Commission has jurisdiction over wetlands with regard to regulating activity in or around <br /> wetland resource areas.." �' ! <br /> Mr. Bor eson stated that <br /> � � II <br /> g the abutting lot has been developed and that he could not find a I n <br /> basis for the Board to overturn the Building Commissioner's Decision to issue a permit <br /> for 133 Tide Run. Mr. Borgeson expressed confidence in the Building Commissioner's k' <br /> ability as the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town.. ;I <br /> l <br /> Mr.Brem questioned why the Gorsteins are so opposed to the proposed building on the <br /> site. Attorney Roberts replied that the Gorsteins feel that their concerns aboutpotential <br /> runoff problems from the proposed construction have not been addressed. ! (: <br /> Mr.Guerrera asked for the figures relating to runoff from the Gorstein's property. <br /> Attorney Roberts said that she could obtain those figures for the Board. <br />