02/27/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27,2019 He read the footnotes 3 and 6 of the bylaw Section 174-31. He said that his client's setback requirements comply on Overlook Knoll Road, but does not comply with the setbacks on Seaview. He mentioned his Exhibit A; that the carport is not supported by a foundation. That it is supported by pilings that rest on cement blocks,and is not enclosed on three sides. He believes he needs a Variance to expand that carport to expand into the side yard setback on Seaview. Mr. Joyce said that he agrees that this application is situated in the Popponesset Overlay District, and R-3 District. He said that the Overlay District superimposes its requirements together with the R-3 requirements. He said that the Zoning Table R-3 maximum lot coverage is 20%. He also mentioned footnote 16 of the bylaw. He said that the applicant calculated the setback to the toe of the bank. He strongly disagrees and believes it's the top of the coastal bank. He believes another Variance is required because the dwelling is in excess of 22.3%. Mr. Joyce concluded that the proposal is nearly 5,000 sq. ft. in size. The current habitable space is 996 sq. ft. which makes the application five times the size of the current single-family ranch. Mr. John Lynch addressed the Board saying he is the owner of the adjoining lot next to the applicant's lot. He said he's been before the Board before, and one of the things that struck him in the presentation by the applicant was that it's essentially the same plan as before. He heard the Zoning Officer say that the proposal needs a Variance. He said that there is nothing in the raze and replace law that contemplates a situation like this which removes the need for a Variance. The extension into the setback on the Seaview side is 9.5 ft.which is very considerable, and goes up two stories. He prepared a petition from the neighborhood,and exhibits which describe the zoning issues that were raised at least twice, that this Board requires the applicant to either withdraw his plans or risk a voting down because of the setback violations. There was some movement to make one non-conformity conform, but the major one still exists. This property is "shoe-horned" into a very small space, and as said by the counselor, it's about five times the size of what is there. The last page of his hand-outs show that Overlook Knoll is uniform all the way down the street,and everyone has stayed within the footprint and dimensional requirements, but this property wishes to protrude into the setback. He said there are letters in opposition that were filed before. There's no reason to grant relief and he believes that the Building Inspector's determinations made it clear that a Variance is required. He said that the Board has turned this down twice already. He said a fair interpretation of the bylaw would require the Board in fairness to reject the application. Mr. Furbush asked Mr. Lynch if both he and Mr. Joyce quoted Mike Mendoza that he required Variances on this application. Mr. Lynch said; yes, on September 5, 2017, prior to the raze and replace bylaw. Mr. Bonvie said that the Board has never turned down this application twice. Mr. Bonvie on the record said as a member of this Board this application has never been turned down. 8