01/01/2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 13, 2016 MINUTES 171 Uncle Percys Road: Owner, Eileen B. Ferrell, requests a Written Finding under §I74- 33 of the Zoning Bylaws to determine if the extension of two bedrooms on the second floor, and extension of the kitchen/dining area on the first floor of a single-family dwelling is set back at least fifty (50) feet from any water or wetland as defined by MGL C. 131, §40, on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, (Map 117 Parcel 371), Mashpee, MA. Mr. Tom Bunker, Engineer at BSS Design represented the applicant for the project located in the New Seabury Special Permit area. Mr. Bunker thought the project was exempt from the special permitted area, but according to the bylaws, the project is not exempt from the wetlands bylaw. Mr. Furbush said the specific setback requirements are 50 feet from the .wetlands. The only exemptions in this area are lot coverage and setbacks from the property line, not encroaching on the wetlands or flood zone. Mr. Bunker discussed the house plans with the Board and stated the addition and the deck are not moving any closer to the wetlands than what currently exists. He said the character of the house is similar to other homes in the neighborhood. The shed will be removed and the Conservation Commission approved the project at their last meeting. Mr. Furbush read the Inspection Comments into the record; "The area is zoned R3 and is in the Pre-contact Archaeology Sensitivity area—listed as "High Sensitivity". The applicant is seeking a Written Finding under Article V §174-17 regarding a determination from the Board if the expansion of an addition, more into the 50 foot wetland buffer zone (§174-33) would increase the non-conforming nature of the home." Seeking a Variance, from §174-33, for encroaching more into the 50 foot wetland buffer zone." Mr. Furbush read the Board of Health comments into the record; "The floor plans have been reviewed and are approved for three bedrooms. The change in footprint required a septic inspection. The septic inspection result was a "Needs Further Evaluation from the Local Approving Authority." The septic tank and leaching facility were identified as being within the driveway. The septic tank is not load rated to be in the driveway subject to vehicles. The leaching facility has no access manhole covers and was not inspected. As this was an inspection for a building permit and not for property transfer, the owner has until the time of property transfer to correct the identified issues with the septic system." Mr. Furbush said the septic system is under the driveway and is not load rated. Mr. Bunker said the Board could condition to put a steel plate over the tank to protect it from heavy loads during construction. The Board of Health is not present at the meeting and not able to comment if the design of the tank is for everyday construction equipment. Mr. Gould stated there are two issues; one is the integrity of the septic system and the other issue is the low bearing ability of the septic system. In terms of the integrity, that is fine. In terms of the low bearing maybe there is some clarification needed by the Board.Mr.Blaisdell suggested the project be continued until clarification is given by the Board of Health. What is his "further evaluation"? 3