11/13/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 13,2019 Mr. Bunker also mentioned in his experience that the flood zone is a wetland`under the State regulations but he doesn't believe anyone subtracts areas located in a flood zone from lot area. The Board mentioned that the patio area is not considered a structure under their prevue because it is at ground level, and it is not encroaching on the wetlands. Tom Bunker said that Conservation asked him to move the patio and all structures at least 50 ft. from the dune. Conservation was primarily concerned with the dune and the beach of the wetland area toward Nantucket Sound. The Board mentioned that the water runoff issues might be coming from the abutting properties. The Board was more concerned with lot coverage and asked Charlie to review. Chairman Furbush turned to §174-31 fn. 16 and read it aloud. Charlie said he would refer to the Conservation Commission to define water or wetlands based upon MGL Chapter 131 Section 40. Tom Bunker said that the lot coverage is based upon the 20,100 sq. ft.,but did not take into consideration of the coastal bank area on the lot and removed the dune. He said the only wetland area that he subtracted from the lot coverage was the dune. He didn't know the square footage above the coastal bank. Attorney Kirrane said in his experience never deducted the coastal bank from lot area. The entire area of Popponesset, is in a floodplain, so essentially there is zero lot area if you deduct floodplains from that calculation. Attorney Kirrane said what Arlene suggests is that it's only a.12,000 sq. foot lot. The increase in lot coverage was a little over 4%. So if she is suggesting that the lot coverage was at 33% based upon the new construction, than the existing lot coverage would have to be 27%, which would then be a pre-existing non- conforming condition because that would be over the 25% allowed lot coverage. So this would not require any variance relief from that particular section of the bylaw. The proposed house does not need a variance because it's a non-conforming condition. Section 174-17 references the alteration or change of a pre-existing non-conforming condition and does reference 174-24 C, but Section 174-17.1 does not. If the Conservation Commission had serious concerns about development of this lot creating flood conditions in the neighborhood,they would have addressed that. There were no more comments from the audience or Board. Scott made a motion to approve the Special Permit for 28 Jeep Place with the following conditions; 1. The Board has determined that the applicant meets all the conditions of a Special Permit under Mass General Law 40A Section 9. 2. Plot Plan—Existing House, Prepared for Jamie and Paul Saganey, 28 Jeep Place, Mashpee, MA. Existing Conditions: 1 of 3, Scale: 1" = 20', Date: June 11, 2019, Drawn: EJP, MRT, Checked by: TB, Job Number: 19013, Revisions: Changed Dune Delineation, Added Coastal Bank Sections, August 15, 2019, Drawing Number: B24-44, Prepared by: BSS Design. 7