7/12/2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A WRITTEN FINDING Seaward Investments, LLC 62 Waterway (Map 105 Parcel 211) Mashpee, MA 02649 FINDING-2017-36 The single-family residence currently occupies about 2,107 sq. ft. which represents about 18.16% of the lot area and is a three bedroom residence. The Board is well aware of the property situated in the R-3 Zoning District which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 150 ft. of frontage,which means the lot is a non-conforming lot. In addition, the Board is also well aware that the current zoning requires the setbacks from the public or private way to be 15 ft. from either side lines and 50 ft. from the abutting wetland resource area. The applicant has applied for a specific finding pursuant to the appropriate provisions of Section 174-17 of the bylaw to allow for the removal of the exiting three bedroom residence and the replacement of that three bedroom residence with another three bedroom residence. The structure as it currently sits is.non-conforming and does not meet the current 50 ft. setback from the wetland. It does not meet the front yard setback of 40 ft. and also has a 13.1 ft. setback from its southerly boundary. The proposal is for a slight reduction in the front yard setback from the current 25.4 ft. to 22.1 ft. and an increase in the setback from the wetlands from 36 ft. to 39 ft. and the elimination of the non- conforming side yard,setbacks creating a side yard setback of 17 ft. from the existing 13.1 ft. In evaluating the specific finding request, the Board must look at whether or not what is being proposed is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what currently exists. The Board must also look to determine whether or not there are adequate setbacks and sufficient area to provide parking within the proposed use. He also pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that there is a reduction of the front yard setback of 25.4 ft. to 22.1 ft. The 22.1 ft. setback is consistent with the average of the two structures on either side of this particular building, and under the bylaw they would be allowed to be at a closer distance to Waterway than what is currently proposed. There is a slight increase in the lot coverage from the 18.6%to 19.94%lot coverage which is still with the 20%allowed under the bylaw. The project will entail an upgrade to Title 5 system and will conform to current building code requirements. He suggested that the Board can make the appropriate specific finding that what is being proposed is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what currently exists. Michael Mendoza read the Inspection Department comments into the record. He asked Attorney Kirrane why he applied for Section 174-20 of the bylaws. Attorney Kirrane said that this bylaw has been used in the past to supplement Section 174-17 because it does . contain the language, "or otherwise". He suggested to the Board that they can make a determination that Section 174-20 is a non-issue. 2