MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
September 22, 2010
The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and John M. Dorsey and Associate Members Peter R. Hinden and Ronald S. Bonvie were present. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens was also in attendance. Board Member Jonathan Furbush was unable to attend the hearing.
Chairman Robert G. Nelson opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
CONTINUED HEARINGS
William Sullivan: Requests Variances from Sections 174-31 and 174-33 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the front setback requirements and the setback to the wetlands to allow for construction of a garage/barn as well as additions to a home on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 180 Daniel’s Island Road (Map 100 Parcel 18) Mashpee, MA. At the request of the Petitioner, this Petition was continued from the July 28, 2010 and August 25, 2010 Public Hearings.
The ZBA office received a letter dated September 20, 2010 from the Petitioner requesting Withdrawal Without Prejudice of his Petition.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to accept the request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice of the Petition V-10-31. Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
NEW HEARINGS
Brian Hyde, Trustee of Krisharl Realty Trust: Requests a Special Permit under Section 174-45.4 of the Zoning By-laws to allow for an existing accessory apartment on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 701 Great Neck Road South (Map 104 Parcel 125) Mashpee, MA.
The ZBA office received a letter dated September 22, 2010 from the Petitioner requesting a continuance of the Petition until October 27, 2010.
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to continue the Petition until October 27, 2010. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Michael Cusack: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the side setback requirements to allow for an existing garage and replacement of an existing deck with construction of a sunroom on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 40 Vista Circle (Map 60 Parcel 76) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and John M. Dorsey and Associate Board Member Peter R. Hinden.
Mr. Kevin Kieler of Brady-Built Sunrooms, Auburn, Massachusetts represented the Petitioner, Mr. Michael Cusack, who also attended the meeting. Mr. Kieler said that the long, narrow lot restricts location of the proposed sunroom. He said that the proposed construction is a high quality, custom-made solid wood structure. The existing deck was mistakenly constructed within the 15-foot side setback. With removal of the existing deck, the proposal will result in less of an encroachment into the setback. The proposal requires a Variance of 2.1 feet from the side setback requirements. Lot coverage will be 16.8%.
When the Petitioner filed for the Variance relief, it was discovered that the existing garage is also within the side setback. The Petition was advertised to allow the Board the option of resolving that issue.
Building Commissioner Richard Stevens said that the subject property is in a cluster subdivision with setback requirements of 30 feet from the front, 15 feet from the side and 20 feet from the back.
No comments were received from abutters.
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the following:
- a Variance of 2.1 from the side setback requirements to allow for construction of the sunroom.
- a Variance of 1 foot from the side setback requirements to allow for the existing garage.
Variance findings: removal of the existing deck will result in less of an encroachment into the setback. Unusual (narrow, elongated) shape of the lot.
This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with Yankee Land Survey Co., Inc. plan entitled: “Plot Plan of Land Located at 40 Vista Circle Mashpee, MA Prepared for Michael Cusack August 4, 2010”.
Mr. Dorsey seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Brett R. Field: Requests a Variance from Section 174-32 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the fire protection access requirements to allow for an existing driveway on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 659 Main Street (Map 13 Parcel 45) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and John M. Dorsey and Associate Board Member Ronald S. Bonvie.
Mr. Brett R. Field represented his Petition and said that he consulted with the Town Planner Thomas Fudala last year when he was contemplating purchase of the subject property. He said that Mr. Fudala told him that no changes had to be made to the plan in order to construct on the three lots. Mr. Field also said that Mr. Fudala advised him to consider improving the steep entrance to the property.
Mr. Field said that he was unaware of the fire protection restriction because he had never been told about it. He said he was not told about the need to obtain a Special Permit from the Planning Board. The Planning Board granted Mr. Field a Special Permit on August 4, 2010.
Deputy Fire Chief Hamblin suggested paving the driveway. He also suggested installing a sprinkler system if a building was constructed on Lot 2A. Mr. Field said that the costs would be prohibitive - to pave the long driveway would exceed $30,000; installation of a sprinkler system would cost from $12,000 to $18,000.
Building Commissioner Richard Stevens said that Mr. Field is experiencing problems due to “unfortunate circumstances from misinformation from the Planning Department”. Mr. Stevens said that the road is more than adequate for fire apparatus access, which Engineer Charles Rowley has also confirmed. Mr. Field said that one of the conditions of the Planning Board Special Permit requires that the road must be widened to 20 feet in the event that Lot 2A is developed. Mr. Field said that there is a question as to whether or not an all-weather surface has to be black pavement.
Mr. Nelson read Finding #10 of the Planning Board Special Permit.
“10. An e-mail message was received from Deputy Chief Sheldon Hamblin on July 14, 2010 after a site visit to the property. His comments were as follows:
‘I have driven down that driveway and believe it meets the intent of the reduced requirement for a single family home.
However, the fact that the intent is to service two additional homes is the trigger that I feel it should be required to be a paved access roadway of not less than 20 feet. The problem comes in where we have these homes deep in the woods and can’t get water to them. The nearest hydrant that I can make out is over 1,000 feet down Main Street. We would have to commit an engine to the hydrant and pump that line to the driveway entrance. Then we have the driveway to contend with. That will require an engine at the driveway entrance to pump the line down the driveway to the attack engine. That means, in addition to the attack engine, I now have to commit two additional engines for water supply. If I don’t, then I start stacking tankers in the driveway, because one can’t come out
while another is going in. So this is not just a paper requirement without justification. We have experienced fires where we had to stack trucks in the driveway.
In view of that, there are always options. It’s not my job to design the solution, but here are my needs.
1. Water supply. This can be achieved by bringing the water line up Main Street to the driveway in question and placing a hydrant there. Once a fire line is in place, that road is now closed, but at least we can get water to it.
2. Prevent the fire from growing to the point where we need 500 gallons per minute. This could have been achieved by a residential sprinkler system.
3. Prevent future structures from having this as their driveway (this meets the intent of the reduced requirement). What this means is, for all intents and purposes, this is a driveway to one single-family home. If another structure is proposed to enter off of this easement, then the first house built would then be required to meet the full requirement of a 20-foot paved roadway to within 150 feet of the furthest point of the structure.'”
Mr. Nelson suggested that the Board could stipulate that no construction shall be commenced on either Lots 1A and 2A until the fire department concerns had been resolved. Mr. Field said that he wasn’t told all of the facts from the beginning and took issue with having to spend a great deal of money for someone else’s mistake. He said that he agreed to the Planning Board’s condition that the road must be widened to 20 feet if the other lots are developed. Mr. Reiffarth asked if Mr. Field would be willing to install the water line up to the driveway. Mr. Field said that the water line is over 1,000 feet and would cost more than paving the driveway. Mr. Nelson said that the existing building is reasonably close to the 150-foot requirement.
Mr. Field asked if the Board would require him to install a 20-foot wide paved driveway. Mr. Nelson said that the driveway would not have to be paved, but development of the abutting lots would require ZBA approval. Mr. Bonvie said that it is not only completely unfair, but ludicrous to require the Petitioner to install 1,000 feet of water main.
No comments were received from abutters.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to grant a Variance from the Fire Protection Access requirements to Lot 3A. This is conditioned upon compliance with the following:
- with the restriction that no additional construction will be performed on Lot 2A unless the driveway across Lot 2A is widened to 20 feet in compliance with the Planning Board Special Permit.
- the Petitioner must notify both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the above-referenced additional construction.
- Plan entitled: “Assessor’s Map 13 Parcel 41, 43, 45 Plan of Driveway Easement Prepared for Brett Field Showing the Existing Driveway Lots 1A, 2A, 3A Main Street, Mashpee, MA. John P. Doyle Registered Land Surveyor July 23, 2010”.
Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Peter D. Jamieson: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the front setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-car garage on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 4 East Road (Map 1 Parcel 35) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and John M. Dorsey and Associate Board Member Peter R. Hinden.
Designer/Building Contractor Paul Pacella of Post & Beam of Cape Cod, Inc. represented the Petition. Mr. Jamieson was also in attendance. Mr. Pacella said that the proposal of a two-car garage requires relief from the setback requirements. He said that none of the homes on East Road meet the 40-foot setback requirements. The subject property is a corner lot on East Road, Pimlico Pond Road and Park Road, which creates the hardship for the proposed construction to meet all three 40-foot setbacks. Mr. Pacella said that the sloping topography of the lot also creates a hardship for location of the proposed construction. There are no plans to enlarge the existing driveway.
Mr. David L. Cochran of 11 East Road sent an email to the ZBA office in approval of the proposal.
Mr. Jamieson said that he was pleased with the design because it will preserve all of the old growth Linden trees.
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the following:
- a Variance of 6.5 feet from the front setback requirements from East Road.
- a Variance of 4.3 feet from the front setback requirements from Pimlico Pond Road.
Variance findings: Corner lot on three streets.
This is conditioned upon compliance with Sweetser Engineering plan entitled: “As-built Plot Plan Mashpee, Mass. Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 East Road Date: 2/13/03”.
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
Accept September 8, 2010 Minutes
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to accept the September 8, 2010 Minutes. Mr. Hinden seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Nelson addressed the Board and said that he greatly appreciates and is honored to serve with them and praised them for doing such a great job on the Breezy Acres’ Chapter 40B Decision. Mr. Nelson said that there was doubt on the part of others in Town that the Board would be able to render a Decision on the complicated project in just two meetings. He said that he has served on the Board since 1993 – 18 years of service – and he has never seen anything of this scope decided upon so quickly and yet done so thoroughly. Mr. Nelson said that he is very proud of all of the Board members. He said that the Board did a great, great job and he regretted that the meetings were not televised so that everyone could watch how well the Board operates.
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded. All were in favor. Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Bartos
Administrative Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
