10/04/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

E1 V.,) Mashpee Zoning Minutes—October 4, 2000 6 Board of Appeals i ryry u� i Commission and'received approval for installation of the nine-foot deck area to allow for Mho ,gl safe egress and ingress to the property. However,the Petitioner failed to return to the 4� ZBA for a Variance for the addition of the deck. ; Exhibit F indicates that the addition of the deck calls for a Variance of only five extra feet Ydli, , from the setback requirements to the water and wetlands. The distance from the edge of the deck to the wetlands is now 18.3 feet. Attorney Gildea said that the proximity of the dwelling to the wetlands and to the coastal bank creates a hardship for the Petitioner. He mentioned the safety issue as noted by the Building Department and that the proposal is aId�"'�'; minimal change of only five additional feet. Attorney Gildea submitted photos of the old dwelling and photos of the new home and the deck. Messrs. Govoni and Borgeson questioned if the Petitioner is seeking a uau , Variance for a deck that has already been constructed. Ms. Elizenberry questioned if the error was found during construction. Attorney Gildea answered yes to both questions. Attorney Gildea referred to Exhibit G with several sitelans of properties in the d, P P p immediate neighborhood. The documents prove that there are numerous properties in the l area that are closer than 18.3 feet to the wetlands. Mr. Gareth Orsmond of Rackeman, Sawyer&Brewster of Boston,represented one abutter, Mr. and Mrs. James Kelley of Milton, Massachusetts. He urged the Board to deny the Variance relief and demand that the Petitioner remove the deck because"it would set a terrible precedent"to grant a Variance after the construction. Mr. Orsmond II claimed.that the State Building Code does not require the installation of a deck ora landing to sliding doors or any doors that open inward. He also claimed that there are other ways to resolve this building code safety issue without resorting to a Variance. Mr. Orsmond said that the Variance relief being requested is "absolutely extraordinary relief'. He further challenged the Board to prove that the shape of the lot and the topography and soil conditions create a hardship for this Petitioner. qja��•,d�ii�ii . Mr. Govoni asked for clarification on Mr. Kelley's concern about the proposal, in view of i the fact that the Building Commissioner has required the installation of a landing for "°'I 4, safety reasons. He stated that the ZBA is obligated to consider the Building Commissioner's recommendations and that the ZBA has the authority to issue Variances ""!Ii��iplepG I based on safety concerns. Mr. Govoni asked if Mr. Kelley was concerned about his view to the water. Mr. Orsmond said that he couldn't answer that and that he was not trying to tell the Board that it cannot issue Variances based on safety concerns. Mr. Govoni repeated that he wasn't quite sure of the nature of Mr. Kelley's concerns. Attorney Gildea clarified for the Board that Building Inspector Russell W. Wheeler visited the subject property and suggested to the builder, Mr. Tarabelli,that the proposed doors present a safety issue. Mr. Wheeler said that egress from the door right down to a set of stairs would be dangerous. Mr. Hauck said that a platform is required on constructions where the door swings out. hip :U�