Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> APRIL 13,2022 <br /> Mr. Furbush asked if the 2 ft. x 23 ft. cantilever is included in the lot coverage. Attorney <br /> Kirrane said;yes. <br /> Mr. Goldstein asked why there is a cantilever if it meets the 40 ft. Attorney Kirrane said <br /> that was just the design feature. <br /> -Mr. Blaisdell asked if the 2 ft. cantilever is included in the lot coverage calculation. <br /> Stephanie Morrison, Architect with Local Studio, Inc. explained the reason for <br /> cantilevering of the left front facade was to comply with the front yard setback requirement, <br /> and the 2 ft. is included in the lot coverage. <br /> Dave said that a 2 ft. cantilever is allowed for the first floor setback but not lot coverage as <br /> indicated under Section 174-31 footnote (fn.) 19. <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked Attorney Kirrane if he is using fill included in the lot coverage <br /> calculation. Attorney Kirrane said; that is correct and there is nothing in the bylaws that <br /> prohibits this calculation, and it was approved by the Conservation Commission. <br /> Mr. Bonvie said that the Zoning Bylaws allows uses, and although Conservation allowed <br /> this proposal under their laws doesn't mean that from a zoning standpoint it's allowed. He <br /> also mentioned that at Town Meeting there was a discussion about lot coverage <br /> calculations. He said he is just one member. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said this project was approved by the Commission, and the lot coverage <br /> was reduced under the 25% to 24.9%, as suggested by the Board. He doesn't believe that <br /> the Commission would allow people to fill in lots,the intention was to enhance the coastal <br /> resource area. He believes it meets the requirements under the bylaw. <br /> Mr. Furbush asked if there is currently an intake of the coastal bank. Mr. Kirrane said yes <br /> the existing coastal bank was originally one unit,but at the time the house was built it looks <br /> like the lot was dug out for a walk-out basement. The walk-out basement is approximately <br /> 10-15 ft. below the existing grade. <br /> Mr. Goldstein said he doesn't remember if this type of proposal was ever presented to the <br /> Board in the past,but this is a unique situation. He believes that the lot may have been dug <br /> out in the past. He said as one member, he questioned if it was not allowed under the <br /> bylaws, and if it would be required to be restored back to its original state. <br /> Mr.Blaisdell said that if the applicant is withdrawing the Variance request,and only asking <br /> for a Special Permit under Section 174-17.1, we as the Board need to determine if this is <br /> more detrimental than what previously exists. He said as one member, it is not. He does <br /> not believe that the Board needs to determine the past history, or if the lot was filled in or <br /> not; only if the proposed is more detrimental than what previously existed. <br /> 2 <br />