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 Mashpee 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 Mashpee TV.
NEW HEARINGS
138 Waterway: 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-ground 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.
Attorney Kirrane stated that in the past, the Board had viewed the issue of the pool and patio differently than this Board is now viewing it. Attorney Kirrane also said he made a conservative approach of the calculations to determine lot coverage.
The pool that was approved back in 2001 was 486 square feet. The proposed pool design will have a 6’ x 6’ spa area with an infinity basin, and will be approximately 578 square feet. In order to accommodate the slight increased pool size, there is a reduction in the hard scape by substituting planting beds in place of the concrete masonry patio along and around the pool. This design is maintaining the same degree of lot coverage that was approved back in 2001.
Tom Bunker pointed out to the Board that the curved area on the plan is the 84 square foot retaining wall moving closer toward the water, and was not on the original plan. The 84 square feet area is not the entire raised patio because it includes some planting beds.
Chairman Furbush asked if the screened porch on the original plan is the trellis on the current plan. Attorney Kirrane said the trellis and hot tub is in place of the in-ground pool in the area that was approved for a pool. The plan that was approved was not the work that was actually done. The Board questioned if the former homeowner had the plans approved by the Building Department for the hot tub and trellis.
Chairman Furbush read the comments into the record from Katelyn Cadoret, Assistant Conservation Agent dated February 9, 2016; “The DEP permit #SE 43-2839 for 138 Waterway has NOT been recorded at the Registry of Deeds as of 2/9/15 (today). Also, the engineered plans submitted to ZBA has revisions NOT reflected on Concom’s copy, consisting of comments: “Added Phoenix Group Plan and Adjusted Patio Limit Dec 30, 2015.” Per the Chapter 172 Special Conditions for SE 43-2839: 5. “Any deviations made or intended to be made from the plans cited as the Plan of Record in the Order of Conditions shall require, in advance, one of the following:
- An Amended Order of Conditions
- A new Notice of Intent; or
- An Administrative Approval from the Commission that the deviation is not so substantial as to require (1) or (2) above.
“In any case, it’s the owner’s responsibility to apply for such Amended Order of Conditions, new Notice of Intent, or written Commission decision.” “Therefore, we cannot sign off on the building permit until these issues have been resolved.”
Chairman Furbush read Conservation Agent, Drew McManus’ comments into the record: dated January 29, 2016; “my comments for Feb. 10th are that the commission has already approved the work (pool replacing hot tub) at 138 Waterway...no issues.”
Chairman Furbush read Michael Mendoza’s email comments regarding the Conservation Comments;
- They have yet to record the DEP permit that was issued to them as of February 9, 2016.
- That the plan submitted to the ZBA DOES NOT MATCH the plan that was submitted to the Conservation Commission; which means that the applicant has to go back to the Conservation Commission because the plan that they approved does not match what was submitted to the ZBA.
Chairman Furbush read the comments from the Board of Health; “No comments necessary”.
Chairman Furbush read an abutter letter into the record that did not have a return address or a legible signature.
Mr. Blaisdell commented that this letter of concern is a matter between the homeowner and the neighborhood association.
Attorney Kirrane said he asked Tom Bunker to change the plan and add the “pool detail showing the box from the “Phoenix Group” and the proposed pool detail box.
Tom Bunker said he will get the order of conditions recorded and will resubmit the plan that was approved by Conservation.
Chairman Furbush would like to continue the hearing upon receipt of updated Conservation comments and revised plans.
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to continue the application until March 9, 2016. Mr. DeBarros, seconded, Mr. Pittsley, yes, Mr. Gould, yes, and Chairman Furbush, yes, Mr. Blaisdell, yes. All were in favor to continue the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Gould made a motion to approve the January 27, 2016 meeting minutes. Mr. Blaisdell, seconded, Chairman Furbush, yes, Mr. DeBarros, yes and Mr. Pittsley, yes, Mr. Gould, yes. All were in favor.
Mr. DeBarros made a motion to adjourn. All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ann Romero
Administrative Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
