Laserfiche WebLink
Road and 25 Menemsha Road were owned by affiliated Massachusetts limited liability <br /> companies owned and controlled by the Thurstons. <br /> 20. As such, 21 Menemsha Road and 25 Menemsha Road merged for zoning <br /> purposes. They were never legally separated under the Subdivision Control Law. <br /> Non-Co m Hance with Mash ee Zonin <br /> 21. Raze and Replace. Under the Mashpee Zoning Bylaw §174-17.1, a request to <br /> raze and replace a single-family residence requires a Special Permit,but new non-conformities <br /> are not permitted without the issuance of a Variance ("No pre-existing, non-conforming single or <br /> two (2) family dwelling structures shall be torn down and rebuilt on any lot unless there is an <br /> issuance of a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such a Special Permit may be <br /> granted only if the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that any changes, extensions, alterations or <br /> reconstruction of the pre?existing non-conformities are not substantially more detrimental than <br /> exists prior to removal of the existing structure and that there is adequate land area to provide <br /> sufficient parking. In no case shall new non-conformities be permitted without the issuance of a <br /> Variance."). <br /> 22. As discussed below, the Thurstons' proposed project introduces new zoning non- <br /> conformities, but no variance has been requested or granted. <br /> 23. In the case of Dana J Andrew Trustee y. Mashpee Zoning-D mof A peals, an <br /> Court No. 21 Misc. 000076 (KTS),the Land Court ruled that Mashpee Zoning Bylaw §174-17.1 <br /> was invalid as written. Such ruling was not appealed and is binding upon the Zoning Board in <br /> this case. <br /> 24. New Non-conformities. In Borklund v. Zonin�_Bd. of Appeals ofwNorwell,450 <br /> Mass. 357 (2008),the Court ruled that where a proposed reconstruction of a single-family <br /> - 7 - <br /> 4891-6173-5287.v1 <br />