11/28/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Mr. Furbush asked Attorney Wall to explain the special use finding he applied for. Mr. Furbush cited Section 174-24 K; "where a use is not specifically listed under Section 174- 25 Table of Use Regulations, said use maybe allowed if a finding is made by the Zoning Board of Appeals that said use maybe allowed in a specific district on the basis that is substantially similar in its construction, operation, traffic, and enviromnental impact to a specific use associated as of right or special permit in said district is substantially dissimilar."He continued to cite the complete section. Mr. Furbush asked Attorney Wall what use he believes the helipad would be listed under in the Zoning Bylaws. Attorney Wall said that he views Section 174-24 K that zoning is intended to create harmonious uses of land so that people can exist in the community peacefully and without nuisance. A Town is divided into various districts such as residential, commercial, and industrial. Within those districts some uses are allowed as of right, some are prohibited, and some are allowed by special permit with an allowed condition. He said that Mashpee's bylaw use table is what he submitted is prohibited. The Town says that everything is prohibited unless it is expressly allowed, but when the legislature in this case Town Meeting, the Planning Board comes up with these articles, 174 K is recognition that you can't think of every single possibility in the future. Section 174 K gives the Board some flexibility that if a use comes along that is not expressly allowed in the use table, but it's like uses are allowed, and it's not like uses that are prohibited the Board can make a finding that the use is permitted. Attorney Wall said he is requesting a finding under single-family residential use listed under Items A (1) and A (9). He made reference to the use of the property suggesting that the helicopter was similar in size and function as a recreational travel trailer and other recreational motorized items used by single-families. He reiterated that this particular property is 9 acres and the closest abutter is 250 ft. to the South, and the next neighbor is 500 ft. to the North. His argument to the Board are the impacts of noise. He provided the factual documents from the FAA and how they regulate airplanes and test noise impacts in rural areas at 500 ft. He said that the helicopter is 80.9 decibels (he referenced Exhibit 8 and 9) in his materials. If the Board looks at the use, and the facts presented the impact with the helicopter is less than a regular air conditioner, lawn mower, snow blower, etc. Mr. Goldstein said if the Board approves this what would keep your client from buying another helicopter. Mr. Furbush asked how close the helipad is to the property line. Attorney Wall said he would be able to provide that but didn't know the answer at the moment. 4