08/14/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A VARIANCE Petitioner, Modi, LLC (Owner of Record: Evergreen Energy, LLC) 588 Main St. (10 Evergreen Circle) Mashpee, MA 02649 V-2019-45 The initial plan depicted that there would be 0% of the undisturbed natural area. It was intended that the entire area around the site would be landscaped and improved. However, after the applicant consulted with Attorney Kirrane,he suggested that would not be received well by any Board who has the authority to grant relief under this particular section of the bylaw. The request before the Board is now 26% of undisturbed open space on this project, seeking 14%Variance relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Kirrane said his client, Cape Cod Coffee does not own the building on they currently occupy on Main Street.He said his client is proposing to expand his business and provide more venues for the public. There are two lots in the front of this development that are situated in the C-3 Zoning District. This particular lot consists of almost 76,000 sq. ft., and has the appropriate frontage along Evergreen Circle and Rte. 130. This particular lot is also under the Light Industrial Overlay District which is listed in the Table Of Uses under §174-31, and the accessory uses that are referenced in the Light Industrial Overlay District under §174-45.6. These are the types of uses that can be combined with an industrial use and other miscellaneous types of uses whether they are commercial in connection with the development in this particular overlay district. Attorney Kirrane mentioned that Evan Lehrer, Town Planner authored the bylaw for this particular Light Industrial District which invites some of the types of businesses that are coming into Town, and are being adopted by other Towns along Cape Cod. Attorney Kirrane listed some of the specific purposes and intent of this zoning district in his written remarks. In order to accommodate those types of uses which are multifaceted, there is a built-in conflict between the C-3 Zoning District 40% natural undisturbed areas. The intent of the bylaw for uses within the Light Industrial Zone is difficult to develop viable projects that meet the objectives of the Light Industrial Zoning District, and still be tied by that 40% requirement that only relates to the two front lots as discussed earlier. Everything behind those two lots do not have any kind of requirement to this undisturbed open space. As Attorney Kirrane mentioned to the Board his client is seeking relief to allow 26% of this lot as undisturbed open space. The topography on the site plan shows a significant hole in the right front corner of the lot facing Rte. 130. His client wants to fill and landscape that topographical feature by removing the undisturbed vegetation. There will be people in and about the proposed building, and the outdoor seating, etc. Jan is concerned that if anyone wondered over to that area they could find themselves at the bottom of that hole. So as far as a safety and liability point of view, he is seeking to fill in that hole, and after he fills it in, he will landscape it in a tasteful fashion that will be compatible with other indigenous growth that exists. 2