4/27/2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 27, 2016 MINUTES Mr. Furbush read the comments from the Inspection Deparanent into the record; "The area is zoned R5 and is in the Pre -contact Archaeology Sensitivity area --- listed as "High Sensitivity". The applicant is seeking an Administrative Appeal to the Building Commissioner's decision. (See attached documents)." The attached documents reference the letter sent to the homeowner. Mr. Furbush and Mr. Blaisdell both pointed out that the application, which was advertised, was regarding both abandomnent and an in-law suite, not the issue of Use. They have to vote on what was posted in the paper. Mr. Bonvie made a motion to approve the reversal of Building Commissioner's Decision under M.G.L. Chapter 40A §8 and § 15, and §174-19 of the Zoning Bylaws to prohibit in- law suite with bedroom use in accessory structure on property located in an R-5 Zoning District, (Map 79 Parcel 66), Mashpee, MA. Mr. Blaisdell, seconded the motion, Mr. Furbush voted no, Mr. Blaisdell, voted no, Mr. Bonvie, voted no, Mr. Goldstein, voted no, and Mr. DeBarros, voted no. All members voted unanimously to deny the application of the Building Commissioner's appeal. 3 Mizzenmast: Owners, Vladislav and Viktoriya Vilkomir request a Variance of the rear setback to allow for construction of an in -ground pool under § 174-31 of the Zoning Bylaws on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, (Map 125 Parcel 240), Mashpee, MA. Chairman Furbush announced he was stepping down from this hearing, and assigned Bill Blaisdell as Acting Chairman. The three regular Board members and Associate, Brad Pittsley. Attorney, Mark Gildea represented the homeowners for the pool application. He provided the Board a narrative packet that included the plot plan of the property, photos of the back yard, and a list of other properties that were granted similar variance relief for their pools, sheds, dwellings and garage projects. Attorney Gildea said the plan depicts a 10 foot setback from the lot line to the edge of the pool, and would require a 5 foot Variance from the 15 foot setback requirement. The pool size will be 36' x 15'. Due to the size and shape of the lot and the location of the house, there is no other place to put the pool without the variance relief. Also on the plan depicts a fence and landscaping that runs along the abutting property at 92 Waterline Drive South owned by the Shulmans. Both neighbors thought the fence was located on each other's property. Attorney Gildea said his client had the lot surveyed and it was found that the fence is located on the Shulman's property. Attorney Gildea demonstrated that other properties in the neighborhood were granted variance relief for various projects, and specifically noted that the Shulman's pool is 8.9 feet from their property line. He said that his client has a hardship and relief can be granted without detriment to the public good. J