Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Mark & Susana Gorstein A-01-25 <br /> Board of Appeals 3 <br /> Commission approved this proposal that is so close to the wetlands without an <br /> environmentally sensitive plan. Attorney Kirrane said that the plan does show dryvlls <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 /> ' <br /> Attorney Kitrane stated that lie filed an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's <br /> � <br /> Decision to De g toners <br /> 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 /> Attorney Roberts stated that thero osal would P p d exceed ' <br /> the allowed lot coverage. <br /> Attorney Kitrane submitted documents that prove that the subject lot has been <br /> held in separate ownership since 1976 and that the 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 <br /> Petitioner failed to provide evidence that that the <br /> . the Building ldin Permit i <br /> was to violation of Zoning By-laws. g sued for 133 Tide Run <br /> The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to Deny With Prejudice the <br /> Request of the Appeal of the <br /> Building Commissioner's Decision on <br /> to issue ea <br /> but <br /> ldin <br /> gpermit to 133 Tide Run. <br /> i <br /> - I <br /> i <br />