01/13/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13,2021 Attorney Kirrane mentioned that there were some comments submitted from abutters that were concerned about the height of the new building and construction. The structure will have to meet the 35 ft. requirement under the Zoning District. He said the Architect can answer any questions that the Board may have. Attorney Kirrane said the house is slightly larger but is well within the requirements of the bylaw relative to height, lot coverage, and is non-conforming. The new house is well within the lot coverage requirements. The lot is 25,000 sq. ft., and is one of the larger lots in the immediate neighborhood, and there are other lots that are a lot smaller. The lot will contain 4,568 sq. ft. of living space which is not out of character with other raze and replace projects in the area. An example are properties on Shore Drive, and Spoondrift Drive. It is consistent with other projects the Board has approved in the past, and is well within their discretion to approve this raze and replace project. Mr. Furbush and the Board reviewed the site plan, and noticed that the lot is odd shaped. Attorney Kirrane mentioned that the dock and float complex is located at the lower end of the lot. The non-conformity increased slightly. The front setback will be reducing by .2 ft. The height of the new dwelling as shown on the house plans will be 30 ft. from the average grade, and will be built on piers. Scott Goldstein mentioned that the Building Commissioner may require elevation certification from an engineer for the height of the new building. Dave Morris said that is correct. Mr. Furbush polled the Board for their comments. Ms. Sangeleer had no comments, Mr. Reiffarth,and Mr. Goldstein were satisfied with the height of the building being 30 ft..Ron Bonvie wanted to hear the comments from the abutters. Attorney Brian Wall represented the direct abutters at 226 Wading Place Road. He submitted a letter to the Board and to Attorney Kirrane. His client uses their property as a vacation home. He said that the bylaw 174-17.1 is discretionary, and even though the project meets the requirements under the bylaw,the Board needs to review that the project actually meets the character of the neighborhood. He told the Board that this new house will be encroaching on his client's property. Sharon read the Conservation Commission and Board of Health into the record. Scott commented that he has no concerns with the height or the size of the dwelling. He does have a concern regarding the location of the new dwelling that maybe getting closer to the abutter's side yard. 8