02/22/2023 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MEETING MINUTES MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 22, 2023 Mr. Bonvie was questioning the height of the proposed structure being three stories. Mr. Morris said that the ground floor is not considered a story above grade. There are no outside walls. Attorney Kirrane said that there are no new non-conformities being created, and the Board approved this project back in 2021. The second issue was for the Board to make specific findings to support the proposed project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. There are no new conformities being created, there will be enough parking with a garage, and the old structure is not building code compliant, and the new structure will be flood zone compliant on pilings. The Conservation Commission approved the project on December 30, 2020. This project is consistent with what the Board has approved in the past. Mr. Bonvie has concerns that were mentioned in Attorney Wall's document. Mr. Reidy said that part of this discussion is that the Board has to make specific findings that were not mentioned in the original decision. Attorney Kirrane realized that there was some information submitted that the Board had not had time to review. He said that he gave the Board some suggested findings as why he believes that this project is not substantially detrimental. Attorney Brian Wall representing the abutters Andrew Family Trust. He approached the Board and mentioned he had a discussion with Attorney Kirrane after receiving the summary judgement and agreed to appear at the meeting date of February 22, 2023. He pointed out that he did not receive the revised plan until last Wednesday prior to the meeting, and did not receive Attorney Kirrane's presentation until last Friday before the meeting. He said he tried to get the document to the Board as quick as he could, and emailed it to Attorney Costello and Attorney Kirrane. Attorney Wall said that this particular property has four non conformities, the lot is undersized when calculated correctly, does not comply with the front yard setback, and it does not comply with the setback from wetlands, and does not comply with lot coverage. This project was in front of the Board previously, and the Board did approve it and there were some disagreements what lot coverage and wetlands is all about, and the court ruled that this definition is subject to LSTCSF. He mentioned the at the 2018 Town Meeting, the Town voted to keep Section 174-33 bylaw to be regulated by both Conservation Commission and the ZBA. Attorney Wall said that his clients review this project is to replace a single-story modest cottage that 1,749 sq. ft., and adding 1,175 sq. ft. adding 67% to the footprint and adding three stories to make this a 6,000 sq. ft. home. The court did rule that this is LSTCSF is a wetland and remanded it back to the Board. 7