05/09/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

10?V Town of Mashpee rMASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 Great Xeck load Xorth .......... Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 Decision for a Variance RE: Douglas J. &Kimberly L. Adams V-01-55 3 Westwood Road Map 117 Block 392 i A Petition was filed on April 9, 2001 by Douglas J. and Kimberly L. Adams of l Mashpee, Massachusetts for a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the rear setback requirements to allow for extension of a deck on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 3 Westwood Road(Map 117 Block 392) Mashpee, MA. Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on April 20 and April 27, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at which time the following members of the Zoning Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Robert G.Nelson,Zella E.Elizenberry and Marshall A. Brem. Mr. Govoni stepped down. The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issue s this Decision pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10 and the Town of Mashpee Zoning By-laws. Mr. Edward M. Govoni represented the Petitioner and stated that the proposed I j deck would encroach on the rear setback requirements by four feet. He stated that the proposed construction would maintain a distance of one foot away from the 10-foot easement. Mr. Gary Eynation, an abutter at 59 Uncle Edward's Road, read a letter expressing opposition to the proposal claiming that it would"have adverse and negative effect on his property and could cause harm to his privacy and property value". Mr. Eynation said that he would be amenable to discussing"fencing or shrubbery options that may buffer the negative effects"of the proposed deck. Mr. Eynation asked why the deck could not be constructed on the front of the j house. Mr. Govoni said that the Building Department asked for the Petitioner to maintain the setback from the street and that the floor plan really didn't allow for construction of the deck on the front of the house. i Mr. Eynation and the Board went into a lengthy discussion concerning the details and location of a privacy screen and shrubbery. Mr. Govoni explained that the easement should be kept clear for easy access. Mr. Eynation insisted that plantings could be ' i I I