Laserfiche WebLink
r• <br /> Mashpee Zoning Minutes—Dece <br /> mber S, 1999 10 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> George C. & Susan Y. Domolk —Request a 'Vari <br /> q ante from Section 174-3 I of the <br /> Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side, , , ry setback requirements to allow for <br /> construction of an addition to an existing home on roe to • <br /> district property ray located in an R-3 zoning <br /> at 26 Spoondrift way(Map I I I Block 12� Mash e <br /> . } p e, MA. <br /> Sitting. James E. Regan III, Robert G.Nelson and <br /> Zella E.Elizenberry. <br /> Mr. Reg <br /> an informed Mr. King that the Phoenix Grow h the habit Pas abet of filing applications <br /> with the Town Clerk without submittingplans or <br /> P application fees. He informed Mr. Kin <br /> that the Board's agenda is affected adverselyg <br /> with incomplete application filings. Mr. . <br /> Regan handed Mr. King another copy pp of the application on procedures and told him to avoid ; <br /> filing any more incomplete applications with the Tow <br /> n clerk and the ZBA. E <br /> Mr. Regan pointed out that the Town Clerk is date sta <br /> mping the documents with the -� <br /> assumption that the information is complete. He stated that t many applications from the <br /> Phoenix Group are continued because of being incomplete or improperly filled out. Mr. � <br /> Regan told Mr. King that in the year 2000 the Board wil <br /> l be unable to process incomplete <br /> applications from anyone. Mr. Regan voiced his strop 'g objection ection to the fact that the- <br /> Phoenix Group files incomplete applications with the To <br /> wn own clerk, starts the clock ticking <br /> and then requests a continuance of a petition because of lac <br /> k ck of documents or fees. Mr. <br /> Regan said that other people who filed complete applications with applicatio <br /> n fees have <br /> been forced to be heard at a later date because of the Bo •and s heavy Public Hearing <br /> schedule. <br /> a, <br /> Mr. Chris King of the Phoenix Grouprepresented ' <br /> P the applicants and stated that the <br /> applicants propose to expand the bedroom and bath b total y a of 100 square feet. The <br /> Domolkys are seeking a Variance of 11.5 feet from the easterly ' <br /> sideline of the lot. Mr. <br /> King stated that the Board previously anted the Domolk s a " <br /> �` Y Variance of 14.4 feet from <br /> the lot Tine an . .d that they are now seeking an additional 11.5 feet. <br /> . King said that an objection was anticipated from one of the abutters. 'However,the . <br /> Phoenix Group informed the abutter that his garden shed is notpermitted - '. g and is a <br /> distance of 2.7 feet from the lot line. Mr. Kin indicated that he expected xpected a letter to the <br /> Board from the abutter expressing approval of the Domolk project ' <br /> y in light p � of the fact <br /> that his (the abutter's) garden shed does not meet the sideline setback requirements. Mr. <br /> King said that the abutter's fence also encroaches on the Domoproperty. <br /> �Y <br /> Mr. Regan asked for Mr. Hauck to take a look at the Ian and a brief discussion <br /> . P scion followed. <br /> Mr. Regan objected to the fact that Mr. Frig was putting den shed an P g a garden d the Domolky : , <br /> addition in the same category. <br /> 1 <br /> r <br /> 5I <br /> 7 <br /> fir r' <br /> . Borgeson and Ms. Elizenberry questioned the exact measurement of the proposed <br /> . y p posed ! <br /> addition since it doesn't appear on the plan. Mr. Nelson remarked that the pl <br /> an an reveals an <br /> existing and spacious three-bedroom home and questioned what was the reason for <br /> coming even closer to the lot line with the proposed addition, Mr.Nelson asked Mr. <br /> Ding what was the necessity for the proposed addition. Mr. Guerrera also questioned. . . q d the <br /> nature of the hardship of this petition. <br /> r <br />