Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />JUNE 10, 2015 <br />• MINUTES <br />Mr. Goldstein said he cannot determine the location of the shed with his photos and that <br />the Board only determines the dimensions with the proposed plot plan. The plot plan shows <br />the shed will be moved 5 ft. 6" for the side and 2 feet from the rear property line. The Board <br />also discussed the appeal period is 21 days from the date the decision is filed with the Clerk. <br />The Building Commissioner will require an as -built for the shed. Mr. Candito said he will <br />talk to the homeowner to see if they can stake the area. <br />Mr. Bonvie wanted to know the lot coverage prior to the raze and replace project. Mr. <br />Kirrane said it was 24.1% and would still be below the lot coverage if the shed were <br />constructed at the same time the house was built. <br />Mr. Bonvie read an abutter letter from Beth Prunier McGinnis that resides at 50 Kim Path <br />into the record; "Dear Zoning Board, I am a resident of Kim Path. 1 am writing this letter <br />to let you know that I have absolutely no concerns with the additional 80 square feet of <br />coverage that the Manganiello' s are requesting for their shed. It is not an issue for me and <br />I am surprised anyone else would care about such a small request." <br />Mr. Forbush read a comment into the record from the Board of Health; 56 Kim Path, the <br />shed does not impact the access to the existing septic." No issues from the Board of Health. <br />Mr. Forbush read a comment from Conservation dated April 9, 2015 in the record; "The <br />• Conservation Dept. has been notified about the proposed shed at 56 Kim Path. Because the <br />shed is being placed within the driveway layout of the property and thus does not require <br />the disturbance/removal of existing vegetation or any associated excavation, it is <br />considered to be negligible in terms of any adverse impacts to relevant wetland resource <br />areas and/or buffer zones thereof associated with the property. No permitting is necessary." <br />Mr. Bonvie made a motion to issue a Variance for lot coverage relief for 2.9%. For the <br />record the lot coverage prior to this filing, and at the time of -the raze and replace of the <br />home was 24.1% and is now 22.9%. Also referencing the department and abutter letters. <br />This motion is based on a plot plan issued by Cape & Islands Engineering, Stamped by <br />Christopher Costa PLS, dated 5/29/15, proposed shed relocated, for Richard R. <br />Manganiello, 56 Kim Path, Mashpee, MA. <br />Mr. Blaisdell seconded, yes, Mr. Furbush, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, and Mr. DeBarros, <br />yes. All were in favor. <br />Mr. Bonvie made a motion to issue a 3 foot Variance of the 5 foot requirement from the <br />rear property line to allow for construction of an 8' x 10' shed. Conditioned in this motion; <br />if the dwelling needs to be secured or requires ground excavation, it will need a permit <br />from the Commission (Request for Determination). If there is any amendment to the <br />proposed plot plan, it will need another filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. <br />Referencing a plot plan issued by Cape & Islands Engineering, Stamped by Christopher <br />Costa PLS, dated 5/29/15, proposed shed relocated, for Richard R. Manganiello, 56 Kim <br />Path, Mashpee, MA. Also, stating for the record that this plot plan was revised as requested <br />by the Board. <br />3 <br />