05/13/2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

I MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 13, 2015 • MINUTES The structure will meet the required setbacks under the zoning bylaw and is consistent in size and design with other properties on Kim Path. Mr. Kirrane listed a few examples of lot coverage in the neighborhood; 53 Kim Path, 28%, 54 Kim Path, 22.6%, 26 Kim Path, 25.3%, 2 Kim Path, 21.7%, 45 Kim Path, 21.57%, 46 Kim Path, 23.5%, 43 Kim Path, 24.6%. All these are similar to 56 Kim Path. Mr. Furbush read a comment from the Inspections Department into the record; "The area is zoned R3 and the property is in the VE Flood zone. The property is also in the Pre - contact Archaeology Sensitivity area— listed as "Moderate Sensitivity". Because the shed will be placed within the VE Zone, it will need to be secured to site, secured to the site with sono -tubes or any other method approved by either FEMA and or the Massachusetts State Building Code for building in a VE Zone." Mr. Furbush read a comment from the Conservation Agent into the record; "any excavation required to install proposed shed will require a permit application to the commission." Mr. Furbush read an abutter letter dated May 5, 2015 from Beth Prunier McGinnis, at 50 Kim Path into the record; "I am a resident of Kim Path. I am writing this letter to let you know that I have absolutely no concerns with the additional 80 square feet of coverage that the Manganiello's are requesting for their shed. It is not an issue for me and I am surprised anyone else would care about such a small request." iMr. Bonvie read an abutter letter dated April 19, 2015 from John & Christine Mizzi at 54 Kim Path into the record; "We have received the public hearings notice for the hearings to be held by the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals this Wednesday, April 22. Unfortunately, as this is the April vacation week for MA public schools, we will be out of town and unable to attend. We had the opportunity to review the plans in the building department office and are comfortable with a minimum of 5 feet setback of the shed from our property as outlined by those plans. If the setback is reduced from the 5 feet outlined in the plans, we will have an issue with it. We thank you in advance for taking our feedback into consideration. Kind regards." Mr. Goldstein made a comment stating that the shed would have probably been approved at the time of the original house application. He was wondering what would be the outcome of a future applicants applying for similar relief ten years later. Mr. Bonvie stated he is a strong advocate of the 20% lot coverage rule but was still indecisive. Mr. Blaisdell reviewed the fact the applicant has a hardship regarding storage and would grant the relief. Mr. James Candito, an abutter at 70 Nick Trail. He stated he is not against change but is opposed to the size, placement, and height of 12-13 feet of the shed that will block his water view. He stated back in July, 2014 he asked the homeowner to move the shed closer • to his home approximately 3 feet from the side property line. He has no problem with it being moved 1 ft. from the back property line. 2