10/14/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals John LaCava 2 V-09-32 that it needed to be addressed at the Board of Appeals. One corner of the pool does not meet the 20 foot setback requirement and sits at 8.6 feet from the property line. There is also a stockade fence that encloses a portion of the abutting lot as well. There is no building permit necessary for a fence, thus the removal of that would be a civil matter between the parties involved. Mr. Stevens also asks Mr. LaCava to move the existing playhouse to within 5 feet of the property line since the by-law requires any structure 120 square feet or less may stay at that dimension. Due to the circumstances and the time elapsed in this matter, Mr. Stevens is not opposed to this variance request. Mr. Nelson has also noted that the Board has determined the property line in question to be a rear lot line and not a side lot line as Mr. Stevens has indicated in his letter. Mr. LaCava will remove the encroaching concrete apron 3.8 feet back from parcel 7, remove the playhouse completely and remove the stockade fence from parcel 7. Mr. Nelson takes testimony from all interested parties as follows: Charles Peters-37 Gooseberry Lane: He asks what portion of the pool is specifically on his property? Mr. Nelson answers 2.6 feet of the concrete apron. It is further discussed that the fence was installed by the homeowner however he will remove it if necessary. Don Peter — 6- Cashers Trail: He asks about concrete bounds by the engineer — if they were done they would be seen. Mr. Nelson states that concrete bounds are not necessarily required to survey the lot. The following abutters stated that they all feel the variance should not be granted and feel that they applicant should maintain the required 20 foot setback. They feel the permit never should have been issued in the first place and question who is to blame? Holiday Pools or the Town of Mashpee? They have asked what will happen to their property if the variance is granted. Mr. Nelson informs them that nothing will happen to their property except the pool will remain on Mr. LaCava's property and the encroaclunent will be rectified. The abutters state that they will appeal this decision if it is granted. Attorney Michael Blantin questions the Board on the variance and setback issues. Several abutters spoke more than once during the hearing and reviewed the plot plan with Mr. Nelson at length. There was discussion of the Public Hearing Notice and questions