04/14/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 2021 Attorney McElhinney said that the process would be to apply for a building permit, and the Building Inspector would deny the permit, which would be an appeal to the ZBA under Section 8 of 40A, at which time would essentially be ruling whether or not that the 2001 decision variances were permitted and were no longer in affect. He said he is willing to continue the case for two weeks. Attorney McElhinney said that the abutting lots are owned by the homeowner's association which the developer has no control over. He said that the variances are still valid because of the road and utilities that were installed to accommodate the new configuration of these lots. Charlie Reidy wanted clarification regarding the issuance of the 2001 and 2005 variances. He asked if the variances would have to go through the beginning process. Mr. Furbush polled the Board asking if they agreed with a two week extension. Mr. Gould, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, Mr. Reidy, yes, Mr. Reiffarth, and Mr. Furbush, yes. Mr. Bonvie made a motion that the Board accept the applicant's request for an extension from Southworth LLC, 15 Herring Gull Road until May 12, 2021. Mr. Gould seconded, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, Mr. Blaisdell, yes, and Mr. Bonvie, yes, and Mr. Furbush, yes. All were in favor to accept the extension. OTHER BUSINESS 50 Bayview Road: Attorney, Kevin Kirrane to have a discussion with the Board to determine if the proposed changes are considered a minor or major modification to the recently approved raze and replace project (SP-2020-52). Attorney Kirrane submitted the revised plans for the Board that are being proposed, and suggests to the Board that the plan demonstrate an architectural and cosmetic changes as opposed to changes that would require specific relief. Originally the house was 49 x 58 and now it will be 48 x 57. The roof lines have changed, but still within the maximum height criteria allowed under the zoning bylaw. The configuration was changed on the roofs indicating that are structural changes. There's also a sunken patio below the deck, and is more a landscape issue than a zoning issue. There is also a small balcony on the second floor is over a deck which was proposed on the first floor which the Board has already approved. There is no specific zoning relief, and it still complies with the setback criteria that the Board requires under the original raze and replace project. He is asking if the Board can accept the revised plan. Jonathan asked if the height was changing. Attorney Kirrane said that it will be the same. The roof line will be different, but the height is the same. The height is 34.6 ft. Mr. Goldstein asked if the lot coverage increased a small amount of .I%. The proposed states 18.2%, dated 10/14/21, and revised 3/24/21. The approved site plan depicts 18.1%. 3