Laserfiche WebLink
ZBA added"reconstruct." Mr. Mendoza provided copies of the Article from packets from the Board <br /> of Selectmen's meeting which showed in the fourth line the addition of"or reconstruction." There was <br /> discussion about not permitting"new non-conformities"without a variance. Mr. Lehrer confirmed <br /> that there was case law supporting the validity of the Article. The Chair sought comments from Board <br /> members, Mr. Balzarini stated that he would like to see the Article pass. The Chair inquired about not <br /> more substantially detrimental "to the neighborhood" in the fourth line and inquired whether the ZBA <br /> would support the addition. Attending ZBA members did not have an issue with the addition. There <br /> was no additional Board or staff comment. The Chair invited public comment. <br /> John Lynch, 25 Overlook Knoll, stated that he had trouble with the Article, as it was the same Article <br /> that the PIanning Board considered on May 2, with a decision from the Planning Board, with full <br /> discussion that it had issues. At that meeting,there was discussion about plans remaining within the <br /> footprint, allowing the homeowner to rebuild. It was Mr. Lynch's belief that there had been agreement <br /> to include such a statement in the Article and the Planning Board would work on a Raze and Replace <br /> Article that would be amenable to all parties. Mr. Lynch felt that the proposed Article was less <br /> protective than what was originally proposed on May 2, including the statement"not more <br /> substantially detrimental to the neighborhood." Mr. Lynch suggested that this was a Town wide <br /> problem, adding that he had received numerous calls about the upcoming Public Hearing and <br /> expressing concern about monstrous houses being built. Mr. Lynch felt that the proposed Bylaw was <br /> watering down the existing Bylaw, accelerating the process and providing discretion to the Building <br /> Inspector with a vote by three members instead of four. Although he felt that Raze and Replace would <br /> be a good addition, Mr. Lynch felt that the proposed Article was not ready for Town Meeting vote, <br /> Mr. Lynch felt that the Planner's Article#14 was a better option and that Article 16 may create more <br /> litigation. <br /> Marissa Pointbroder, representing her parents, the Tourneys at 23 Treasure Lane, expressed her <br /> support for the Bylaw. The Tourneys owned a 760 square foot cottage on cinder blocks, with a <br /> leaching field, and they wished to improve the two bedroom cottage to three bedrooms, creating more <br /> conformity in a nonconforming lot, in an existing nonconforming dwelling. The family looked into <br /> several options under the current Bylaw, all of which have been cost prohibitive. Their plans would <br /> require a variance of only .9 feet with their final plan. <br /> Steve McDonald, not a permanent resident ofMashpee, but a homeowner in New Seabury, stated that <br /> he purchased a home, for the land, two years ago to convert it into a family home for his children. Mr. <br /> McDonald pursued a design and received approval from the Conservation Commission, but found that <br /> decisions made by the ZBA had changed in that time. It was Mr. McDonald's opinion that <br /> homeowners should be able to build within their existing confines, adding that his design had nothing <br /> closer to the setbacks than what was existing. Mr. McDonald discussed the issues of the existing <br /> home, stating that it was impractical to renovate the home and adding that a new home would be an <br /> improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald expressed concern about the intent and direction of <br /> the proposed Bylaw. <br /> Mashpee resident, Ken Bates, expressed concern about Popponesset setbacks. There was confirmation <br /> for Mr. Bates that frontage was 60 feet. <br /> Dave Caparella stated that his family owned property on Popponesset Island for 40 years, now being <br /> passed along to the second generation, who would be unable and uninterested in knocking down the <br /> original structure to rebuild and instead, planned to renovate the home. Mr. Caparella asked for <br /> clarification regarding renovation at a cost that exceeded the 50%value of the structure, stating that the <br /> 8 <br />