Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals <br />Minutes <br />July 28, 2010 <br />items, if built, might be moved to a less satisfactory location, as they appeared absent <br />from the formal plan. <br />We love our neighborhood and we love our pool and have found tremendous value in <br />utilizing it with our family and friends. We reside approximately half the year in <br />Mashpee and spend as much of our time as possible outside. We want to be good <br />neighbors and we also want to minimize the impact of this construction and Request for <br />Variance on our privacy. <br />Some questions: <br />1. Are there alternatives that can be implemented to avoid a variance or minimize the <br />impact on our privacy? <br />2. Is there a spa and, if so, where? <br />3. Where is the pool equipment? <br />Thank you for your consideration of these concerns, <br />Very truly yours, <br />cs',tee,�,.cer/cs',uaaw �.e�` reran <br />Mr. Buckley said that the pool equipment will be installed behind the garage. Mr. Bonvie asked <br />why that wasn't shown on the plan. Mr. Blaisdell asked for the location of the spa. Mr. Buckley <br />said that the Petitioner may opt for a portable spa, so its location will vary. <br />Mr. Reiffarth asked for the exact dimensions of the pool, which are not shown on the plan. Mr. <br />Buckley said that the size of the proposed pool is 18 x 35 feet. Mr. Bonvie said the entire length of <br />the pool runs parallel to the Peltzman's property. He expressed concern that if installation of the <br />pool was skewed even just a little, the proposal would not be in compliance with the plan. Mr. <br />Buckley said that he knows that he needs a certified `as built'. <br />Mr. Nelson said that the setbacks are determined by distance to the water and not to the apron. The <br />apron of the pool exists outside that area. He said that he was concerned that the apron runs very <br />close to the lot line, but that the apron is "not covered by this Board". Mr. Buckley agreed and said <br />that the apron is about 5 feet from the Peltzman's lot line. <br />Mr. Nelson asked if the shrubs and vegetation would be removed in that area. Mr. Buckley said that <br />the proposal requires review by the New Seabury Architectural Review Committee, which he is <br />certain will require planting in the area between the apron and the lot line. For clarification, the <br />Architectural Review Committee is not a Town of Mashpee Committee. Mr. Bonvie asked why the <br />setback "goes to the water and not to the nearest point, such as coping, etc." Mr. Nelson said that <br />all of the pools in the state of Massachusetts are measured in that way — to the water. Mr. Bonvie <br />said that the intrusion actually exists with the apron, which can go all the way to the property line. <br />Mr. Nelson said that the apron is not considered a structure if it is at ground level. Mr. Reiffarth <br />said that the coping and apron are not calculated as part of lot coverage, but a deck would be <br />counted as part of the lot coverage. Mr. Bonvie repeated his concern with the proposed location of <br />the swimming pool and the fact that the Petitioner could be lounging by the pool right up to the <br />Peltzman's property line. Mr. Buckley said that a patio could be constructed right up to the lot line. <br />Mr. Nelson said that if the Board approves this Petition, it should specify that the pool corners must <br />be staked by a land surveyor and after the pool is poured it must be certified by a land surveyor. <br />3 <br />