Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br /> Town of Mashpee <br /> 16 Great Xeck Poad Arth ! ;� <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ashpee, la'lassachusetts 02649 !! <br /> I <br /> Decision for a Variance <br /> it <br /> RE: Town of Mashpee Harbormaster V-02-45 664 Great Neck Road South ! j <br /> Map 104 Parcel 79 <br /> A Petition was filed on February 25, 2002 by the Town of Mashpee Harbormaster �! <br /> for a Variance from Section 174-25.I.9 of the Zoning By-laws to exceed the permitted ! ! <br /> 70-foot total length limit to allow for construction of a pier, ramp and float on Ockway <br /> Bay on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 664 Great Neck Road South <br /> (Map 104 Parcel 79) Mashpee, MA. Owner of record: Town of Mashpee. <br /> I <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General j <br /> Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a III <br /> newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on March 8 and March 15, <br /> 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. I' <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on II <br /> Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at which time the following members of the Zoning Board <br /> of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Frederick R. Borgeson, Richard T. <br /> Guerrera and Marshall A. Brem. <br /> : i <br /> The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10 and the Town of �� f <br /> Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Mr. David Sanicki of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the Petition and <br /> stated that plans call for installation of floats onto the existing ramp for ease of loading <br /> and unloading for boaters. The proposal would also allow for dinghies to be tied to one <br /> side of the ramp. Mr. Sanicki said that the area is shallow and Variance relief is needed I� <br /> in order to reach depth to prevent boats from bottoming out. The Conservation <br /> Commission and Shellfish Constable have approved the proposal. I <br /> Mr. Brem questioned who would be responsible for policing the situation. The j <br /> I� I <br /> Board went into a lengthy discussion on the possible problems regarding abuse of the <br /> dock and how rules would be enforced. Mr. Borgeson concluded the discussion by saying <br /> j ! l <br /> that problems with parking and docking may arise; however, those issues do not come II <br /> under the scope and authority of the Board. Mr. Borgeson said that the Board has !,�I <br /> jurisdiction to grant or deny a request for a Special Permit or a Variance, but does not <br /> have the authority to guarantee or enforce use of a particular structure. <br /> Mr. James J. Priestly of 73 Neshobe Road said that he was in favor of the <br /> Proposal. <br /> I <br /> i <br />