Laserfiche WebLink
M <br /> T O WN of NIASHPEE ~. <br /> Minutes--ZoningBoard <br /> and of Appeals <br /> Wednesday,November 10, 1999 r: <br /> The Mashpee zoning Board of Appeals h 'pp held a meeting onTednesday,November 1 F, <br /> 1999, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mash pee Town Hall.p Board Members present were Vice sir <br /> Chairman James E. Regan III, Board Member Robert G.Nelson and Associate Members rt r <br /> Richard T. Cruerrera, Zella E. Elizenbe Mar : �'�. <br /> �may, shall Brem and Frederick R. Bor eson. <br /> Building Commissioner William F. Hauck . Chairmang <br /> was also in attendance. Edward M. <br /> Govan was absent. :7 <br /> OTHER BUSINESS <br /> Robert L. Costa-- Requests a Variance from Section I74-31 of the zoning By-laws for <br /> By- <br /> permission to vary the front setback requirements to allow for addition of a farmer's <br /> porch to an existing home on propertylocated in an R- .5 zoning district at 293 South <br /> Sandwich Road(Map 15 Block 92 Mash pee, MA. (Owner <br /> } p of record: Robert L. and . <br /> Marylou Costa). :u <br /> I�. y <br /> Upon motion duly made and seconded the Board of <br /> Appeals voted unanimously on ,.,. <br /> October 27, 1999 to grant a Variance of seven(7) feet. � . on the northeasterly corner of the <br /> subject lot. The permit is conditioned upon submission n of a professionally engineered - <br /> plan showing the Variance relief beingsought and the e <br /> gh exact location of the shed on the y <br /> subject property. <br /> At the Public Hearings on November 10, 1999 Mr. Costa submitted a revised plan. The <br /> surveyor found that the edge of the farmer's porch would be 13 <br /> p feet from the edge of the <br /> easement. The surveyor also told Mr. Costa that South Sandwich Roady �is an undefined <br /> road. Mr. Costa asked the Town Planner who informed him •that South Sandwich Road is <br /> not an undefined road but is a county laid-out road that dates back to 1856. <br /> Mr. Costa is now seekingVariance retie (17) <br /> f of seventeen feet on the northeasterly <br /> corner of the subject lot. He expressed cant y - <br /> . . J p ern that his lot would now be shortened b any <br /> additional 15 feet. y <br /> Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Costa would not lose an s footage Y square q from his lot. Mr. <br /> Nelson said that the deed would still call for 122.20 feet from the st <br /> reet to the rear and <br /> another 125 feet from the street to the rear. He stated that the mortgage plot plan that Mr. <br /> Costa originally submitted is not an accurate surveyplan and did not • <br /> p show the house as it <br /> is actually situated on the lot. <br /> f'1 <br /> No comments were received from abutters. a <br /> Mr.Nelson moved to grant the Variance of 17 feet, subject to the same fin ' ��. j dings as the <br /> original Variance. Mr. Guerrera seconded. All agreed. <br /> i•j E��: <br />