Laserfiche WebLink
MASIIPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> DULY 24,2019 <br /> The Board is aware of parking requirement beside and behind the building, and that there <br /> be a natural buffer along Rte. 151. There is no buffer along Rte. 151 because that buffer <br /> was essentially the parking lot of the Cherrystones Restaurant, and the restaurant building <br /> itself.The Town may have plans for a bike path or sidewalks along that area. The proposal <br /> does include parking in the front and side of the building as opposed to behind and beside <br /> the building. If the parking were behind the building, then there would be a request for <br /> relief because the building would have to be moved forward, which would violate the 75 <br /> ft. setback criteria from Rte. 151. <br /> Jonathan commented it could be a smaller building. Attorney Kirrane said it is possible, <br /> but might not be economically feasible to put a smaller building on the lot. Jonathan asked <br /> if the owner of the property was present. Attorney Kirrane said; no the lot is owned by an <br /> estate, and there's an agreement to purchase the lot. Attorney Kirrane said the proposed <br /> size of the building is well within the lot coverage requirements of the bylaw, and not <br /> exceeding the 20%requirement. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said in order to comply with storm water treatment,there is a requirement <br /> to put in drainage swales and basins on the site. The proposal also includes relief from <br /> landscaping within the parking area. There is landscaping along the back property line — <br /> which separates it from the abutting lots. Ron asked if there is enough room to landscape <br /> between the parking lot and Rte. 151. Attorney Kirrane said it is minimal. The Board <br /> reviewed the landscape plan that was submitted. The requirement is 50 ft. from the <br /> residential area, and the lot buffer depicts 51.3 ft.from the residential area. <br /> Jonathan asked why there is a request for 81%of the maximum lot coverage by impervious <br /> area, and the required is 15%. Attorney Kirrane said the proposal includes that relief <br /> request as well.Attorney Kirrane said that he believes that request is for the water recharge <br /> portion of the lot. <br /> Attorney Kirrane referred the Board to Mr.King,with Atlantic Design Engineers,Mr.King <br /> said everything to the west is within the ground water protection,and everything to the east <br /> on the plan to the right is outside the ground water protection district. Mr. King said the <br /> idea is to protect the ground water within the ground water protection district, so they <br /> regulate the maximum amount of impervious area,but they do allow relief from that as <br /> long as you meet the certain set of criteria. Only a portion of the lot is located within the <br /> ground water protection district. Some of the things that were done is locating the septic <br /> system outside of the drainage from the parking lot proper from the pavement itself which <br /> in the engineering world deemed dirty because of TSS,and potential pollutants sending all <br /> that subsurface is the preferred method when dealing with this. They located that portion <br /> of the system outside of the protection district sending the roof water which does not have <br /> the annual sediment loading,and that is being directly recharged within the district because <br /> it is deemed cleaner. <br /> 13 <br />