03/28/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—March 28, 2001 8 Board of Appeals our rights by filing an Appeal within that period of time while that Variance was alive. I suggest that that Variance is still operational and has not lapsed". Attorney Roberts suggested to the Board that it should inquire of Town counsel as to whether or not the Variance in question is still valid. Fourth issue—proposed lot coverage. Attorney Roberts stated that if the Board takes the view that flood plain is included in wetlands,then the proposal would exceed the allowed lot coverage. Attorney Kirrane replied to the issues and referenced his Memorandum Filed in Opposition to the Appeal of Building Inspector's Decision and maintained that the Variance is still valid. Attorney Kirrane further stated that it is only because of the numerous series of Appeals by the Gorsteins that the Petitioner has been denied the right to proceed with building on the subject property. j Attorney Kirrane also said that he would be very surprised if the Conservation Commission had approved a plan that did not deal with stormwater management. Attorney Kirrane said that the plan does show drywells and that not much more is required in terms of drywells in a residential development. Ii Attorney Kirrane said that the subject lot has been held in separate ownership since 1976 and that the By-laws now sought to being relied upon came into effect in late 1980's and early 1990's. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6 (the state grandfathering provision) and the Town'sgrandfathering provisions exempt the subject lot from having to meet the dimensional lot size and lot coverage requirements of today's Zoning. Attorney Kirrane said that if the Board applied the 1991 Zoning By-law concerning lot area/coverage issues and deducted wetlands from the lot,the lot logo" would have no area. The lot is not subject to the 1991 By-laws and is provided protection. Messrs. Brem and Wheeler referred to the opinion obtained from Town Counsel dated December 11, 2001 that stated: "If a lot has been created before the adoption of the current set back requirements from wetlands in the Zoning by-law,then the lot will be buildable from a building and zoning perspective... Additionally, the Conservation Commission has Jurisdiction over wetlands with regard to regulating activity in or around wetland resource areas.." Mr. or es on stated that the abutting lot has been developed and that he could not find a g g P basis for the Board to overturn the Building Commissioner's Decision to issue a permit for 133 Tide Run. Mr. Borgeson expressed confidence in the Building Commissioner's ability as the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town.. Mr. Brem questioned why the Gorsteins are so opposed to the proposed building on the site. Attorney Roberts replied that the Gorsteins feel that their concerns about potential runoff problems from the proposed construction have not been addressed.