05/09/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—May 9, 2001 3 Board of Appeals Mr. Brady said that the front setback and side setback requirements should be maintained. Mr. Govoni said that the vacant lots were recorded before Zoning was adopted by the Town of Mashpee. He said that the Petitioner could actually build his home even closer to the street than what he is proposing. Mr. Brady said that the proposal is incompatible with the existing homes in the area. He j said that he would prefer construction of the proposal to be located closer to the wetlands rather than closer to the street. Mr. Govoni said that the Conservation Commission is requiring the Petitioner to maintain the 50-foot buffer to the wetlands. The Building Commissioner has also expressed approval of a 10-foot front setback. Mr. Brady said that the owner directly across the road at 266 Monomoscoy Road is also planning to construct close to the street and would create a"tunnel" on Monomoscoy Road. He said " that granting the Variance gr g ance would be unfair to the neighbors and would be"out of character with the neighborhood". Mr. Govoni said that none of the other neighbors have sent correspondence in opposition to the proposal. Mrs. Brady claimed that they are not in Town yet. Mr. Govoni said that any neighbors or abutters in opposition could write letters to the Board. Mr. Govoni reminded Mr. Brady that the Board has granted him two special permits and a variance on his Monomoscoy property in the past. Attorney Kirrane said that the Conservation Commission would not allow the location of the house to be any closer to the wetlands. Mr. Brady said that he does not understand why the `Building Department ignores the 30-foot setback requirement". Mr. Govoni said that the Building Department has no jurisdiction over enforcing that setback because the lots were created prior to the adoption of Zoning. Mr. Brady said that the previous Building Commissioner required a 30-foot setback. Mr. Govoni agreed, but said that the Building Commissioner can not enforce the setback on grandfathered parcels. Mrs.Brady said that the proposal looks like a very nice home, but that she objects to setting a precedent in the area. Mr.Brem said that the lot has been taxed as a buildable lot. ( ' Mr.Brady asked for the Board to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Mrs.Brady asked the Board to take a look at the plans and ask the Petitioner to revise the proposed deck. Mr. Brady said that he is not opposed to development on the parcel. Attorney Kirrane said that the outside steps were located so they would not interfere with the mounded septic system. Mr. Kirrane referred to the drawings and clarified the Proposal to Mr. and Mrs. Brady. i I