Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Minutes—October 27 1999 5 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Attorney Kieffer said that the required 5 0-foot buffer fromJ the wetlands is a setback <br /> requirement,not a wetlands regulation. She stated that the Conservation Commission has <br /> approved Mr. Litvack's proposal. The Board was notified onlyf that the Conservation <br /> ervatlon <br /> Commission has closed the case. ,r <br /> Mr.Nelson questioned if Attorney <br /> Kiefer was aware of a legal action pending against the <br /> Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Litvack. He further stated that �he could not act on this <br /> appeal until the court issue is sett led. Attorney Kiefer claimed that the two issues are not w <br /> related. She said that the applicant should be issued pp ued a building permit for the garage <br /> under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws. <br /> Mr. Regan said he is not comfortable with proceeding with a decision. p g decision on this appeal at <br /> thus time. <br /> Attorney David MacLean stated he has been involved"sinc <br /> e day 1"and can clear up <br /> some questions. He stated that,prior to coming to the Zonin Board '. g g ,the applicant . <br /> attempted to resolve any issues or problems with the Conservation . 'Co Mr. <br /> Litvack agreed to vegetate the entire bank aloe <br /> g the whole property petty lute. Attorney <br /> MacLean stated that the Conservation Commission approved the pp e project. The Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals denied the applicant's request in 1998. <br /> d N <br /> Attorney David MacLean submitted a letter from,m, Eli Florence, an abutter approving the <br /> project. Mr. Regan stated that at last year's meeting, another abutter was ` opposition <br /> in oppositi g on to <br /> e project. , <br /> r <br /> Mr. Hauck stated that he denied the build` • <br /> building permit because the applicant has a court <br /> case pending against the ZoningBoard f Appeals.o pp . Mr. Hauck referred to Section 3 and <br /> said that zoning is established according to General Law. He said that {he believes the <br /> court should settle the issue. ,, <br /> Attorney Kiefer claimed that the court issue and the appeal of the building <br /> pp g inspector's <br /> s <br /> denial of a building permit are two different issues. } <br /> p <br /> Attorney MacLean said that if the Board does ant a <br /> grant favorable decision to Mr. Litvack's <br /> request for an appeal, Mr. Litvack will not need to proceed further with the court case. <br /> He stated that that was the reason for their appearance before the Board tonig <br /> ht. Attorney <br /> Kiefer also confirmed that `approval of this plan does away with the u��iderl ' <br /> „ y ying court <br /> case . <br /> a <br /> Mr. Guerrera stated that in his opinion, the Boards 'p should wait until the court case is � pill <br /> either dismissed or resolved before rendering a decision on Mr. Litvack's appeal, <br /> " } <br /> . <br /> Attorney David MacLean puzzled at `how we keep filling out these applications, <br /> keep , <br /> coming before the Board, and when we come here this is when we learn.., why wasn't ' ? <br /> this made known to us prior to this hearing? <br /> f . <br /> F• <br /> ��5 <br />