Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> Mashpee Zoning <br /> r Board of Appeals <br /> a letter from Barron & Stafeld on behalf of Mr. A. Raymond Tye and Mr. and Mrs. <br /> Alfred Clemens expressing opposition to the proposal. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that Mr. Tye was under the impression that changes were planned <br /> for the existing home at 184 Waterway, to which he was opposed. Attorney Kirrane said <br /> that Mrs. McIntyre's son, Mr. Scott Colby, discussed the matter with Mr. Tye, who is no <br /> longer opposed to the proposal. Mr. Colby Scott verified that he talked to Mr. Tye and <br /> that Mr. Tye is not opposed to the proposal. Mr. Colby said that Mrs. Clemens was, at <br /> one time, interested in buying the subject property at 190 Waterway and was aware that <br /> the lot would be developed. Mrs. Clemens said that the architectural review committee <br /> informed her that plans call for construction of a large home of 4,000 square feet at 190 <br /> Waterway. She said that the merge of the two lots is the real issue. <br /> Mr. Paul Morgenstern, an abutter at 189 Waterway, said that he is opposed to <br /> construction of a `mega house' on that corner lot. He asked if the Board could render a �j I <br /> decision and condition the footprint and square footage of the proposed construction. Mr. <br /> Govoni said that the Board could condition a decision in that manner. Mr. Regan <br /> suggested that the abutters consider the real possibility of the construction of a `major 1 <br /> mega house', instead of two reasonably sized homes. Messrs. Brem and Regan brought <br /> up the financial hardship. Ms. Elizenberry said that the Board should not ignore the legal <br /> IIS <br /> opinion of Town counsel. <br /> ! <br /> I;! <br /> ii <br /> Attorney Richard Minassian of 8 Vale Lane said that, in his opinion, Chapter 40A <br /> Section 10 authorizes the Board to either enforce the letter of the statute or to use its <br /> discretion and weigh the public good against the hardship. Mr. Govoni said that the <br /> Board is obligated to listen to Town counsel. Attorney Kirrane said that the burden rests <br /> on the Petitioner, not on the Board, when a ZBA decision is appealed by an aggrieved <br /> ply. <br /> Mr. Nelson moved to continue the Petitions on 184 and 190 Waterway until June 26, I <br /> 2002 to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to submit proposed house plans for 190 I ! <br /> Waterway. Mr. Regan seconded. All agreed. <br /> June 26, 2002 <br /> Sitting: Edward M. Govoni, James E. Regan III and Robert G. Nelson. <br /> I �. I <br /> Mr. Scott Colby, son of Petitioner Evelyn G. McIntyre, asked permission to address the <br /> Board until his legal counsel arrives. He mentioned that at the last public hearing,the <br /> ZBA had requested the Petitioner to submit proposed house plans in order to work out an IF ! <br /> acceptable compromise with the neighbors. Mr. Colby said that the builder, Mr. Victor <br /> Corda,has signed a purchase and sale agreement on the subject property and has been j <br /> working on a proposed house plan for the property. Mr. Corda delivered copies of the <br /> Plan one of the abutters, Gabrielle Clemens. No plans have been submitted to the ZBA. !i <br /> Mr. Colby said that the Architectural Review Committee of New Seabury, the Board <br /> designated to review house designs in the area, indicated that it `liked the plan' of the <br /> Proposed house designs for the subject property. Mr. Colby said that the Petitioner �li! <br /> 3 <br />