01/08/2020 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A VARIANCE Petitioner, William Drucker (Owners of record: Peter M. Franciosi and Judith A. Franciosi) 61 Pleasant Park Drive (Map 70 Parcel 162) Mashpee, MA 02649 V-2020-03 SPECIFIC FINDINGS: The pool will be situated in the front yard. The Variance request is from the paper road which is 15 ft. off the lot line. It would be allowed if it was a side lot line. The setback requirement from the front is 40 ft., and would be a 25 ft. Variance request. Due to the criteria of lot shape as well as the other factors that exist on this site make this lot somewhat unique in this particular zoning district, coupled with the utility easement of the adjacent property, and the shape of this lot. Attorney Kirrane received an email from Matthew Eddy, the Engineer with Baxter Nye stating that"the existing lot coverage.for the house is currently is 19.1%if the easement is deducted from the lot area and 13.8%if the easement isn't deducted". The Board discussed that a condition can be made based on receiving a copy of the easement recording.Attorney Kirrane said that the pool and the house on the plan show the lot coverage at 22.8% with the 24 ft. wide easement being deducted from the lot area,which is over the 20%coverage. If the land area within the easement could not be counted for lot coverage calculation purposes,the lot coverage would only be 16.5%. The bylaw only requires easements 20 ft. in width to be deducted. The Board noted that the width will be 18 ft. There were no comments from the Board of Health or Conservation. There were no more comments from the Board or audience. VARIANCE CRITERIA: Chapter 40A: Section 10. Variances: The authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, 1) a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that 2) desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law. In view of the foregoing, the Board determined the Petitioner met the criteria for a Variance. Upon motion duly made and seconded at the Public Hearings on Wednesday, January 8, 2020, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to issue a Variance for the front yard setback to Petitioner, William Drucker for 61 Pleasant Park Drive. 2