Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 <br /> A proposal would be required with the Zoning Board for either a Variance, Written Finding or a <br /> Special Permit to move forward. <br /> Ms. Spencer addressed the Board and mentioned that the State code of a habitable dwelling unit <br /> with winter temperatures that every dwelling unit shall be provided with heating capable of <br /> maintaining a room temperature not less than 58 degrees. These units do not have heat or insulation <br /> and are not considered habitable under the building code. Ms. Spencer said she had a conversation <br /> with Mr. Morris and discussed the building code, and was surprised with his comments. <br /> Mr. Morris said that these dwelling units are not habitable when the average temperature is below <br /> 60 degrees which could be late October through May. He said if the homeowners want these units <br /> to be declared inhabitable, he would start the process for demolition. That would be the only <br /> process to make them inhabitable.He said that the correct procedure would be to submit a proposal <br /> to the Zoning Board for either a Variance, Written Finding or a Special Permit. <br /> Chairman Bonvie asked Ms. Spencer if these additional buildings in fact do not have heat, and are <br /> connected to a septic system,with a kitchen and bathroom. He also asked if they were ever rented. <br /> Ms. Spencer said; no, only family has stayed in them. <br /> Mr. Morris believes that another approach to this situation would be required. <br /> Attorney Kirrane stated that the bylaw allows the right to extend or alter a pre-existing <br /> nonconforming use under Section 174-17. There would be no reason to remove any structures <br /> onsite, and would ask the Board to allow to extend the pre-existing, nonconforming multiple <br /> structures by allowing the accessory dwelling. <br /> Ms. Sangeleer mentioned as one member believes that one of the units could be removed. <br /> Chairman Bonvie said as one member believes there would be an option to make sense of the three <br /> existing units, maybe to add to an accessory to an existing building. <br /> Mr. Morris said that he wrote in his denial letter the possibility to agree that one of the existing <br /> units could become an ADU. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that all three of those units are in a flood zone. The owners created the <br /> existing house and garage outside of the flood zone. The clients do not want to raze one of the out <br /> structures, or go through the Conservation Commission. <br /> Chairman Bonvie said that some minor work could be done to one of the units below the 50% <br /> condition. As one member,he agrees with Mr. Morris,but is willing to discuss further options that <br /> are appropriate. <br /> Mr. Caggiano agrees with Mr. Morris' decision. <br /> 10 <br />