My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/22/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
04/22/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2022 3:51:25 PM
Creation date
1/28/2022 3:51:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br />Mashpee Zoning <br />Board of Appeals Minutes <br />• 2 April 22, 2009 <br />various properties with sheds that abut his clients property. This lot is in the <br />• <br />40 <br />Popponesset Overlay District and was created before lot zoning was implemented. The <br />Board review the documents Attorney Gildea has submitted. Mr. Nelson mentions that a <br />10 x 12 shed can be placed 5 feet off the lot line without any relief from the Board, <br />however this shed is very large at 10 x 20. Attorney Gildea discusses the current lot <br />coverage of 26.8% which includes the shed and is far beyond the 20% maximum <br />allowable lot coverage. The lot coverage without the shed is 23.6% and that is still well <br />over the limit. Attorney Gildea presents his argument that his client is seeking relief <br />from a pre-existing non -conforming structure that will continue to remain non- <br />conforming with the addition of the shed (the existence of the current dwelling is non- <br />conforming) and he feels that relief can be obtained in this fashion. He feels the lot <br />coverage by law was meant to preclude mansions from being built and destroying the <br />character of the neighborhood, not with regard to sheds. The Board is of the opinion <br />that the shed is simply too large. Mr. Fubush asks if the deck was added after he <br />purchased the home? Attorney Gildea tells the board that the deck was on the house <br />when they bought it and the lot coverage at the time was 23.6%. Mr. Reiffarth states <br />that although there are many sheds on the abutting properties, most of them are much <br />smaller than the applicants. He suggests possibly using the porch for some storage. <br />The Board discusses the parking. The shed is taking up quite a bit of the driveway — is <br />there still ample space for 2-3 cars? Especially in the summertime with guests. <br />Attorney Gildea says there is ample space for 2-3 cars. Mr. Nelson refers to a letter <br />from Popponesset Beach Association discussing lot coverage. It mentions maintaing <br />approximately 22% with keeping in mind the size of the lots as well as other existing <br />houses in the area. Attorney Gildea states that a letter that is 4 years old is not <br />applicable any longer. Mr. Nelson disagrees and feels the letter is a area of margin to <br />work with. Mr. Furbush asks if this shed needs a foundation since it is so large. The <br />Building Commissioner indicates that yes it does need a foundation and a building <br />permit. The Board discusses the various aspects of this request. Mr. Nelson informs <br />Attorney Gildea that this lot coverage is excessive and that the Board prefers to be <br />consistent with keeping to the 20% maximum — which even without the shed is clearly <br />over 20%. He further states that the ZBA is currently in a law suit over their <br />requirements to maintain the lot coverage required by the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.