11/14/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—November 14, 2001 6 Board of Appeals Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitioner and stated that relief is being • requested after the fact. The Petitioner illegally made renovations to an existing residential structure without obtaining a building permit. Attorney Kirrane said that the Building Commissioner has been provided with architectural and engineer statements verifying that the subject structure conforms to all the requirements of the building code. Attorney Kirrane said that the Building Commissioner was advised by Town Counsel's interpretation of the By-law to have the Petitioner request a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals because alterations that were made to the structure constitute a change in use. Attorney Kirrane advised his client to also Appeal the Building Commissioner's decision not to issue a building permit. Attorney Kirrane said that three residential structures were allowed on one lot at the time that the subject property was developed and that the three structures have existed on the subject 4.5 acre -parcel since the late 1950's. He said that the subject structure conforms to the setback and lot coverage requirements; therefore, it does not need a Special Permit from the Board. Attorney Kirrane said that no change in use was made and that only a change was made to an existing structure. He said that current Zoning by-laws call for 80,000 square feet per structure. The subject property provides for approximately 65,000 square feet per structure. Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner is now seeking to legitimize the renovations and improvements that were made to the subject property. He requested that the Board find that the changes made are not more detrimental to the neighborhood than what previously existed. • Ms. Elizenberry questioned why the Petitioner would ever contemplate making any kind of renovations to a structure without first obtaining a building permit. She asked when the renovations were made. Mr. Dobyns stated that the changes were made four years ago. Ms. Elizenberry asked "In today's society, we don't know better that we need a building permit?" Attorney Kirrane said that he could notjustify the action and repeated that the Petitioner provided documentation to prove that the structure does conform to current building codes. He said that the issue is a zoning issue, not a building issue. Mr. Guerrera questioned what kind of septic system exists on the subject property. Attorney Kirrane said a Title V septic system has been installed on the property. Mr. Nelson said that he visited the site and that it is "very picturesque and well maintained". He said that he understands that the Petitioner took an illegal action in the past, which he is now trying to make legitimate. Ms. Arden Cadrin, an abutter at 32 Sturgis Lane, questioned why the Petitioner was seeking relief from the ZBA at this time. Attorney Kirrane said that the Assessing Department discovered that the illegal renovations had been made to the structure without benefit of a building permit. Mr. Cadrin, an abutter at 32 Sturgis Lane, said that he is confused and claimed that the property only had two structures, not three. Attorney Kirrane said that the property has had three structures existing on it for many years. Ms. Cadrin asked why Town Counsel would interpret the changes made to the cabin as a • change in use. Attorney Kirrane suggested that Town Counsel might have concluded