07/28/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 28, 2010 Cape & Islands Engineering, Agent for the Petitioner, sent a letter to the ZBA office requesting continuance of the Petition to allow for Conservation Commission approval. Mr. Nelson made a motion to continue the Petition until August 25, 2010. Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor. Olavo Macedo. Jr. et al: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side and rear setback requirements to allow for construction of a swimming pool on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 16 Driftwood Circle (Map 126 Parcel 34) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and John M. Dorsey and Associate Board Member Ronald S. Bonvie. Mr. Dan Buckley of One Pointe Home Curators represented the Petition. He said that a Variance from the rear setback requirements is not needed. The proposal is seeking a Variance from the side setback requirements to allow for construction of a swimming pool. The existing septic system restricts location of the swimming pool on the property. Lot coverage will remain well below the allowed 30%. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens issued a memo stating that the subject property is a level lot, but "there are septic restrictions which would favor granting relief'. Direct abutters, Mr. and Mrs. Peltzman of 18 Driftwood Circle, sent a letter in opposition to the proposal. The letter reads: The Peltzman's . 18 Driftwood Circle Mashpee, MA 02649 25 July, 2010 Dear Cynthia and Members of the Mashpee Zoning Board; As per the Public Hearing Notice we recently received, we see that a request for variance is under review by the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals on July 28, 2010. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend this meeting due to the arrival of a new grandchild out of state; hence our need to communicate via letter. We are abutters of the Macedo property at 16 Driftwood Circle, where there is a request for a variance as part of a proposed plan to build a pool and surrounding deck area. We are concerned with the location of the pool. When we built a pool on our property, we were required to maintain set -backs from abutters on both sides of the property as well as from the conservation land behind. When our pool was constructed, to meet these set -backs it was necessary to alter the rectangular shape of the pool that was found to be approximately five inches in violation of the set -back for about 3 feet. As we understand the Macedo proposal, the entire length of their pool and deck (approximately 40 feet) would parallel our property line only several feet away from our property. The proximity to our outdoor living space is the cause for our concern (though we have no objection to their having a pool). In addition, we viewed 2 separate plans at Town Hall: one a conceptual drawing and one a proposed construction plan. On the conceptual plan, pool equipment and a "spa" were shown in locations that were fine; however, on the more recent "proposal", we are concerned that these 2