01/01/2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

own oJ Nfashpee "3I OIL hlaslzpu"wassadmsetts 02649. MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 10,2016 MINUTES The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the Waquoit Room at the Mashpec Town Hall, 16 Great Neck Road North. Chairman, Jonathan D. Furbush, Vice Chairman, William A. Blaisdell, Board Member, Domingo DeBarros, Associate Members, Brad Pittsley and Norman J. Gould were present. Board Members Ron Bonvie and Scott Goldstein were absent. Chairman Furbush announced the meeting was televised live on local Mashpce TV. NEW HEARINGS 138 Wate�rway: Owners, Brian M. and Nicole K. Clark are requesting a modification to Special Permit(SP-01-6) to replace an existing spa and trellis sitting on a raised patio with an in swimming pool and spa of a similar but larger size. Attorney Kevin Kirrane represented the homeowners for the proposed pool project. Also present was Tom Bunker from BSS Design. He provided the board with an outline document that includes a summary of his remarks, a field card, 8.5 x 11 proposed plan, and a copy of the plan that was approved by the Board back in 2001, and crossed out the spa. He provided Chairman.Furbush a plan that does not depict the spa. In addition,he provided the Board with a copy of the Special Permits/Finding Decision dated 2001, and a copy of a Variance Decision dated 2001, The original dwelling was razed and replaced back in 2001, and sits on a 17,000-plus square foot lot. It has 112 feet of frontage on Waterway and is a 2-plus story, single-family residential dwelling with a Title V septic system. The lot is non-conforming and does not have the required 150 square feet of frontage or the 40,000 square foot lot size that is applicable today. The structure itself is non-conforming and does not meet the required setbacks from the street, or the side yard setbacks. The Clarks who are the current owners are seeking to modify the plan that was approved by the Board of Appeals back in 2001. The conditions on the 2001 plan are different from the current conditions because back in 2001, the Board of Appeals approved a plan which included the installation of an in-ground swimming pool, a masonry patio around that swimming pool, but does not include a spa. The in-ground pool was not built, and apparently the former owners installed a portion of the patio, and installed a hot tub with a trellis above that patio. The Clarks would prefer to have an in-ground pool, and as such submitted their application to modify the permitted plan that was approved by the Board of Appeals back in 2001. 1