12/14/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Executive Session

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 14, 2011 MINUTES existing home and will generate more tax revenue for the Town. There is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as the Board may require. He also commented that the proposal is consistent in size and height with other recently renovated homes in the neighborhood. The Board of Health has approved the proposal for construction of a three-bedroom home. The Conservation Commission has also approved the proposal and issued an Order of Conditions on November 30, 2011. Mr. Nelson read the following email in opposition to the Petition: To whom it may concern, We currently have a summer residence at 54 Kim Path and are responding to the notice we received regarding the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals for December 14, 2011. Our concern is regarding the request for variance by our neighbors at 56 Kim Path. We are unable to attend this meeting this evening and wish our voice to be heard. We are against their wish for a variance at this location. We understand their desire to build a new home at this location and wish them all the best in that endeavor, however they should remain as the zoning by laws state within the current footprint of their home. We purchased our home in 2001 and similarly requested a variance to allow for a front porch and we were denied. Our neighbors argued that it would infringe upon their views of the beach and it was not something that should be granted. We agreed with that decision and wish to state the same in this case. All over Popponessett they are tearing down cottages and building these huge homes on these tiny lots. Currently our home is for sale and because of the uncertainty of this construction no one is willing to take that risk and make an offer on our home. Again we do not begrudge our new neighbors their desire for a new home at that location however we would like to state for the record that we are against any variance that would make their home any larger than the current footprint of their home. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. John and Carolynne Cronin 54 Kim Path Mashpee, MA Mr. Bonvie questioned “top of concrete of first floor” and asked what the difference in elevation of the first floor will be with the proposal. He referred to FEMA and 100-year storms and 10-foot elevations. Mr. Luff said that he would provide those elevation figures. He stated that the floor has been lowered and the proposal does not exceed the height restriction. Mr. Luff said that the existing dwelling is below the flood zone requirements. He said that the “design of the house is just below the maximum allowed building height, which is 30 feet from average grade, not from the top of the first floor”. 3