6/16/2020 PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Meeting Mashpee Plan Review Committee Tuesday, June 16, 2020 Mashpee Town Hall Waquoit Meeting Room Glen Harrington: He has no issues with this project, and is fine with the sewer tie in on the waste water treatment plant. These are similar buildings as previously constructed. No issues. He asked what the requirement is for the Special Permit Modification. Charlie said that it's an extension of the Planning Board Special Permit. Drew McManus: This project will be coming to the Conservation Commission for permitting assuming it's a notice of intent. The only comment looking at the site plan, if wetland delineation was done for Riverfront because Quaker Run River is nearby. It might be outside riverfront, but Riverfront carries a 200 ft. setback and it is not delineated on the plan. He wants to clarify the 200 ft. to show the inner and outer riparian zones to Riverfront meaning the 0-100 ft. setback, and the 100-200 ft. setback. Those delineations would need to be shown on the plan if Riverfront is applicable in this area. John said that if riverfront was nearby it would have the 100 and 200 ft. riparian zone on the plan. He does not think it's applicable. Drew wanted to confirm because it is very close. He said within 50 ft. of a wetland it does trigger mitigation, and also triggers a waiver request under the requirements of the wetland bylaw. Charlie read Evan Lehrer's, Town Planner comments into the record; • Planning Board public hearing is July 11t Proposed modification is within the maximum number of allowed units according to special permit. • Additional height requires variance relief from zoning board of appeals. • Planning Board should also be notified in the hearing or in writing of intension to deactivate adjacent cranberry bog. (A letter was received on Jun 12, 2020 by Southworth saying that they will deactivate the cranberry bog). A Variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required under §174-33 (Setbacks from wetlands), because of the 50 ft. buffer, and §174-31 (Land Space Requirements) for a height variance. • Has a site plan been sent to Charlie Rowley? If not, please do so. Charlie Maintanis: This building is very similar to others that were built in the past, and also the newer buildings on the other side of the club house and tennis court. The Design Review committee continued their meeting because of concerns regarding the elevations of the building in relationship to the surrounding area, the clubhouse, and other buildings. The applicant will need to revise the plans prior to applying to the ZBA. 2