9/27/2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Robert H. Wittstein and Maura B. Wittstein 55 Monahansett Road(Map 123 Parcel 100) Mashpee, MA 02649 FINDING-2017-53 • not be 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 as may be required. Although said Finding shall not constitute a Special Permit as defined by the General laws and this By-law, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures specified in the General Laws for Special Permits in processing requests for such Findings. Per Town Counsel: Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws for a Finding of Fact Cannot involve a Variance in the Decision/Finding of Fact. No such thing as "use variance". The Decision must be rendered in two separate statements/decisions if a Variance or Special Permit is involved along with a Written Finding. The Board determined that: 1. The proposal will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non- conforming structure or use to the neighborhood. 2. The proposal will be an improvement to the lot and is similar in size and character to other existing structures in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed additions, based upon the plans submitted to the Board, will be consistent with applicable State and Town statues, regulations, bylaws and plans, complies with the dimensional requirements applicable to the lot under current provisions of §174-31 (Land Space Requirements Table Footnotes) #18 of the Popponesset Overly District, or for lots which have been developed pursuant to §174-21,complies with such requirements as were applicable to initial construction of the dwelling under provisions of§174-21 Nonconforming lots. 4. Construction of the dwelling is contingent upon Board of Health final approval. 5. Construction of the dwelling will conform to current building code requirements. 6. There is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. Mr. Kirrane said he addressed the Building Inspector's concerns of a variance by demonstrating that the two adjacent properties have front setbacks that are less than.the. required setback by taking the average of 21.3 ft. which conforms to the 25 ft. average setback requirement under footnote 6 of the Zoning Bylaws. No variance is required because you are not varying what the bylaw requires. 3