My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/14/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
08/14/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2019 5:04:40 PM
Creation date
9/16/2019 2:59:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/14/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> AUGUST 14,2019 <br /> This is also a concern because the applicant feels that the minimum required parking bylaw <br /> is not sufficient to address the needs of his business. That area will cut a little into the <br /> naturally undisturbed area of the lot. There is a public safety basis for allowing this parking <br /> because people will end up in the street. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said that this parking is necessary, and is a significant safety and liability <br /> requirement. In his written remarks, he attached a copy of the subdivision plan that shows <br /> the 25 acres of open space which will be deeded to the Town of Mashpee pursuant to the <br /> requirements of the Cape Cod Commission. Even though the 26% request as opposed to <br /> 40% on this particular lot, there is 25 acres of open space that will be controlled by the <br /> Town, so the purpose and intent of the bylaw is protected and that 25 acres more than <br /> adequately provides the type of protection that would ordinarily be available if 40% of the <br /> lot retained in its natural state. He would like move the project forward to the Planning <br /> Board and present a plan to them that shows 26% undisturbed naturally vegetative area on <br /> this lot as opposed to 40%,and a Variance of 14%from that 40%requirement.The building <br /> is attractive and would be a very welcoming addition to the Town. <br /> Ron Bonvie commented that would be 2.5 acres dedicated to each lot. <br /> Jonathan mentioned that he likes the project, and agrees with the Attorney that it's a very <br /> restrictive bylaw. He asked the Town Planner if he knows the purpose and intent of the <br /> 40%. Evan said that it was to provide adequate vegetative screening within commercial <br /> uses like Stonewood Products, storage facilities, and uses within the industrial districts <br /> from the residential districts across the street, and also for ground water protection. <br /> Jonathan asked if the ground water was under that area. Evan said he does not believe that <br /> the lots fronting on Main Street are within the ground water protection district or Zone 2 <br /> recharge area. Jonathan asked if it was close to Otis. Evan said the 25.1 acre open space <br /> parcel acts as a buffer between the sub-division and the Base. <br /> Ron asked why the applicant could not have put some of that 25 acres towards the 40%. <br /> Evan said because the local zoning bylaw does not allow it. Evan mentioned that he has <br /> approached the Planning Board at a recent meeting to discuss empowering the local permit <br /> granting authorities; the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board to waive this <br /> requirement, in place of an adequate landscaping plan that would accomplish the same <br /> purpose and intent, but that discussion is forth coming and unfolding and not on the books <br /> as we speak. Evan wanted to make note that the depression on the site is a natural <br /> depression,not created by man-made activity and as such when the DPW put in a drainage <br /> infrastructure on Main Street,they took advantage of that natural depression and used it as <br /> a water discharge onto the site over Main Street. The DPW is aware of the situation with <br /> the applicant, and intention of filling this area. The perception could be that any private <br /> property owner will not grant the ability to use this section of the site and the Town <br /> continues to use this area as discharge without an easement. That is an issue with the <br /> applicant that the Town needs to work out. <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.