Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> OCTOBER 14,2020 <br /> Mr. Furbush asked if Conservation visited the site and had no issues. Mr. Cook said that <br /> they looked at everything on the property, and it was approved. <br /> Mr. Goldstein has no issues. <br /> Charlie said that he heard someone suggest that this project should have a Variance under <br /> Section 174-33, but it's clearly a pre-existing non-conforming issue, and if the Board finds <br /> it's no more detrimental to the neighborhood than it would be a Written Finding. Mr. <br /> Furbush agreed. Mr. Blaisdell agreed, and Jim Gould has no issues. <br /> Attorney Gaines concluded that the structure that exists below would have required a <br /> Variance when it was built. He reviewed a plan from 2002 for this project to expand the <br /> garage and it does not reflect anything besides the existing elevated deck. In 2003, there <br /> was a Variance for the garage structure and does not reflect a first floor deck, a patio or the <br /> block wall. He doesn't know when the decks were built but thought they were not original <br /> to the home. He said his point is too conceptualize the expanded elevated deck within the <br /> contours of the hardscaping below, and doesn't think the hardscaping below was permitted. <br /> He agrees that the deck is an expansion of an existing non-conformity, but doesn't believe <br /> that it is as straight forward in the decision making process. <br /> Mr. Goldstein said that patios are not included in setbacks under the zoning unless there is <br /> structure supporting it. This Petition that is under discussion only includes the upper deck, <br /> not the existing wall or patio. In his opinion, the decks were built several years ago so are <br /> pre-existing. He asked Charlie if he knows those decks were built legally. <br /> Mr. Gould said that the bylaws probably have changed in the past 18 to 20 years. <br /> Charlie said that this project relates to a pre-existing, non-conforming structures, <br /> extensions or alterations. It's an alteration of an existing non-conformity. <br /> Mr. Blaisdell commented that the Board is only to determine whether this petition is more <br /> detrimental than what previously existed, and that is the determination that the Board will <br /> have to make based on all the facts that have been presented including the Conservation <br /> Commission's ruling in this case. As far as the lower deck is concerned, the Board cannot <br /> rule on that at this hearing. <br /> Mr. Furbush agreed that this is a Written Finding of the reconstruction and extension of the <br /> upper deck. <br /> 4 <br />