07/27/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS Owner of record: Margaret A. Johnson, Trustee Petitioner: Kenneth E.Norcross 47 Godfrey Road Mashpee, MA 02649 V-2011-30 The original building permit showed lot coverage at 20%, which the Petitioner's engineer discovered is actually 20.8%. The dwelling is approximately 4,800 square feet with three very large decks. Proposed lot coverage will increase to 22.7%. Mr. Norcross said that a fiberglass pool would not crush the septic system and would be easier to install on the property. The proposal meets all of the setback requirements. The property is located on a dead-end street and is surrounded by a wooded common area owned by the neighborhood Association. The gravel walk and gravel driveway reduce the impervious area on the property. Mr. Alfred Houston of 52 Old Dock Lane and Mr. Edward Tucker of 53 Godfrey Road expressed some concern about the proposed fence design. Mr. Michael Aceto, a direct abutter at 39 Godfrey Road, said that Mr. Norcross received unanimous approval from the Baybury Village Homeowners Association for installation of black chain link or black aluminum rail fencing around the proposed pool. Mr. Norcross said that the proposed fence will be nearly invisible and the existing landscaping will obscure the fence from the abutters' view. GENERAL FINDINGS: The subject property is located at 47 Godfrey Road and consists of 23,521 square feet of land. VARIANCE CRITERIA/SPECIFIC FINDINGS: The permit granting authority shall have the power after public hearing for which notice has been given by publication and posting as provided in section eleven and by mailing to all parties in interest to grant upon Appeal or upon Petition with respect to particular land or structures a Variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or By-law. The Board determined: 1. that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or By-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Petitioner due to the following circumstances relating to soil conditions and shape of said property and structures which especially affect such land and structures, but do not affect generally the zoning district in which it is located: • the proximity of the subject property to the river creates setback constraints that are unique to the property; • the odd shape of the subject property restricts location of the proposal; • the unusual configuration of the existing dwelling limits location of the proposal; • several large decks that are not actual living space, but are considered part of the lot coverage, are an additional unique feature of the dwelling. 2