Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck Road North <br />Nashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br />Mr. Lehrer was struggling with one provision, the Dennis bylaw contemplates the gross floor <br />ratio. It will not be beneficial to recycle that language, there hasn't been a single raze and <br />replace with non -conformities. Within the floodplain and 15% lot coverage of actual <br />structures, you can go up to 25ft. He sent this draft to Counsel with a particular question, <br />and he has not gotten a response back regarding the extension of a setback nonconformity. <br />Actions requiring a finding of substantially detrimental, for example, if you are in a zoning <br />district with a 15ft. minimum setback and existing condition is 10ft. from the side, there is a 5 <br />ft. non conformity and house is 20ft. in depth. Any raze and replace that proposes an <br />increase in that same setback area will be found to be detrimental and will not be approved. <br />The second floor would be impacted by same limitation. Lot coverage is awaiting Counsels <br />opinion. <br />Ms. Faulkner asked if he could write it as a statement of the bylaw then provide an example <br />illustration for each one. <br />Ms. Waygan is having trouble understanding. She doesn't want any existing non conformity <br />to be increased. She can't understand this language and she wants a chart of all the things <br />this bylaw should say. She doesn't want further encroachment into a side setback. She is <br />wondering why they can't just say not permitted. Number four should say not permitted. <br />Mr. Lehrer stated any reconstruct in the Poppy Overlay can't introduce impervious surfaces. <br />If you are suggesting an asphalt driveway you can't do it. They do not want to grandfather <br />and do not want new. If you want to preserve the right to rebuild, you eliminate impervious. <br />Ms. Waygan referenced the covered and uncovered decks in number two. They should <br />introduce not just uncovered but covered, if it's considered livable space or not. <br />Mr. Lehrer noted side setbacks, lot coverage, and building height are all examples of non - <br />conformities. He is unsure about non -conforming building heights. <br />Ms. Waygan asked how they want to cap the height. Any non -conforming height can't be <br />increased. <br />Mr. Lehrer stated if you live in a home with an existing condition of 18% coverage, you can <br />go up to 20% and cannot exceed. There are no issues of lot coverage non conformities. An <br />issue was exposed pertaining to lot coverage. Any wetland defined has to be eliminated. If <br />you are 100% of land subject to coastal flow, you have an artificial lot coverage non <br />conformity that you may extend or alter, and one may exceed lot coverage of 20%. He <br />wants to provide that clarity for the technicality. <br />11 <br />