08/12/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

there is potential situation whereby it has been questioned whether or not a variance is needed when changing the non-conformity of setbacks and not just using a special permit to do so. Attorney Kirrane explains the application of the by-laws are such that these changes can be made thru the request of a special permit so long as the non-conformity already exists and the applicant is not creating a new one. Mr. Nelson suggests taking a foot off around the deck to keep the lot coverage at the original 23.3% since the Board is not happy with an increased lot coverage, albeit only .4%. The Board reviews the plans and makes suggestions on the how to reduce the addition. They also discuss the parking and it is decided that they want parking for 3 vehicles. They feel the boardwalk is impeding the parking issue. Attorney Kirrane tells the Board his client would agree to removing the small 35 square foot addition to reduce the lot coverage to 23.5% and he feels that is a very small increase. The Board agrees this world be acceptable but would like to have new plans drawn up to see the change in the boardwalk and the removal of the agreed square footage. The Board re-convened on August 26, 2009 to review the changes the Board required and met with Attorney Christoper Kirrane and Architect, Jerry Darrah. The new plot plan accommodated the changes and the applicant removed approximately 50 square feet of the addition to reduce the lot coverage to 23.5%. The Board made a motion to grant the Findings of Fact. SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA Section 174-17 of the Mashpee Zoning By-laws and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Chapter 6, require a"Findings of Fact"that the extension, alteration or removal shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject property is located at 21 Bowsprit Point and contains 15,000 square feet. SPECIFIC FINDINGS The Board determined that: 1. the proposal will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the prior non-conforming structure and its use..