3/28/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Nktshpee VIA, 16 Great-fj eek Koad ,i yr di P409111tee,.lalrtssachusrtts 026 . MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 28, 2018 The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in the Ockway Room at the Mashpee Town Hall, 16 Great Neck Road North, Chairman, Jonathan D. Furbush, Board Members William A. Blaisdell, Ronald Bonvie,Dom DeBarros, and Associate Members, Brad Pittsley and Norman J. Gould, and Sharon Sangeleer were present. Building Commissioner, Michael Mendoza was also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONTW"D HEARINGS Chairman Furbush opened the meeting at 6:00 pm and announced that Board Member, Scott Goldstein as absent. Chairman Furbush said he was stepping down from this hearing. 78 Waterline Drive South: Owner Daniel A. Wren requests a Variance under §174-31, Land Space Requirements Table of the Zoning Bylaws, to vary the side yard setback to allow for construction of a porch on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, Map 120 Parcel 126,Mashpee, MA. Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the homeowners for their request to construct a porch on the right front of the building that is approximately 190 sq. ft. He provided photographs that depict a patio that is located on the front side facing the building. The homeowners are proposing to relocate it over the present location of the stone patio that exists on the right hand side of the dwelling. This property is situated in the Little Neck Bay cluster sub- division which affords certain leeway relative to the setbacks but not the setbacks relative to the side yard. In this particular case,the side yard remains 15 ft. which is the underlying requirement of the R-3 Zoning District, and the proposed construction of the porch is 10.6 ft. of the side line thereby necessitating a variance of 4.4 ft. Attorney Kirrane said that there is a hardship relating to the shape of the lot which is very wide and narrow significantly to the rear. The angle of the side line is what creates the issue with this particular case because of the shape of the lot and the angle of that sideline which requires variance relief. The intent of the bylaw is to provide distances between abutting property owners. The 10.4 ft. affords this application sufficient distance ftom the side yard and dwelling. The additional 15 ft. strip of land between two residential properties, and 15 ft. that the abutter has on the other side. Essentially there is well over 35 ft. of distance between the two dwellings. To grant relief would not derogate from the intent of the bylaw. 1