Laserfiche WebLink
AUGUST 23, 2023 <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> 3. No new non-conformities are being created, unless authorized by a variance. <br /> ance. <br /> I see that both lot owners are listed as "applicants"far the special permit, which is beneficial <br /> because, if the special permit is granted, there will have to be a condition (as proposed by Atty. <br /> Ford) to remove the common lot line and place the lots into common ownership by recorded <br /> instrument. <br /> In essence, the ZBA should identify and itemize each nonconformity that currently exists with <br /> respect to the two separate lots, determine what nonconformities would be created with respect to <br /> the proposed use/structure on the merged/combined lot, and then determine whether any "new" <br /> nonconformity is being created with respect to the merged lot. If the new lot/structure only alters, <br /> extends, or changes apre-existing dimensional, setback or other type of nonconformity the Board <br /> can apply the Section 174-17.1 standard noted above to decide whether the special permit should <br /> issue. If,' on the other hand, the lot merged lot/ new structure would create a new or <br /> diff <br /> erent nonconformity, the applicant would have to obtain a variance before the raze & replace <br /> special permit can issue. <br /> I don't see any "legal" issue with the application, and it appears that appropriate documentation <br /> has been submitted to the Board for its review/action. <br /> Chairman BoDvic polled the Board for comments. <br /> Mr. Goldstein as one Board member wants to confirm the height of the ridge at 35 ft. and would <br /> like to condition to confirm the height certification. He also reviewed the house plan "A201", and <br /> wanted to know if the front gable was a structure. Mr. Sidford stated it was a skylight window,and <br /> is not considered a structure. <br /> Mr. Blaisdell stated that Town Counsel made it clear that the Board look at the non-conformities <br /> on the two existing separate homes, and the non-conformities associated with the proposal, and <br /> that there are no new non-conformities being created. Mr. Blaisdell asked Attorney Ford to explain <br /> to the Board the existing non-conformities on each individual home. <br /> Attorney Ford provided the Board a detailed letter dated July 20, 2023 that explains the existing <br /> non-conformities for 12 Popponesset Island Road, and 16 Popponesset Island Road. <br /> Mr. Furbush read page 2 of the letter into the record as follows: <br /> rn <br /> A) Existing 12 Popponesset Island Road (Lot 2) <br /> Existing Area above flood zone and landward of bank = 19,710 sq. ft. <br /> Structures (garage, house, deck, boathouse with side stairs and deck) = 4,177 sq. ft, <br /> Lot Coverage = 21.2% lot coverage. <br /> Portions of the existing single family dwelling are located within the required 50 foot <br /> setback from wetlands. <br /> Thus,the following non-conformities exist: Lot Area, Lot Coverage,and Setback from <br /> Wetlands. <br />