02/11/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning • Board of Appeals Minutes 2 February 11, 2009 on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 52 Spoondrift Way (Map 112 Parcel 36) Mashpee, MA. Sitting: Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell and Jack Dorsey. This matter was originally scheduled for December 10, 2008 and has been continued until tonight due to several issues in conservation and for general scheduling matters. The matter is still pending in Conservation. Attorney Kevin Kinane represents the applicants at this hearing. They are seeking a Special Permit (or in this case a Findings of Fact) to raze and replace the existing three bedroom pre-existing non -conforming dwelling with a new three bedroom dwelling. The lot and structure are non- conforming in that the frontage is only 25 feet where 150 feet is required as well as side yard setbacks do not meet the 15 foot requirement, although the new dwelling will not increase the non -conformity. Additionally, the unusual shape of the lot contributes to the inability to meet the 50 foot • setback requirement to the coastal bank. The new dwelling will be 24 feet from the wetlands decreasing the non -conformity by 5 feet with the current structure sitting at 19 feet from the coastal bank. The existing lot coverage is 16.2% based on a footprint of 3,012 square feet and the new lot coverage will be less at 15% based on a footprint of the new 2,780 square foot dwelling, although the total square footage (living space) will increase from 2,038 to 3,851 square feet. The current dwelling is a 1 '/2 stories and the proposed house will be 2 %2 stories. The applicant has also integrated environmentally friendly "rain gardens" into the site design for purposes of handling the surface water run-off. These landscape facilities both hold and remove certain impurities from runoff. The proposed project is still pending in Conservation. Attorney Kirrane presents other houses directly abutting this property and in the near vicinity that are equal in size and stature and this application is consistent with other raze and replace projects the Board has granted recently. The Chairman informs the Board that they are being asked for simply a "Findings of Fact" rather than a Special Permit since the by-law requests • that when filed under 174-17, which the applicant has done. Although similar in nature, the Findings of Fact merely requires the Board to find that the proposed project will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood.