Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee <br /> 16 Great JVeck load Xorth <br /> Massachusetts 02649 <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Mashpee, ' <br /> Decision for a Variance <br /> RE: Town of Mashpee Harbormaster V-02-48 388 Mashpee Neck Road <br /> Map 96 Parcel 1 <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 <br /> Popponesset Bay on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 388 Mashpee Neck 'l <br /> Road (Map 96 Parcel 1) Mashpee, MA. Owner of record: Town of Mashpee. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General <br /> Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a <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. <br /> I' Ii <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at which time the following members of the Zoning Board <br /> of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Zella E. Elizenberry, Richard T. Guerrera <br /> 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 <br /> Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> �l <br /> Mr. David Sanicki of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the Petition and <br /> I <br /> stated that the proposal calls for construction of a ramp and float system on Popponesset <br /> Bay. Mr. Sanicki said that the area is shallow and that Variance relief is needed in order <br /> to reach sufficient depth to prevent boats from bottoming out. The Conservation <br /> Commission and the Shellfish Constable have approved the project. The Town owns the III <br /> abutting property. j IIT l' <br /> The Board went into a lengthy discussion on the possible problems regarding I SII' <br /> abuse of the dock and how rules would be enforced. Mr. Borgeson concluded the <br /> discussion by saying that the Board empathizes with abutter and that problems with <br /> parking and docking may arise; however, those issues do not come under the scope and <br /> authority of the Board. Mr. Borgeson said that the Board has jurisdiction to grant or den <br /> a request for a Special Permit or a Variance, but does not have the authority to guarantee I� <br /> or enforce use of a particular structure. <br /> j II <br /> Mr. James J. Priestly of 73 Neshobe Road said that he was in favor of the <br /> proposal. No comments were received from abutters. <br /> i I <br /> �I <br />