ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
February 24, 2010
The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, John Dorsey, William Blaisdell, and Associate Member Ronald Bonvie were present. Associate Member Peter Hinden was not in attendance. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens also attended the meeting.
Chairman Robert Nelson opened the hearings at 7:00 p.m. He welcomed newly appointed Associate Member Ronald S. Bonvie to the Board.
NEW HEARINGS
Steven & Lucinda Adams: Request a Finding of Fact under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws pertaining to non-conforming buildings and uses on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 370 Monomoscoy Road (Map 125 Parcel 16) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, William Blaisdell, Ronald Bonvie, and John Dorsey. Mr. Reiffarth stepped down from this Petition.
Mr. Furbush read the Petition into the record. Mr. and Mrs. Adams represented their Petition. They submitted plans with an original architectural signature. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens confirmed that the lot is protected as long as the proposed construction is maintained on the same footprint. Mrs. Adams said that they plan to demolish the existing buildings and replace the existing foundations in the same exact footprint.
Mr. Nelson questioned the legality of having two buildings on one lot. Mrs. Adams submitted a copy of the deed and said that the two buildings can never be sold separately and will always remain as one parcel.
Mr. John Slavinsky, Engineer from Cape & Islands Engineering, also represented the Petition and said that construction will include installation of a frost wall.
Mrs. Adams said that the Conservation Commission has approved the project with numerous conditions.
The Board of Health has approved replacement of the two cesspools with a new Title V Septic system, which has already been installed on the subject property.
The Board reviewed the plans, easement, flow of traffic and parking area. Mr. Adams clarified some of the details of the proposal. The Board agreed that the proposal would be an improvement to the subject property.
Mr. Nelson expressed concern with the 12-foot travel way currently located outside the 10-foot way. The Petitioner agreed that the placement of the travel way should be moved as close as possible to the property line.
Mr. Nelson asked for comments from abutters. No comments were received.
Mr. Furbush moved that the Board’s Finding of Fact under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws find that the proposal is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and that there is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks. The Finding of Fact is conditioned upon compliance with the following:
- Cape & Islands Engineering Plan Entitled: “PROPOSED HOUSE RECONSTRUCTIONS PREPARED FOR STEVE & CINDY ADAMS, HSE. NO. 370 & 370A MONOMOSCOY ROAD, MASHPEE, MASS. PLAN NO. 111609, FILE NO. 111MA, SEPTIC FILE NO. 76, SCALE: 1” = 20’, DATE: NOV. 16, 2009, PCS FILE: mono370”.
- The travel way shall be limited to a width of 12 feet and it shall abut the easterly line of the way.
- Parking on the lot shall be in the area referred to as the “Way”. The parking area to the subject property shall not be accessed from Monomoscoy Road.
Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor. The vote was unanimous.
Stephen R. Hanlon: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the front setback requirements to allow for construction of a garage on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 491 Main Street (Map 27 Parcel 73) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell, and John Dorsey.
Mr. Furbush read the Petition into the record. Mr. Hanlon represented his Petition and said that the topography of his property limits the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Dorsey agreed that the steep pitch of the property creates a hardship on the Petitioner. Mr. Nelson said that he had visited the property and that the back of the yard is a tremendously deep hole. Mr. Hanlon said that some of the black top area would be eliminated with construction of the garage. Lot coverage will remain well below the maximum allowed by the By-laws.
Mr. Nelson asked for comments from abutters. No comments were received.
Mr. Reiffarth moved to grant a Variance of 17.5 feet from the front setback requirements to allow for construction of a garage on the subject property. This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with Cape & Islands Engineering Plan entitled: “HSE.NO,491, MAIN ST. ROUTE 130, PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 13%, PLOT PLAN OF LAND LOCATED IN MASHPEE, MASS. PREPARED FOR STEPHEN HANLON, DATE: JAN.29,2010, SCALE: 1”=30’.”
Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor. The vote was unanimous.
RESCHEDULED HEARING FROM FEBRUARY 10, 2010
Yarmouth Fish and Lobster, LLC d/b/a Mashpee Fish and Lobster: Requests a Modification of a Special Permit under Sections 174-25 F (7) and 174-25 I (10) to allow for limited food preparation on site, take-out window, and expanded product availability to include ice cream and outdoor picnic tables on property located in a C-1 zoning district at 528 Falmouth Road (Map 74 Parcel 16) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell, and John Dorsey.
Mr. Furbush read the Petition into the record. Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitioner. Mr. Michael McCarthy, principal operator of the property, also attended the meeting along with his business partner, Mr. Thomas Ellis.
Attorney Kirrane addressed the Board and said that the Petitioner has been operating under a lease with Mashpee Commons Limited Partnership at the subject property for approximately one season. The Petitioner has met with the Design Review Committee on two occasions and has made every effort to incorporate the Committee’s recommendations into the proposal.
Attorney Kirrane said that the dumpster is serviced at night so as to not interfere with parking and customers.
Attorney Kirrane said that the proposal calls for installation of a minor addition to the building with take-out windows. The Design Review and Plan Review Committees expressed concern about customer safety. Installation of fencing and bollards will direct traffic away from customers and provide protection. The plan includes additional parking and lighting. Food service will not be provided outside of the building. Picnic tables will be provided. The menu will consist of seafood products, beverages, and soft-serve ice cream.
Mr. Dorsey questioned if there are any plans to remedy the atrocious shape of the parking lot. Attorney Kirrane said that the existing condition will be maintained. Mr. Nelson objected to the idea that the Board would require a tenant to expend a large amount of money to repair the parking lot.
Mr. John Slavinsky from Cape & Islands Engineering also represented the Petitioner and confirmed that the proposal calls for 23 parking spaces. He said that the By-laws require only one handicapped parking space to every 25 parking spaces, which will be provided.
Mr. Nelson said that he wanted verbal/written approval from the Board of Health.
Mr. Nelson referred to the following recommendations of the Design Review Committee concerning the proposal:
- the dumpster should be moved at least 25 feet from the building, covered and enclosed, and situated on a cement slab, with room made available for a recycling container as well.
- designation added on the plan as a non-turtle area.
- the parking lot shall be paved with additional spaces added.
- applicant must remedy issues with the walk-in cooler.
- applicant must go through the BOH if outside seating is made available.
- guard rail will conform to standards for handicapped, with vertical posts, not horizontal.
Attorney Kirrane referred to §174-41 (F) of the By-laws, which reads: “Unless alternate paving is approved by the permitting authority, all parking areas and driveways shall be constructed on a base of not less than eight (8) inches of good binding gravel or other suitable road base material, properly shaped and compacted.” He suggested that the Board of Appeals has the flexibility and the authority to waive the requirement for the Petitioner to provide paved surface to the additional parking spaces that are being added. The proposal calls for reclaimed asphalt paving in the parking area.
Attorney Kirrane said that picnic tables will not be placed on the site until after the bathroom facilities are made available.
Mr. Bonvie questioned what provisions will be made for the swale maintenance and inspection.
Mr. Nelson asked the Board to decide on whether to require paving or reclaimed paving. He asked Mr. Slavinsky about the difference between the two different kinds of paving with regard to runoff. Mr. Slavinsky clarified the permeability and water seepage value of both types of paving. The Board members discussed the paving alternative and decided that it would meet their stringent requirements.
Mr. Nelson questioned the owner, Mr. McCarthy, about the menu. Mr. McCarthy said that the limited food preparation is whatever is required to make the fish and chips and fried clams. Fillets will be delivered and there will be no cutting of fish on site. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. McCarthy if he wanted to be limited to just fish and chips and fried clams, rather than limited food preparation. Mr. McCarthy said that the landlord will not allow him to offer anything other than seafood in order not to compete with what is offered at the Picnic Box. He said that the menu will be limited to seafood, soft-serve ice cream and soft drinks. Attorney Kirrane said that he did not feel it was appropriate for the Board to limit restaurant menus. Mr. Nelson felt that the proposal is changing a “fish store to a
general store.” Attorney Kirrane disagreed that the change was going to be quite that significant and commented that a general store is an allowed use in that zoning district.
Mr. Nelson moved to grant the Modification of a Special Permit to the Petitioner, subject to the following Design Review Committee’s recommendations regarding:
- the dumpster.
- Board of Health approval.
- picnic table restriction.
- installation of the reclaimed asphalt in the additional parking spaces.
This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with Cape & Islands Engineering plan entitled: “BLDG.NO.528 FALMOUTH RD. TOWN MAP 74 PARCEL 16, SITE PLAN ALTERATIONS LOCATED IN MASHPEE, MASS. PREPARED FOR MASHPEE FISH & LOBSTER. DATE: OCT. 19, 2009, REVD.FEB.23,2010”.
Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
CONTINUED HEARINGS FROM JANUARY 13, 2010
Joann Wilson: Requests a Special Permit/Finding of Fact under Sections 174-17, 174-20, 174-24 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A § 6 for permission to demolish a
pre-existing, non-conforming structure on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 12 Rock Island Road (Map 128 Parcel 24) Mashpee, MA.
Joann Wilson: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side setback and lot coverage requirements in order to replace a pre-existing,
non-conforming structure on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 12 Rock Island Road (Map 128 Parcel 24) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Robert Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, John Dorsey, William Blaisdell, and Ronald Bonvie.
Mr. Furbush read the Petitions into the record. Attorney Kevin Kirrane and Engineer John Slavinsky from Cape & Islands Engineering represented the Petitioner. Mr. Michael Wilson also attended the meeting.
Attorney Kirrane said that the proposed lot coverage was revised as suggested by the Board at the last public hearing in January 2010. He said that the 25.5% lot coverage calculation includes the proposed cantilevering. The foundation under the previous plan has been reduced from 35’ x 50’ to 28’ x 50’. The first floor width was previously 34’ x 50’ and has been reduced to 30’ x 50’, removing two feet off each side of the first floor. One cantilever remains on one side. Attorney Kirrane said that the previous plan called for a foundation of 1,500 square feet which has now been reduced to 1,400 square feet. The first floor was originally proposed to be 1,700 square feet, and has now been reduced to 1,500 square feet – a reduction of 35% from the
previous proposal. Attorney Kirrane said that, other than the 2’ x 14’ jog proposed in the back of the house, the lot coverage is essentially identical to what the Board approved at 17 Cross Street in the same neighborhood. He also said that the Variance is less than what the Board approved at 4 Pine Avenue.
Attorney Kirrane referred to Town Counsel’s recent opinion that the subject property consists of 6,000 square feet. The cross sectional coverage on 4 Pine Avenue was 25.9%. Including the cantilevering at 17 Cross Street, that cross sectional coverage was 25.1%. He said that the dimension on the plan that deals with the cross section includes any cantilevering on the above-referenced homes. Attorney Kirrane mentioned the small size of the lot. Mr. Slavinsky said that 17 Cross Street is actually 56 square feet larger in structural lot coverage than this proposal.
Mr. Nelson reminded everyone that these Petitions had been continued at the last public hearing in order to seek Town Counsel opinion. He said that he spoke with Town Counsel about Rock Island Road and that Counsel’s opinion had not changed from a few years ago – that Rock Island Road is still a Way. Mr. Nelson said that Land Court Plan 08-37 does not indicate that Rock Island Road had been done away with, but in fact, shows Rock Island Road as a 40’ layout abutting the front of Lot 4. Mr. Nelson said that anything on the other side of Rock Island Road would be removed from the lot coverage. Mr. Nelson said that Town Counsel referred to § 174-3 of the By-laws for the definition of a lot. It reads: “The whole area of a single parcel of land undivided by a street, under one (1)
ownership, with ascertainable boundaries established by a deed or deeds or record, or a segment of land ownership defined by lot boundary lines on a land division plan duly approved by the Planning Board under the Subdivision Control Statute.” In view of the foregoing, Town Counsel arrived at the 6,000 square feet for the subject property.
Mr. Nelson referred to §174-3 Lot Coverage, which reads: “The amount of area on a lot covered by the horizontal cross section of structures.” Therefore, any cantilevered construction would be included in the lot coverage. Mr. Nelson said that he personally feels that the house is too big, but that would be a matter for the entire Board to decide.
Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner is not asking for anything more than what the Board has recently granted to other homeowners in the immediate area. Mr. Nelson said that 4 Pine Avenue was a remodel of an existing house, while this proposal is slightly different with a complete tear down and rebuilding of a home. Mr. Slavinsky said that removing the 28 square feet from the back would result in less lot coverage than what exists at 17 Cross Street. Mr. Dorsey said that no one seemed to have a problem with the back of the house.
Attorney Kirrane said that the new proposal has improved the dimensions from the side setback requirements. The shed on the plan will be removed and was not figured in with the lot coverage figure.
Mr. Furbush said that he feels the house is too big for the lot. He asked for the list of homes in the neighborhood that the Board granted permission to exceed the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Furbush was referred to the January 13, 2010 ZBA Minutes. The Minutes refer to the following: 17 Cross Street is at 22.3% lot coverage, 16 Cross Street is at 21.5% lot coverage and 6 Cross Street is at 22.8%. 4 Pine Avenue is at 24.2% lot coverage, 19 Pine Avenue is at 22%, 23 Pine Avenue is at 21.3%, and 15 Cross Street is at 29.6%. Attorney Kirrane said that these dimensions did not include cantilevering when the Board approved the proposals.
Attorney Kirrane reiterated that the Board gave relief based on lot coverage and cantilevers to previous Petitions in the same area and that this Petitioner is asking for the same relief. Mr. Furbush said: “The rules have changed halfway through the game.” Mr. Nelson said that 21% or 22% of lot coverage would be more realistic in this circumstance.
Attorney Kirrane asked for a brief moment to confer with his client.
Attorney Kirrane said that his client would be willing to reduce the overhang on the westerly side of the house from 2 feet to 1.5 feet, which would reduce the house by another 25 square feet. This would reduce the lot coverage from 25.5% to 24.6%.
Mr. Nelson recognized Mr. Brian Flaherty who referred to a letter sent by his brother, Gerry Flaherty, who owns the abutting property at 10 Rock Island Road. Mr. Gerry Flaherty lives overseas and could not attend the meeting. The letter in its entirety reads:
Chairman Robert Nelson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Mashpee
RE: Wilson Petition for Variance from Zoning Bylaws
Dear Mr. Nelson and Town Council members,
As the adjacent property owners to #12 Rock Island Road, we strongly object to the request for variance to the Bylaws.
Zoning Considerations
Section 174-31 states that for an R-3 zoned lot, the maximum percent of lot coverage may be only 20%. As this applies for a 40,000 sq ft lot, the smaller the lot, the more overbuilt and congested the lot becomes to the adjoining neighbors and community.
The use of the 3000 sq ft buffer lot is not (and has not been) allowable in calculation of lot coverage. Per Bylaw definitions:
LOT: “The whole area of a single parcel of land undivided by a street, under one (1) ownership,…….”
LOT AREA: “The area of a lot exclusive of any area in a public or private way open to public use and any body of water.”
The Wilson property (and likewise our property) is not a single lot. It is made up of two lots, a main lot (6000sq ft) and a buffer lot (3000 sq ft). The buffer lot is divided by a street and therefore not exclusive of any public or private way. How can this buffer lot be considered buildable and included in any lot coverage calculation? Past rebuilds on the street have not included this buffer lot as buildable area: because of the buffer lots we have preserved a sense of spaciousness on the street – a rare find on today’s Cape.
As to the side setback variances, we have no issue. A 10 ft offset from each side boundary is reasonable on a 50ft wide lot. Again, the rebuilds on our street have kept within the guidelines. We do object to cantilevered projections which effectively expand the structural footprint or lot coverage to more than is allowed (20%) and overlap into the 10 ft setback area. Side projections on narrow lots are intrusive to neighbors’ privacy.
Cape Cod (Rock Landing) Preservation Considerations
As the zoning commissioners, we rely on you to be the guardians of Rock Island’s future quality of life. You must balance the need for progress and new construction, with a vision to preserve what makes our community such a unique and desirable place on Cape Cod. Granting exceptions to the lot coverage stipulations, allowing non-buildable land of the buffer lot to be included, and allowing for cantilevered construction would set a precedent that will create a street of “McMansions” which are unsightly (incongruous with the neighborhood) and unnecessary. I understand that previous proposals for exceptions to factoring in the buffer lot have been reviewed by the Town and rightly denied. Please do not change course now.
Larger houses do not increase the property value of the smaller neighbors as witnessed by the impact of the two recently rebuilt houses on the street. I could argue that they actually decreased the value of my property
Safety and Noise Considerations
All construction should be prohibited between July 1st and Labor Day, period. It is annoying and this is a seasonal community. We spend 4-5 weeks of summer at the house. It is occupied by other family members for the remainder of the summer and through Labor Day. Construction noises from 7AM are blatantly unbearable. The construction traffic and lack of space for construction parking is a safety issue for the many children (our family’s and other residents on Rock Island Rd.) that must use the road for travel to and from the beach.
Furthermore, larger homes bring more traffic, which reduces everyone’s enjoyment of our community. While I am not against improving one’s property, by joining as a member of a community association, I have agreed to consider the community impact of any modifications. From earlier contact with petitioner, we believed a smaller house was going to be built. Additionally, the lot contains many trees which shade many abutting properties (check the aerial photos) – these trees may be at risk in order to accommodate the proposed building.
Please help us maintain our community by insisting that:
Only the 6000 sq ft lot is buildable land.
No more than 20% lot coverage.
No cantilevered construction to get beyond zoning requirements (side/front setbacks).
No summer construction.
Thank you for reading our letter.
The Flaherty Family
Mr. Furbush asked if Mr. Flaherty wanted to add anything more to the record. Mr. Brian Flaherty said he wanted the Board to discuss the lot size issue, and safety and noise consideration. He asked the Board to halt any construction during the July and August months, since his brother rents his home at 10 Rock Island Road during those months. Mr. Nelson said that the Board would not be able to prohibit a Petitioner from engaging in construction during specific months of the year. He referred to By-laws already in place that restrict noise during certain times of the day, night and week/weekends.
Mrs. Anne Flaherty asked “why in today’s world anyone needs a mansion” for a summer place. She said that it is a “nightmare to the rest of the neighborhood.” She lives in Westwood, Massachusetts and owns property in Mashpee. Mrs. Flaherty said her son, Gerry, comes back from overseas to enjoy his home at 10 Rock Island Road. She said having a mansion next door is not what he envisioned when he bought his property several years ago. Attorney Kirrane clarified that the size of the home is only 3,000 square feet. Mr. Dorsey asked what the lot coverage is on her son’s lot. Mrs. Flaherty asked the Board to imagine the shadows that would be cast on the neighboring lots by this “3-story mansion.” Mr. Nelson corrected her and said that the proposal is
a 2 ½ story home, not 3 stories. Mrs. Flaherty insisted that she has seen the plans and that “thing on top is supposed to be like an attic. That’s going to be a bedroom sometime.”
Mr. Nelson said that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Board and proposed that he would support 21% lot coverage (plus or minus). Mr. Furbush said that he agreed with Mr. Nelson. He said that he “feels bad” because “the rules changed in the middle of the game.” Attorney Kirrane asked if the Board would ask the Building Inspector to enforce the By-law to require anything over 20% lot coverage to be removed. Mr. Furbush reminded Attorney Kirrane that it was only recently that the Board was advised by Town Counsel that cantilevers should be figured into the lot coverage.
Mr. Michael Wilson asked to address the Board. He asked: “Are you all going to change the game on me? And that you all are going to be on the record as suggesting that you will not grant me what has been granted in the past in a very, an absolutely comparable situation at 17 Cross Street? Because I need to know what my next steps are going to be. And quite frankly, I respect the opinions of the Counsel and 21 is 21. And your view is 21 is big enough and the house is too big and I certainly know that the world is made up of people who have different opinions. But the other people that are not here are 30 other people or some other number of people that are okay with what I am doing. In fact, would embrace the fact that I am improving the property values.” He said that he would
deal with the fact that the Board will not consider the abutting lot in the size of the property. He further said: “All I’m asking for is what you granted in the past” and that he wanted “to understand how it is that in this day and age when people want to bring some economic prosperity to a region and I would put up something that would be fantastically beautiful and very, very tasteful. How could we say no to something that we have already granted a yes to? I am really struggling with this. You have to understand where I came from. I gave up a spectacular home for what I thought I could do based on the Decisions that you all have made in the past. And I just want you to know how heartfelt I am that this Decision is starting to go in a different direction. And I quite frankly will not do the 21%. I would like you all to, please, be on the record to suggest that you are going to change the game on me. I find it arbitrary and capricious.”
Mr. Nelson said that he wanted to see where parking on the 6,000 square foot lot is proposed. Attorney Kirrane and Mr. Slavinsky said that the parking could be on the 3,000 square foot buffer lot which the Petitioner owns.
Attorney Kirrane said that the lots in this area are smaller than in other neighborhoods. Mr. Furbush agreed that this neighborhood is a unique area and that the Board has given consideration to that fact. Mr. Slavinsky reminded the Board that it asked for cantilevers and that many homes would be in violation with the new calculation of cantilevers in the lot coverage.
Mr. Reiffarth commented that everyone on the Board is a volunteer and that they are trying to do “the best they can to do the fair thing for the town and the taxpayer.” Attorney Kirrane remarked that “taxpayers in this area and areas like Monomoscoy Island and areas like Popponesset and Popponesset Island are paying outrageous sums of money in terms of taxes because of the lot value.” He said: “It is unfair to mandate that somebody has to live with a 1,200 square foot house that may be assessed at $80,000 on a lot that they’re paying taxes based upon $850,000 or $2 million in value.” Attorney Kirrane asked the Board to consider fairness to the taxpayer.
Mr. Reiffarth said that a person needs “to do their homework when they buy the lot or before they buy the lot. Not buy the lot and then expect all these Variances.” Attorney Kirrane said that if one did their homework, they would “see what the Board has done over the last several years in terms of what it has approved.” He also said that Mr. Wilson had no way of knowing that Town Counsel would render an opinion between January and February of this year that cantilevering should be included in calculating lot coverage.
Mr. Paul Dardano at 23 Pine Avenue addressed the Board and said that he appreciated Mr. Wilson’s frustration and the Board’s frustration. He said that Mr. Wilson should have known Town Counsel’s ruling that the buffer lot is not to be included in calculating lot size. Mr. Dardano said that the Board “spent the last meeting arguing something that should not have been argued.” He said that “22 % lot coverage would fit very nicely” and “be very adequate for anyone’s lifestyle.” Mr. Dardano said that it would be a mistake for the “Board to buckle under to threats.” Mr. Dorsey took exception to the use of the phrase “buckling under” and said that the “Board works very hard.” Mr. Dardano apologized and said that
it was a “shame that things went through because people didn’t show up and object.”
Mr. Nelson said that “if we give in on this, that now leaves either two or three more lots with the same situation” and added: “they’ll all be in here looking for 24 or 25%.” He concluded with “we have to draw the line.” Mr. Furbush said that the Board has approved lot coverage in the 22% range. Attorney Kirrane said that the difference between 1 and 2% translates into less than 60 square feet – the size of a small room. Mr. Furbush said that “we are setting a precedent.” He also said that “you don’t have to tell me that we’ve changed the rules, because I totally agree and I don’t think it’s fair and I feel bad for you.” Attorney Kirrane said that his client would have to come up with a new design. Mr. Wilson said that redesign would mean the loss of a guest bedroom and a family room.
The Board asked the proposed height of building. Mr. Slavinsky said that the height is 34’ 10”. Mr. Wilson said that the proposal is for a 3-bedroom home.
Mr. Slavinsky mentioned to the Board that this proposal has Board of Health approval.
Mr. Reiffarth suggested the removal of a tub on the first floor in order to make room for the guest bedroom. Mr. Wilson said that possibility has already been explored, but that the bed would be in the doorway. He said that he has “done so much diligence on this proposal and incurred large amounts of architectural fees and engineering fees and legal fees in order to try to please everybody.” Mr. Wilson expressed his disappointment and felt that this was “completely unfair.” He did tell the Board that he appreciated everyone’s time.
The Board discussed having Mr. Bonvie sit on these Petitions to ensure a quorum.
Mr. Nelson moved to continue the Petitions until March 10, 2010. Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. All were in favor. The vote was unanimous.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for Six-Month Extension of Variance (V-09-03): 12 Wintergreen Road (Map 103 Parcel 107) Mashpee, MA.
Mr. Furbush read the Petition into the record. Mr. Slavinsky from Cape & Islands Engineering represented the Petition. He said that “economics” forced delay of the proposal and requested an Extension. The Board discussed the request.
Mr. Nelson moved to grant the Extension. Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor. The vote was unanimous.
ACCEPT JANUARY 13, 2010 MINUTES
Mr. Furbush moved to accept the Minutes of January 13, 2010. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The vote was unanimous.
Mr. Nelson asked the Board to review the revised Petition procedures recently submitted by the Board Secretary. The Board agreed to discuss them at the next meeting and suggest revisions/corrections.
Mr. Nelson adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Bartos
Board Secretary
| 
