Laserfiche WebLink
of any corner of the property,which served as a definition of the neighborhood, but anyone could <br /> attend a public meeting to express their views. <br /> Mr. Kelly stated that he never received notice regarding an abutting property. The Chair explained that <br /> if the building was "by right," leaving a wall standing,no one would be notified because they were <br /> compliant with current zoning. If the homeowner would be addressing the ZBA or Planning Board for <br /> a Special Permit, abutters would receive notification. Mr. Kelly stated that he approached three <br /> departments about not being notified and was told the rolls could not be changed until January. Mr. <br /> Lehrer confirmed that abutter letters were sent by certified mail and a record would be kept so Mr. <br /> Kelly could verify the address with the Town. The Chair stated that perhaps the Town was using an <br /> old tax record address that was on record. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Lynch did not receive a notice at <br /> his work address. Mr. Lehrer suggested checking the certified mail list, adding that it did not fall <br /> under the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Kelly responded that he did and was bounced around. <br /> The Chair noted that, if it was her and she was concerned about compliance, she would follow up with <br /> the Town Manager's office. <br /> Bill Blaisdell,Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, stated that the amendment used similar <br /> language to the existing bylaw. Mr. Blaisdell confimned that no new non-conformities could be <br /> introduced to the site, but the homeowner could change, alter or extend any pre-existing non- <br /> conformities of the structure being replaced. Mr. Rowley noted that"substantially"was part of the <br /> State Statute and was likely the reason the ZBA had to review each application on its own merits. Mr. <br /> Rowley stated that the proposed amendment would be no different than State law. Mr. Blaisdell <br /> confirmed that the ZBA had been using the bylaw and using their discretion to confirm that new <br /> construction was not substantially more detrimental to what was existing and confirmed that proposals <br /> had indeed been rejected. The only difference to the existing bylaw and the proposed amendment was <br /> allowing the structure to be completely razed. Mr. Blaisdell added that, if a home was razed, without <br /> the amended bylaw, it would create an unbuildable lot. The ZBA was attempting to create more clarity <br /> with the amendment rather than trying to define,under the current bylaw,how much of a structure <br /> would need to remain. <br /> Mr. Cummings inquired about adding"same footprint"to the amendment. The Chair inquired whether <br /> the other Board of Appeal members would embrace the wording. Mr. Blaisdell stated that it would be <br /> an alteration to the existing bylaw and that it may not satisfy the concerns of the residents. Mr. <br /> Balzarini recommended allowing the residents of Mashpee to voice their opinion with their vote at <br /> Town Meeting. There was consensus from the public to require building within the footprint. There <br /> was discussion noting that,with a wall remaining,the existing bylaw could allow a structure to build <br /> all the way up to the 15 foot setback. The bylaw did allow reconstruction to extend beyond the <br /> footprint. Mr. Hansen agreed that"footprint" should be added to the bylaw. Mr. Furbush inquired <br /> whether it was fair to tell a homeowner that they could not build up to their setback if they chose to do <br /> so. <br /> Mr. Balzarini asked for a motion. Mr. Rowley referenced the small lot size of non-conforming lots and <br /> noted that some bylaws allowed expansion no more than a specified amount beyond current building <br /> size, such as 25%. Mr. Rowley explained that it could limit the situation whereby an oversized home <br /> could be built in a neighborhood of smaller homes. There was consensus from the public. Mr. Lehrer <br /> stated that the scope of the Article could not be changed. The Chair suggested asking Town Counsel <br /> about making the amendment, Mr. Lynch stated his preference for suggestions made by Mr. Hansen <br /> and Mr. Rowley,to build within the footprint and maintain an appropriate volume, and felt that it <br /> would address many of the concerns expressed. The suggested changes would create less ambiguity <br /> 4 <br />