1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES September 14, 1988 - 2 - BOARD OF APPEALS • Attorney Chris Toomey was in attendance representing John and George Malloy. He reviewed the original petition in which they were were requesting a Special Permit for construction of the dock and a single family dwelling. They have revised the petition and they are now seeking a Special Permit for a dock only. Mr. Toomey has submitted a revised plan to the Board showing the dock as they propose to constuct it. After the hearing in March of 1987 they appealed the decision of the Board of Appeals to Barnstable Superior Court and the court ordered that the matter be remanded to the Board for a further hearing. He stated that the Board's consideration of the Special Permit Application should be pursuant to the provisions of the zoning by-law on fixed and floating piers as it was in 1987. Attorney William Henchy, representing direct abutters Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Konikowski, stated that there was not an order from the Superior Court. There was a stipulation between Attorney Toomey and Town Counsel whereby, by agreement of the parties, this matter could be remanded back to the Board. Mr. Henchly stated that his clieants have intervened in this case. Attorney Toomey reviewed plans for a dock, float, ramp and walkway. The dock would extend a distance of 70' from the main high-water mark as shown on the plan. The pertinent by-law provision does not limit the length of the docks but they are proposing to build one that is no more than 70' from the mean high-water mark. The walkway and every portion of the dock is set • back at least 15' from the side line of the abutting property. Once the dock gets into the water or close to the mean high water mark, the effect would be that the dock is centered more in the lot. Docks have been constructed on both abutting properties. Mr. Halpern questioned why the original dock was denied. Attorney Toomey responded that the original dock was 10,; from the side line and they have now moved it to 15' which is the minimum in the zoning code. Lisa Hanscom, Conservation Officer, stated that the dock was denied because Conservation felt there would be harm to shellfish in the area. She stated that the Applicant has not shown the Board of Appeals or Conservation Commission much information on shellfish studies. Paul Somervell, Shellfish Commissioner, reported that he had not received any environmental data. He said that it appears the penetration of the dock is only 4' and he did not think this sufficient. He stated that there is not any information on the construction details for the end of the dock. There appears to be a 12' x 12' platform at the end. He thought that might inhibit the shellfish in this particular area. Mr. Toomey stated he does not believe that there is any requirement under the By-law that they have to do a shellfish survey. There have been other docks put in this area and to his knowledge they have not been required to do a shellfish study.