05/22/2024 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A WRITTEN FINDING Owners, Robert Allen Wolpe and Michelle A. Wolpe 84 Punkhorn Point Road, Map 100,Parcel 5 Mashpee, MA 02649 FINDING-2024-22 The property is situated in the R-3 Zoning District which requires a lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., lot frontage of 150 ft., and 15 ft. on the side and rear setbacks. The lot is nonconforming at 19,559 sq. ft. The existing lot structure coverage is 7.7%, and the proposed structure coverage will be 8.2%. The lot coverage is currently 23.8% and will be reduced to 25.4%. The total lot size is 60,855 sq. ft. GENERAL FINDINGS The subject property located at 84 Punkhom Point Road has a total of 60,855 square feet. The Conservation Department Comments dated July 8, 2024 were read into the record; "Project as proposed will not result in diversion of flood waters or loss of flood storage capacity as all proposed structures are either pervious, semi pervious, or allow for flow through floodwaters relatively unimpeded. No grading changes and no impacts to bordering vegetated wetlands or salt marsh. Buffer zone will be enhanced with mitigation plantings." The Building Commissioner comments dated July 8, 2024 were read into the record; "In regards to the setbacks of the second story bump out and the swimming pool at 84 Punkhorn Point Rd. I feel both items required Variance relief at the time of application of permit. According to M.G.L. 40A section 7, since a permit was granted and no action to compel removal or relocation of these structures within 6 years, they become legally non-conforming structures subject to M.G.L. 40A section 6 and Mashpee Zoning Bylaw 174-17. Further, a Variance was originally granted for 174- 32 Fire Protection which is exterior of the lot and does not impose an increase to area,frontage, width,yard or depth. Therefore, no further protection is required. " On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 an email was sent to the Building Commissioner from Mr. Haney asking for his determination and is indicated as written; "Hello Matt, First off, as you stated every structure on this property is non-conforming 174-33. I went back and forth with emails over this proposal with the design engineer for the enclosure of the porch in January. At that time, there was no proposed cabana. He asked me if this proposal would require ZBA relief because the owner wanted to start on the house renovations without the need of approvals from ZBA or Conservation. I replied that it must go to ZBA and it could be debatable of weather the relief would require a Written Finding or a Variance. You have spelled out the case for a Variance but one must accept that the second floor projection is an overhang because, as you mentioned, the setback is measured from the foundation. I've attached the plans from when the house was built which shows that the second floor projection is being supported directly above the house foundation and is not overhanging the foundation at all. The only overhang is the F eave of the gabled roof. That is why I am of the opinion that this is a non-conforming condition. If you feel aggrieved by this decision, you may appeal the ZBA. " 2