04/22/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Joseph Dutuie 2 SP-09-14 is 23.6% and that is still well over the limit. Attorney Gildea presents his argument that his client is seeking relief from apre-existing non-conforming structure that will continue to remain non-conforming with the addition of the shed (the existence of the current dwelling is non-conforming) and he feels that relief can be obtained in this fashion. He feels the lot coverage by law was meant to preclude mansions from being built and destroying the character of the neighborhood, not with regard to sheds. The Board is of the opinion that the shed is simply too large. Mr. Reiffarth states that although there are many sheds on the abutting properties, most of them are much smaller than the applicants. He suggests possibly using the porch for some storage. The Board discusses the parking. The shed is taking up quite a bit of the driveway—is there still ample space for 2-3 cars? Especially in the summertime with guests. Attorney Gildea says there is ample space for 2-3 cars. Mr. Nelson refers to a letter from Popponesset Beach Association discussing lot coverage. It mentions maintaining approximately 22% with keeping in mind the size of the lots as well as other existing houses in the area. Attorney Gildea states that a letter that is 4 years old is not applicable any longer. Mr. Nelson disagrees and feels the letter is a area of margin to work with. Mr. Furbush asks if this shed needs a foundation since it is so large. The Building Commissioner indicates that yes it does need a foundation and a building permit. The Board discusses the various aspects of this request. Mr. Nelson informs Attorney Gildea that this lot coverage is excessive and that the Board prefers to be consistent with keeping to the 20% maximum —which even without the shed is clearly over 20%. He further states that the ZBA is currently in a law suit over their requirements to maintain the lot coverage required by the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws. They cannot in all fairness to the community grant this lot coverage when they do not allow others to have it. Clearly, 26.3% is over and above anything they would contemplate granting. The Board feels this shed will be more detrimental to the neighborhood and will not allow the lot coverage to increase to 26.8% by adding the shed. James Reiffarth makes a motion to grant the special permit to allow pre-existing lot coverage to increase as such. Mr. Nelson votes no, Mr. Furbush votes no, Mr. Reiffarth votes no, Mr. Blaisdell votes yes, Mr. Dorsey votes yes. The motion is defeated 3-2. The Special Permit is denied.