06/23/2022 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes Board of Appeals June 23, 2010 reiterated that he stopped construction of the deck because the size was inadequate for the family's needs. Mr. Bonvie asked where the Petitioner is planning to add an additional four or five foot onto the existing deck. Mr. Perillo tried to clarify some of the details. He said that there is corridor running through the house to the deck. Mrs. Perillo said that there is an oversized door going out to the deck. The threshold is flush with the deck. Mr. Nelson said: "Once again, I will say to you, what you're asking us to allow you to have — is that identical to what we're looking at on this plan?" Mr. Perillo affirmed that it is. No comments were received from abutters. Mr. Bonvie moved to grant the following: • a Variance of 4 feet from the front setback requirements from Pond Street. • a Variance of 3 percent from the lot coverage requirements. Findings: that the lot is a corner lot and creates a hardship for the Petitioner to meet the setback requirements; the lot is not comparable to other lots in the area. This is conditioned upon compliance with J.K. Holmgren Engineering, Inc. plan entitled: "131 Shore Drive Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 Prepared for James Callahan Sanitary Disposal System Repair Plan Date: 1-20-2010, Rev 2-12-10, 2-16-10, 3-11-10, 5-12-10, 5-17-10, 6-16-10." Mr. Hinden seconded the motion. All were in favor. Roger Schiffman and Patricia M. DonnellV: Request a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the rear setback requirements to allow for an existing deck Is. on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 43 Driftwood Circle (Map 125 Parcel 196) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush and William Blaisdell, and Associate Members Peter Hinden and Ronald S. Bonvie. Mr. Schiffinan represented the Petition and said that he appreciated the opportunity to request the Variance. When he and his wife purchased the house in 2000, they were unaware that the existing deck at the time encroached on the setback. Mr. Schiffinan said that he has increased the size of the deck, further encroaching into the rear setback requirements. The portion of the land that encroaches into the setback abuts Conservation land. The Petitioner discovered the setback violation when a survey was completed to prepare for relocation of the existing jacuzzi and installation of a small pool. The Building Department has issued a permit for the pool. Mr. Schiffrnan said he would prefer not to have to take out a portion of the deck. Mr. Furbush asked exactly what the deck infringes upon. Mr. Schiffman said it is the rear of the yard abutting the Conservation land. Mr. Bonvie questioned the 20 -foot setback instead of the usual 15 -foot setback in an R-3 zoning district. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens explained that the property is in a cluster subdivision and the rear setback requirements are 20 feet. is