5/2/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hansen inquired about height restrictions and Mr. Furbush responded that existing restrictions would remain, no higher than 35 feet over the average topography, set back 40 feet from the road, 15 feet from the side and rear and 40,000 square feet. Alexander Joyce, a land use planning attorney, complemented the ZBA's efforts to better clarify the bylaw,but suggested that it did not go far enough. Mr. Joyce felt that the amendment should be further reviewed, noting that the purpose of planning was to plan. Mr. Joyce felt that the amendment did not address the objective of zoning,which was to ameliorate or eradicate non-conforming uses and structures or make them less non-conforming. It was Mr. Joyce's opinion that it accomplished the opposite, suggesting an example of an older home built next to the property line, allowing a new home to be built on the property line,while also extending or elevating it. Mr. Joyce felt that a newly built home should be constructed based on existing set back requirements. Mr. Joyce also felt that the bylaw was unfair since the abutter may have met the requirements, but a neighbor could evade the bylaw by razing and elevating their home. It was Mr. Joyce's opinion that the Board should not approve the amendment. Mr. Balzarini noted that, according to the ZBA,the amendment allowed the building to be razed but would remain within the same footprint. Mr. Joyce responded that the language did not specify the home remaining in the footprint. Mr. Balzarini suggested that property value of the neighbors could increase with the improvement of a new home. Mr. Joyce agreed, but stated that they would prefer that new homes meet with current zoning. Mr. Balzarini stated that current zoning made it difficult to rebuild and Mr. Joyce responded that a new home could be built in the existing location. By that reasoning,Mr. Balzarini pointed out that a house sitting beside the lot line, would then be allowed to be rebuilt on the lot line. The Chair clarified that the new house could remain at that location on the lot, and expand but could not become any further non-conforming. Mr. Balzarini stated that the whole lot was likely non-conforming. Mr. Lehrer agreed that the majority of lots in South Mashpee were short of the required 40,000 feet because construction occurred before the current zoning was in place. Mr. Joyce stated that he was not trying to eradicate non-conforming lots. Mr. Lehrer pointed out that some lots would not even allow for the 40 foot setback due to its size. Mr. Joyce suggested that the bylaw be made less non-conforming. Mr. Lehrer asked for further definition of"substantially more detrimental" and Mr. Joyce stated that he was struggling with"no new non-conformities." Mr. Lehrer expressed his concern that"substantially" lacked definition,particularly as it related to the interpretation for a Special Permit. Mr. Joyce inquired about the allowable size of non-conformity. Mr. Lehrer stated that an additional non- conformity could not be added to the existing non-conformity, according to the amendment. Mr. Joyce stated that the purpose should be to make things more conforming, adding that it was unfair for a neighbor to raze and build a larger home,violating the current bylaw. John Lynch, a homeowner in Popponesset, supported addressing raze and replace but agreed with Mr. Lehrer that further definition was needed. Mr. Lynch liked the idea of remaining within the existing footprint,but did not see that statement identified in the amendment. Mr. Lynch suggested that the ambiguities could lead to difficulties down the road and asked that Mr. Furbush explain where it existed in the amendment. Mr. Balzarini suggested that the amendment could be amended on the floor. The Chair noted that it could become more restrictive. Mr. Lynch agreed that most lots were non-conforming and requested that the amendment reflect the protections described by Mr. Furbush. Mr. Lynch felt that the issue should not be rushed and that more time should be spent considering the bylaw. Mr. Lynch noted that there was a balance between homeowner rights and protection of the neighborhood. 2