9/14/2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision

Home Browse Search

y f fll5h , s: 61'rn qfWash, ec nTwyi,- Nius{ipce, W[lSSCdChFfsullS W-2649 MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A WRITTEN FINDING FINDING-2416-42 Katharine Lingamfelter and Certificate of Title: 127233 Brown Lingamfelter Lots #: 1 &2 65 Seconsett Point Road Plane#8224-13 (Map 124 Parcel 104-0-R) Mashpec, MA 02649 A Petition was filed on August 12, 2016 by Katharine F. Lingamfelter requesting to re-establish a Written Finding that was previously granted on February 5,2014(Finding- 2013-61) to allow for construction of two new porches on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, at 65 Seconsett Point Road, Map 124 Parcel 14-0-R, Mashpee, MA, Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on August 19, 2016 and August 26, 2016 a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A §6 and the Town of Mashpce Zoning By-laws. Public Hearings were held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at which time the following members of the Board of Appeals sat in on this hearing; Chairman, Jonathan Furbush, Vice Chairman, William Blaisdell, Board Members, Ron Bonvie, Dom DeBarros, and Scott Goldstein. Attorney, Brian Wall represented the homeowner to re-establish the Written Finding that was previously granted but lapsed because it went beyond two years. He provided a revised plan that shows a change in the shape of the dwelling by removing one of the porches. Mr. Wall said that it is approximately 2/3rds less than the original design. Attorney Wall said that the existing structure is within the 50 ft. buffer of the wetlands and that's the reason for the Written Finding under Section 174-17 which allows for an alteration or change to a pre-existing,non-conforming structure. The non-conformity is not getting any greater because there is nothing being built closer to the wetlands, and the porch is being built in the back of the existing structure. The Board had a discussion about the proposed deck being built below the flood plain elevation. Attorney Wall said it's a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and the proposed screened porch is well below the 50% of the appraised value. 1