03/09/2005 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Lisa Drake 2 V-05-30 (417 Monomoscoy Road) 32,000 square feet just short of the required 40,000 square feet for the R-3 zoning district. They plan to construct a 5 bedroom, 4,824 square foot house that will maintain 15.9% lot coverage, well under the 20% maximum allowed. Mr. Brem and Mr. Borgeson ask if the wetlands are included in the total square footage of the lot and the engineer mentions they are not. They will be able to meet the setback requirements except in one area on the northerly side which currently exists at 5.5 feet and will be 8.3 feet with the new dwelling. Although the proposed dwelling makes it less non-conforming it is still less than the 15 foot requirement. Petitioner has also filed for variance relief with regard to this matter and for lot size and frontage requirements. The height of the house will be 34.6 feet at its highest. It also appears that there are frontage issues. Mr. Brem mentions that he has a problem with giving a sideline variance with such a large lot and feels something could be cut back. Mr. Schilling discusses the fact that they are actually making this less non-conforming than what is currently there now and that his client is trying to take advantage of the view to the best of his ability. Mr. Nelson mentions that cantilevering may be a possibility since the deck is what the problem is. Mr Brem says he has no problem with that as long as the foundation is not up to that point. Mr. Schilling agrees that the deck will be cantilevered two feet which is the maximum amount allowed. Assistant Building Inspector Charlie Maintanis feels this would be acceptable to the building department. The Board moves to grant the variances. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject property is located at 417 Monomoscoy Road and will contain upon completion of combining 413 Monomoscoy Road to this property 32,000 square feet which is where the new dwelling will be erected. SPECIFIC FINDINGS The Board determined that: 1. a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the by-law.