Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />MARCH 28, 2012 <br />MINUTES <br />fire pump. Mr. Rowley said that none of these matters pose a serious concern, except <br />that a PK nail is not adequate. He urged the Board to require the Petitioner to restore the <br />monument to its original location and ensure that the monument is visible. <br />Mr. Nelson said that he wants all of Mr. Rowley's comments addressed on a revised plan <br />and he personally would not want to vote on the Petition tonight. Mr. Furbush agreed. <br />Mr. Blaisdell clarified that the Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the height <br />requirements and a Variance for three stories. He reiterated that the Petitioner is not <br />asking the Board to rule on fire hydrants, lighting, grading, or the street bound. Attorney <br />Mufioz agreed and said that those matters would be pertinent only if the Board feels that <br />they relate to height. She reminded the Board that the other matters are within the <br />purview of the Building Commissioner and counseled the Board to focus on the request <br />for a Variance from the height requirements. <br />Attorney Hurley said that there are tremendous time constraints and the Petitioner is <br />eager to start the project. <br />Attorney Munoz said that the Board can close the Petition to public testimony and <br />deliberate on it tonight.. While no more testimony would be allowed, the Board would <br />not have to wait for the revised plans. The Board could condition the Decision upon <br />submission of a revised plan addressing all of the issues mentioned previously. <br />• Mr. Nelson asked if "the turtle roof will come down on anybody's heads". Mr. <br />Cromwell said that the architectural feature is "strong and steady like a turtle". Mr. <br />Benson said that structural engineers have designed the building. <br />Mr. Nelson repeated that he wants to close the Petition to public testimony. Attorney <br />Munoz reminded the Board to ask for comments from anyone in the audience. No <br />comments were received. <br />Mashpee Commons, a direct abutter, submitted a letter in approval of the proposal. <br />Mr. Nelson made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Furbush seconded the <br />motion. All voted in favor. Mr. Nelson then said that the Board will deliberate on the <br />Petition at the next meeting with the revised plans. Attorney Munoz reminded the Board <br />that they can deliberate on the Petition now without the revised plans. Mr. Nelson <br />insisted that he wanted revised plans addressing everything that was discussed tonight <br />before the Board votes. A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Bonvie said that Mr. Nelson <br />changed what the Board wanted to do. Mr. Furbush said that he thought the Board was <br />either going to render a Decision .with a conditional approval or close it to public <br />testimony. Mr. Blaisdell said he didn't understand what the Board was waiting for <br />because he thought that the public testimony was finished and that the Board would <br />render a conditional Decision. Mr. Nelson said that even though all of the issues are <br />minor, "a lot of things need to be changed in those plans". He said that the Building <br />• Commissioner does not have authority over the Fire Department. Mr. Blaisdell countered <br />that the Decision can be made conditional upon compliance with revisions. Mr. Reiffarth <br />agreed and said that the, proposal could not proceed unless it has the Building <br />2 <br />