03/12/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision

Home Browse Search

improved with a three bedroom single-family home, a detached shed, a raised patio with an in-ground pool, and a dock. It is located in an R-3 zoning district, as defined by the Mashpee zoning by-law (by-law) , but it is nonconforming in that the dwelling and the swimming pool are setback from the coastal bank only forty-six feet and twenty-one feet, respectively (fifty feet is required) , and the total lot coverage is 25. 68 percent (the maximum lot coverage is 20 percent) . In February, 2014, the defendants applied for a written finding under c. 174-17 of the by-law, that their plan to raze and replace the existing structures on their property "shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure or use to the neighborhood and that there is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. "4 Following a public hearing, the 4 In pertinent part, c. 174-17 provides that: "changes, extensions or alterations of nonconforming single or two family dwelling structures which do not meet the applicable dimensional requirements as set forth above and changes, extensions or alterations of all other nonconforming structures, or nonconforming uses, may not be made unless there is a written finding by the Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure or use to the neighborhood and that there is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. Although said finding shall not constitute a Special Permit as defined by the general laws and this by-law, the Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures specified in the general laws for 2