03/23/2005 ZONING BOARD OF DECISIONS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 2 March 23, 2005 174-17 and 174-20, they are allowed to alter and change a non -conforming structure with a special permit. In reviewing the reports from other boards, Mr. Nelson states that there is no record of the applicant filing with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Polehums says that they still need to do that. The Board discusses if they would be inclined to grant this conditioned on the approval of Con Com and Board of Health update. After some discussion, Frederick Borgeson moves to grant the Special Permit conditioned on approval from Con Com and BOH. Richard Guerrera seconds the motion. All agree. So moved. Mr. Nelson would like to add the notation of Section 174-31 fn. 18 which refers to the special permits allowed in the Popponesset Overlay District. Reference plans from Warwick & Associates, Inc. of North Falmouth, MA, dated July 19, 2004, revised March 8, 2005, architectural plans from Polhemus, Savery & DaSilva of Chatham, MA, dated October 15, 2004 and landscape plans from Hawk Design, Inc., of Boston, MA, dated February 2, 2005. Barbara Beebv c/o Elliot and Anne Bloom: Request a Special Permit under Section 174-17 to alter a pre-existing non -conforming structure and lot on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 41 Fiddler Crab Lane (Map 105 Parcel 103) Mashpee, MA. Barbara Beebv c/o Elliot and Anne Bloom: Request a Variance from Section 174-31 of the zoning by-laws to exceed the lot coverage maximum in order to expand an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 41 Fiddler Crab Lane (Map 105 Parcel 103) Mashpee, MA. • Sitting: Robert Nelson, Zella Elizenberry, Frederick Borgeson, Richard Guerrera and Jonathan Furbush. Attorney Kevin Kirrane represents the applicants in this hearing. They are seeking to raze and replace the existing dwelling and have filed for a special permit and variance relief. Since there are parts of this area that are cluster developments and others not, different rules apply to similar lots. Currently.the dwelling exits as a 3,206 square foot dwelling and they are proposing to construct a 4,079 square foot house. In cluster developments they are allowed 30% lot coverage. However, this particular lot allows only 20% lot coverage. Mr. Kirrane does a presentation of the history of the lot. When the lot was created in 1965, it had grandfathered setbacks of 7.5 feet and contained, at the time. 20,700 square feet whereby the proposed dwelling would total 19.7% lot coverage. However, currently, if measured from the MHW it contains 19,360 square feet excluding the land underwater putting the proposed dwelling at 21% lot coverage. If all the welands were deducted from the square footage of the lot, it would total 16,637 square feet and the house would be at 24.5% lot coverage, well over the 20% maximum lot coverage allowed. Section 174-17 of the by-laws contains language for the Board to consider the 19,360 square feet or the 20.700 square feet. Mr. Kirrane believes that should be Board consider the lot size to be 19,360 then his client would certainly be willing to reduce the house size by 1% to achieve the 20% lot coverage maximum. The Board mulls over the presentation and read.a letter of concem./interest by an abutting neighbor the Brennen's. They have a concern over what is being referred to as the spa area in the deck for noise etc., and would greatly impede their privacy. Mr. Kirrane and