Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning <br />Board of Appeals <br />No other comments were received from abutters. <br />Minutes <br />June 23, 2010 <br />Mr. Nelson recommended that the Variance should include a stipulation that the shed <br />shall be located 40 feet away from Pine Avenue. Mr. Quinn said that it would be very <br />close and offered to install the shed as far away from Pine Avenue as possible. A <br />distance of 35 feet was agreed upon. <br />Mr. Blaisdell moved to grant a Variance of 1% from the lot coverage requirements, <br />bringing the total lot coverage of the existing dwelling along with the proposed shed to <br />25.6%. This is conditioned upon the following: <br />• the front of the shed shall be installed a minimum of 35 feet away from Pine <br />Avenue. <br />• installation of two cedars in front of the shed facing Pine Avenue. <br />compliance with Cape & Islands Engineering Plan entitled: "Plot Plan of Land <br />Located in Mashpee, Mass. Prepared For Ethan Bornstein Date: Mar.9.2009 <br />Rev'd June 21, 2010." <br />Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. All were in favor. <br />Doris K. Perillo, Trustee: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By- <br />laws to vary the lot coverage requirements and the front setback requirements from Pond, <br />Street to allow for construction of a deck to an existing home on property located in an <br />R-3 zoning district at 4 Pond Street (Map 117 Parcel 257) Mashpee, MA. <br />Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush and William Blaisdell, and <br />Associate Members Peter Hinden and Ronald S. Bonvie. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Perillo represented their Petition. Mr. Perillo said that the size of the deck <br />is necessary to accommodate two handicapped people living in the home who use <br />wheelchairs. The Town recently changed their address from 131 Shore Drive to 4 Pond <br />Street. <br />Mr. Nelson said that he visited the subject property and questioned the distances shown <br />on the plan and the distance of the dimensions on the deck on which construction had <br />been started. Construction of the deck was undertaken and the Petitioner discovered that <br />there was not enough room for handicap access. The Petitioner halted construction <br />because increasing the size of the deck would increase the lot coverage. He was advised <br />to Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance. Mr. Bonvie asked if the existing <br />deck would be increased in size and asked for its location on the plan. Mr. Perillo said <br />that the deck would be larger to accommodate the wheelchairs. <br />Mr. Nelson said that the front setback applies on both streets with a comer lot. Mr. <br />Nelson asked: "Is this what they have actually built, 10 feet X 28.67?" Mr. Perillo <br />confirmed the statement. Mr. Perillo said that there are two doors going to the deck. <br />Mrs. Perillo said that she has two sisters living with her and her husband, both of whom <br />are handicapped and use wheelchairs. <br />Mr. Hinden questioned if the plan shows what currently exists on the property. Mr. <br />Perillo said that the deck is not completed, but the addition has been completed. He <br />