02/11/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning • Board of Appeals Minutes 3 February 11, 2009 Mr. Nelson would like to discuss the deck and the proposed porch. Attorney Kirrane informs the Board that the existing deck will be removed and the proposed porch will be 7.5 feet from the coastal bank — a more conforming situation than the existing deck which sits at only 2 feet from the coastal bank. Jonathan Furbush informs Mr. Slavinsky that it appears there was never a building permit issued for the deck. He states that the dwelling is very old and it may not have had one. However, regardless, the deck is being removed. The Board then discusses the request for the pool. Mr. Nelson asks the Building Commissioner if this is considered a structure and how it should be permitted. Mr. Stevens informs the Board that it is considered a structure and must be applied for separately from this current application. Mr. Furbush also asks Attorney Kirrane about a fence for the pool. Mr. Slavinsky informs them that yes, the required 5 foot fencing will be installed. A discussion ensues regarding the pool. It has been reduced in size since the first proposal and is now a 10' x 16' wading pool. The Board asks why the applicant needs a huge stone patio and a porch. The Board is not in favor of the porch and the pool. Attorney Kirrane suggests that his client may be amenable to reducing the size of the porch so that it sits no • less than 10 feet from the top of the coastal bank and perhaps remove the pool. Mr. Furbush suggest a re -design of the porch so that it is pushed back from the coastal bank. Attorney Kirrane agrees to this mitigation and will have the pool removed. Mr. Nelson asks about the current driveway that encroaches on the abutting neighbors property. Attorney Kirrane states that the driveway is being removed and the area will be vegetated. Chairman Nelson asks for comments from the audience. Craig Fitzgerald of 50 Spoondrift Way addresses the Board. He is opposed to the dwelling as proposed for several reasons. He feels the new dwelling is distinctly different from the existing dwelling and is not being built into the same foot print at all since the entire foundation is being removed and it is going up another story. He states that it will shade his property and feels it will be detrimental to the neighborhood. He asks what the height restriction is. Mr. Nelson informs him that the applicant is allowed to go up as high as 35 feet from the median grade level. Mr. Fitzgerald states that just because other homes in the area were previously built with such size and stature, the ZBA can make a new ruling tonight. He feels the second floor will be • detrimental to his property and wants the current 15 foot setback requirement adhered to.