03/22/2023 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES March 22,2023 38 Fells Pond Road: Owners, Michael E. Gould and Jo Robin Gould request a Written Finding under §174-17 of the Zoning Bylaws to allow for an addition, extension of a pre-existing, non- conforming dwelling on property located in an R-3 Zoning District,Map 116 Parcel 22, Mashpee, MA. Mr. Robb Sykes, Principal of Eastbound Land Surveying represented the applicants who are proposing an addition to their home. The existing dwelling is non-conforming, and exceeds the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Sykes provided a site plan that depicts the proposed addition located between the house and garage. The addition will consist of a sewing room on the first floor and another bedroom on the second floor. Mr. Sykes mentioned that comment that was submitted by the Health Agent. Ms. Jo Robin Gould, homeowner explained that the addition will consist of a bedroom and a bathroom. The existing small room that is considered a third bedroom is not 70 sq. ft., it's about 60 sq. ft., and they will be changing this room into a bathroom, and will add onto the master bedroom making the current room as a guest. There will be one bedroom on the second floor and two bedrooms on the main floor, and a smaller craft room in between the garage and house under 70 sq. ft. The Board had a conversation regarding the lot coverage requirement for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Morris said the maximum lot coverage requirement is 25%. The existing lot coverage is 22.5%. Mr.Morris asked if the patio was counted in the lot coverage.Mr. Sykes said;no,it's a cobblestone patio. Mr. Sykes mentioned that he had a conversation with Mr. Morris regarding the flood zone issue. Mr. Morris determined that a finding by the Board to determine if it's more detrimental. Mr. Bonvie stated that due to a remand from a judge on another petition, a site plan clearly has to depict lot coverage 100%pre-existing non-conforming,both pre-existing and post,and then should depict the 22.5%, and the 28.9% as "lot structure coverage" because there is no definition in the zoning bylaw about "lot structure coverage", but gives the Board a determination as how much building is on the lot. Mr. Bonvie said as one member that he is not in favor of the proposed because it exceeds the 25%. Mr. Furbush agreed with Mr. Bonvie. Mr. Goldstein asked if the bulk head was included in the lot coverage. The site plan shows the front of the addition being perpendicular to the garage, on the building plan its perpendicular to the house. They don't match. The Board allowed the applicants to approach to explain the findings regarding the site plan and house plan. Mr. Bonvie recommended that the site plan should depict"EX. Lot structure coverage 22.5%, PR Lot structure coverage (up for discussion) 28.9%. Pre- and post should state 100%. Mr. Bonvie said that as one member he is not in favor of the lot coverage increase. 2