04/11/2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

r. U MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 11, 2012 MINUTES OTHER BUSINESS Accept March 28, 2012 Minutes Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to accept the Minutes. Mr. Reiffarth seconded the motion. Votes: Mr. Dorsey, yes. Ms. Horton, yes. Mr. Bonvie, yes. Mr. Furbush, yes. Mr. Blaisdell, yes. Mr. Reiffarth, yes. Vote was unanimous. Minutes from Executive Session: July 14, 2010, March 23, 2011, July 20, 2011 Determine if continued non -disclosure is warranted. Mr. Furbush said that he examined the documents and concluded that the Minutes can be released. Mr. Reiffarth agreed and said that litigation has been concluded. Mr. Morgan also agreed. Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to discontinue non -disclosure of the Minutes from Executive Sessions on July 14, 2010, March 23, 2011 and July 20, 2011. Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. Votes: Mr. Dorsey, yes. Ms. Horton, yes. Mr. Blaisdell, yes. Mr. Furbush, yes. Mr. Bonvie, yes. Mr. Reiffarth, yes. Vote was unanimous. 570 Old Barnstable Road Review revised plans. Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to accept the revised plans dated February 17, 2012. Mr. Bonvie seconded the motion. Votes: Mr. Dorsey, yes. Ms. Horton, yes. Mr. Blaisdell, yes. Mr. Bonvie, yes. Mr. Furbush, yes. Mr. Reiffarth, yes. Vote was unanimous Case Law regarding pre-existing, non -conforming structures Written Finding and Variance. Mr. Furbush said that the research conducted by the Secretary was thorough and very interesting. He said that case law makes it clear regarding a Written Finding - if a Petitioner meets the criteria for a Finding, there is no need for Variance relief. Case law: The Benefits of Owning a Pre-existing Nonconforming House Posted by Richard Gallogly on October 26, 2011 "Bottom line: if you have a lawful pre-existing, non -conforming one- or two-family house that you'd like to expand or reconstruct, you can do so with a Section 6 Finding under M.G.L. even though similar work would have required a Variance if the land had been vacant." JUSTIN E. GALE & others vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF GLOUCESTER & another. 80 Mass. App. Ct. 331, May 10, 2011 - September 2, 2011. Note 8 "That finding stands alone as sufficient to proceed with the proposed project, if the • permit granting authority deems that no substantial detriment will result from the extension or alteration. This conclusion is in keeping with special treatment explicitly afforded to single or two-family residential structures under the statute. Thus, we hold 3