03/22/2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

2. Attached to the application was a site and sewage disposal plan with a hand- drawn line demonstrating that Plaintiffs' contractor intended to construct the pool in accordance with the rear yard setback requirements contained in the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws. (See Exhibit "B".) 3. The subject locus is in an R-3 Zoning District and requires a 15-foot rear yard setback. 4. On or about June 11, 2003, the Town of Mashpee Building Inspector issued a Building Permit for the pool construction. (See Exhibit "B".) 5. The contractor measured off the necessary setback distance from what he believed to be the rear property boundary line separating Plaintiffs' property from that of the abutter, Town of Mashpee. 6. Thereafter, construction commenced and the pool was installed. 7. On or about August 21, 2003, Plaintiffs received a letter from the zoning enforcement officer indicating that the pool was in violation of the Land Space Requirements as contained in the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws §174-31 and that they had to remove the pool or apply for a variance. (See Exhibit "C".) 8. Subsequently, it was determined by Plaintiffs' surveyor and the plan created that the pool encroached into the rear yard setback and, in fact, encroached over the property line onto Town owned land. (See Exhibit"D" -plan showing pool encroachment.) 9. Once this determination was made, Plaintiffs immediately had the apron of the pool modified so that it no longer encroached over the property line. 10. On or about February 27, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a variance to vary the rear yard setback requirement by 10 feet, since the pool apron had been removed the actual pool is 5 feet off the rear property line. 11. On or about April 26, 2006, a hearing on the application for a variance was held. 12. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the shape of the lot was a factor leading to the location of the house and that the location of the house limited the area where the pool could be located, all owing to the unique shape of the lot. 13. Further evidence was presented by Plaintiffs that they spent in excess of $23,000.00 for the installation of the pool and, therefore, if the Board did not grant a variance, Plaintiffs would suffer a hardship.