12/12/2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 12,2018 The Trust applied for these same three variances back in 2013 but no bridge was proposed. The applicants at that time where proposing to access the property by boat and have just a house. During the hearings, the Board expressed concerns with the inability of first responders to access the property.They were concerned about public safety,fire protection, and a possible medical emergency. The Board denied the request for variances for those reasons. The applicants are seeking the same three variances, but now with a bridge being proposed, he believes he has addressed the reasons for denial the first time because obviously with a bridge there's now going to be pedestrian and vehicular access to the island. The bridge is going to be a single lane wide enough for fire trucks and ambulances. There's a comment in the record from the Fire Chief that as Iong as the bridge is built and certified by a structural engineer that its heaviest piece of apparatus can get across the bridge. if this bridge is built, it will be certified with construction drawings by a structural engineer so that the Fire Chief will be satisfied with those concerns. The Board is very familiar with its authority to grant variances, and the Board can grant variances with the three conditions obtained. First, is soil conditions, shape or topography of the land especially effecting the land,but not generally effecting the zoning district,and literal enforcement of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, and relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. The applicant believes there is hardship because it's an island with its shape, topography and soil conditions, and it is completely surrounded by water. Secondly,the Trust believes that literal enforcement of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship if the relief from the frontage requirements, and access requirements are not granted, the island cannot be developed, and in this case there would be substantial financial hardship to the property. Third, the basis of the denial back in 2013, relief can be granted without substantially derogating from the purposes of the bylaw. The first two requests for relief concern frontage, and there is case law regarding frontage, and the bylaws require frontage to make sure that every lot has access to a street so that first responders, and others can access the property. The first time there was no bridge, and the Board felt that granting relief under those circumstances would in fact derogate from the bylaw. The proposal for the bridge specifically addresses these concerns. Although there is no frontage on a street, the bridge will provide access. The third variance is regarding fire apparatus, and requires the property deed within 150 feet from the road. Again the bridge addresses this concern. The bridge is just a minor extension of Punkhorn Point Road, and that road provides adequate access for fire apparatus. He believes the Board is well within the authority to grant the requested relief. 3