Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />MEETING MINUTES <br />AUGUST 23, 2017 <br />Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the homeowners for their raze and replace project and new <br />dock complex. Mr. Kirrane included photographs of the property, and included adjacent buildings <br />in the neighborhood. This property is situated in the New Seabury development on a lot that consists <br />of 11,000 sq. ft. and only 38.18 ft. of frontage on a cul-de-sac at the end of Summersea Road. The <br />existing home was built in the 1960's, with 3 bedrooms and serviced by a septic system. The <br />existing structure is non -conforming given its setback from abutting wetland resource areas, and <br />all other respects, the existing dwelling conforms to the requirements of zoning. There's a 14.6 ft. <br />dimension from the corner of the existing deck that's attached to the building which brings it within <br />the 50 ft. requirement of § 174-33 of the bylaw. The 31 feet is the average setback of the buildings <br />on either side. So the proposed front yard setback of the new structure will conform as does the <br />existing structure. <br />The new 3 bedroom dwelling will comply with the setback criteria as shown on the plan in purple. <br />The new dwelling will be setback 16.5 ft. and 16.3 ft. from each sideline, and 31.9 ft, from the <br />street. The proposal also includes a small pool and a dock complex with the dwelling. The new <br />structure, and pool will be no closer than the existing 14.6 setback from the BVW. The pool is set <br />at 18.7, and the dwelling is setback 30.2 ft. from the BVW which is an improvement over the <br />existing 14.6 ft. setback from the wetland resource area which is referred to the BVW on the plan. <br />The requirements under § 174-17 to alter a change of a pre-existing non -conforming structure the <br />Board will need to find that the new structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the <br />neighborhood than what currently exists, that there is sufficient parking and setbacks that may be <br />required by the Board. <br />In addition to the request for specific findings, there is also a Special Permit request for —dock <br />complex under § 174-25 (I) (9) as depicted on the plan. The dock complex being 207 ft, is situated <br />from the mean high water to the end of the float which requires approval by the Board. <br />Mr. Bonvie wanted to confirm the average front setback measurement being 31 ft. with the abutting <br />properties because the measurements were not noted on the plan. He also asked if all non- <br />confornnities either are remaining the same or improving. <br />Mr. Kirrane said that the only non -conformity is the distance to the wetlands which is getting better <br />from 14.6 ft. to 18.7 ft. <br />Mr. Furbush read the Conservation, Inspection, the Harbormaster, and the Board of Health <br />comments into the record. <br />Mr. Bonvie made a motion to issue a Written Finding for the raze and replace project based on the <br />following conditions; <br />1. The Board has determined that the applicant meets all the conditions of a Written Finding <br />under Mass General Law 40A Section. 6. <br />4 <br />