10/10/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—October 10, 2001 3 Board of Appeals John& Lillian Chilingerian—Request a Special Permit under Section 174-20 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to demolish an existing dwelling to allow for construction of a single-family home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 77 Horseshoe `I Bend Way (Map 40 Parcel 8) Mashpee, MA. �I The Board received a request from the builder for a continuance of the above-referenced Petitions. The Board vote unanimously to continue the Petitions until November 14, 2001. j I I Peter R. & Carolie D. Owens—Request a Special Permit under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to expand a pre-existing, non-conforming structure to allow for construction of a garage and an addition to the structure on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 16 Spoondrift Circle (Map 111 Block 118) Mashpee, MA. Peter R. & Carolie D. Owens—Request a Variance from Sections 174-31 and 174-33 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side, front and lot coverage requirements I�� and the setback requirements to water and wetlands to allow for construction of a garage and an addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming structure on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 16 Spoondrift Circle (Map 111 Block 118) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Edward M. Govoni, James E. Regan IIl and Robert G. Nelson. j Mr. John Slavinsky of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the Petitions and reminded the Board of the original proposal by the Petitioner of August 2001 that was (� I subsequently withdrawn. Revised plans call for lot coverage of 20.5%. At the August Public Hearings, Messrs. Regan and Brem asked for the Petitioner to approach the abutting neighbor, the Brick family, who would be impacted the most by the proposal. Mr. Slavinsky submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Brick at 18 Spoondrift Circle in j E approval of the proposal. Mr. Borgeson questioned if the wetlands are included in lot coverage. Mr. Slavinsky said that he thinks that the wetlands are included and that, further, the lot was in effect long before adoption of the Zoning By-laws. Mr. Govoni reminded the Board of Town Counsel opinion regarding lots and wetlands. Page 2, paragraph 2 of a letter from Attorney Kathleen E. Connolly, Kopelman and Paige, P.C., dated December 11, 2000 to Building Commissioner William F. Hauck reads in part"In my opinion, to issue a building permit, you must determine that the lot satisfies all of the criteria for protection as a pre-existing non-conforming lot under G.L. c. 40A, §6, ¶4 and that it was created before the adoption of the current setback requirement in Section 174-33. Additionally, the zoning protections afforded to pre-existing vacant lots under G.L. c. 40A, §6 apply only to certain, once-legal, building lots for single- or two-family residential use." Mr. Owens addressed the Board and submitted a letter explaining the nature of the Proposal and factors regarding hardship. Mr. Owens said that he has consulted with each III I i '