01/12/2022 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision

Home Browse Search

�`,�uN%: Mashpee 16 Gr eat eck Paad JVorth Ib'laslzpee,Masmehusetts 02649 MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A VARIANCE V-2022-03 Owner, Thora J. Christo Bk.: 20863 54 Bayberry Dr. Pg.: 312 (Map 23 Parcel 202) Mashpee, MA 02649 A Petition was filed on November 24, 2021 by Petitioner, Mark Culhane requesting a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks under §174-31 of the Zoning Bylaws to allow for an addition, extension to an existing three bedroom dwelling on property located in an R-5 Zoning District,Map 23 Parcel 202,at 54 Bayberry Drive,Mashpee,MA. (Owner of Record: Thora J. Christo). 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 December 10,2021 and December 17,2021 a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A §10 and the Town of Mashpee Zoning By-laws. Public Hearings were held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, as a hybrid meeting at which time the following members of the Board of Appeals were present; Chairman, Jonathan Furbush,Vice Chairman,William Blaisdell, Associate Members, Charlie Reidy, Brad Pittsley, and Robert Caggiano. Mr. Mark Culhane represented the application for the proposed addition that includes an attached two car garage on the Northwesterly side of the property, and a covered porch in the front. The proposed setback on the plan shows 9.4 ft. from that property line. The lot itself runs along the corner of Cranberry Lane and Bayberry Lane. The applicant also applied for a Written Finding because of the pre-existing non-conforming situation for the covered porch on the front of the dwelling. The Board listened to the opening remarks and reviewed the site plan depicting the proposed additions. They did not see an issue with the front setback, but thought the side setback was encroaching on the abutting property, and they did not see a hardship. The Board suggested that the application be continued so they could review the particulars of the project further and determine if in fact there is a hardship. The applicant requested a continuance to allow some time to consult with his client regarding the Board's concerns. 1