10/13/1999 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes--October 13, 1999 5 Board of Appeals files. Mr. Govoni stated that the Zoning Board did not have the information regarding g; ing the notation at the time that the Variance was granted to Mr. Priestly. Mr. Govoni suggested that Y gg at the applicant petition the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals for approval before th pp pp e Zoning Board of Appeals could rule on whether or not to grant a Variance. Mr. Hauck confirmed that any application granted by the PlanningBoard becomes zoning.g He stated that the applicant must now request that the PlanningBoard have the subject lots a deemed � to be buildable. If the Planning Board denies the request,then the applicant can o before th d of pp g e � Board Appeals to request a reversal of that decision. Mr.Nelson stated that, according to the Land Court instructions of 1989 Page 37 item 4 g , a "Form B"may have been recorded along with the linen plan. He suggested that Attorney ' Creedon r "Form gg Y C research at what time Form B"was adopted by the Court in explanation of the +I "i notation. p Attorney Creedon questioned the comment made at the last meeting �concernin the difference rir between a decree plan and a petition plan. He stated that a plan submitted to the Land P Court in Boston is taken to the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department creates a plan ■ g p that goes on record at the appropriate district court involved. Mr. Nelson stated that a Petitioning Plan goes to and is retained by the Land Court in Pemberton Square in Boston. Attorney Creedon argued that the plan created out of the Engineering De En i in the Lan g g Department p d Court is the final decree. Mr. Nelson suggested that if the original "Form B" can be located, ed, �t .� may clear up any discrepancies between the plans filed in Boston Land Court and Barnstable County Registry of Deeds. r 'i Mr. Priestly stated that it has been his experience with Planning Board p g s that they well make changes on plans as part of the negotiating process. The Planning Board makes the notation assuming that whoever is creating the plan will then correct the plan; such as deleting the lots at 22 and 26 East way. Mr. Priestly suggests that someone neglected to correct the plan by deleting the lots from the plan. P No other comments were received from abutters. :+r Mr. Regan moved to deny without prejudice an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's rf;. decision to deny a building permit for property located In an R-3 zoningdistrict at 22 East way. Mr.Nelson seconded. All agreed. µ Mr.Regan moved to deny without prejudice a Variance from Sections 174--31 and 174-47 of the zoning By-laws for permission to vary the frontage and lot setback width requirements .; on property located at 22 East Way. Mr. Nelson seconded. All agreed. �i Mr. Regan moved to deny without prejudice an Appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision to deny a building permit for property located at 26 Ea st way. Mr. Nelson seconded. All agreed.