Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> FEBRUARY 9, 2022 <br /> Dave said that the Board needs to determine if that roof constitutes a two foot setback. He <br /> said it does not fit that criteria. <br /> Kevin Dauphinais agreed that the dormer walls on the second floor were at a half story <br /> level, and are actually aligned with the story below it. When he spoke with Dave, he <br /> mentioned that he believed that the intent of the bylaw is to decrease the appearance of the <br /> volume of the half story relative to the story below it. Because of the steepness of the pitch <br /> with a gambrel roof, and the fact that the roof line running across, you cannot see the first <br /> and second floor connected. They are actually decreasing the appearance of the volume of <br /> that upper story. That was the intent. He and Dave mutually understand the literal intent of <br /> the bylaw because very few homes with two and half stories such as a Cape style home <br /> would not be allowed because the gable end typically is continuous even setting the dormer <br /> wall back in. The bylaw does not make provision for using the gable end as an exception <br /> to that so even a Cape style home wouldn't meet the criteria of the bylaw. So some <br /> interpretation would have to be made for the intent of the bylaw. After that meeting,he felt <br /> they were both positive about this being a true half story. <br /> Mr. Dauphinais showed the Board the previous plan explained that the upper story went <br /> the extent of the story beneath it the entire length. The proposed plan is almost 50% in <br /> length even though they would be allowed 66% of the length. They are trying to be <br /> sensitive to the neighborhood by constricting the view angle of the second floor but using <br /> the roof line to break up the volume of that story so that they can align the dormer walls <br /> with the wall below it. If the Board is asking to pull the dormer wall back 2 ft. they would <br /> make the building longer to get essentially the space they want on that upper level which <br /> would be at a disadvantage to the abutters. The bylaw is written really rigid literally. <br /> Mr. Reidy wanted to understand the criteria that the area aspect on top would be no more <br /> than two thirds in floor size of what is below it. He believes that what was proposed, and <br /> what was revised has more than complied with that. He said that as he understands the <br /> bylaw says that there's a two foot inside wall set back from the top to the bottom. <br /> Dave read the definition of a"Half-Story"verbatim from the bylaws.He said he this project <br /> does conform. <br /> Mr. Dauphinais said that the two-thirds is actually relative to two separate areas, it's is the <br /> overall length the half-story or relative to the story below it. He complies at 55%. It's also <br /> the floor area of that half-story cannot be more than two-thirds of the floor area below it, <br /> and this also complies at 55%. The only area that there is ambiguity is the two foot offset. <br /> He said it would be extremely difficult to design a house to meet the criteria on all four <br /> sides the project. He reiterated that a Cape style house would not meet that criteria. <br /> Mr. Furbush read an email sent by Evan,Town Planner dated February 8, 2022 at 7:00 pm <br /> that was sent to Dave, Chris Gallagher as well. <br /> 3 <br />