08/08/2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES • AUGUST a, 2012 Revised plans were submitted with removal of a small jog from one side of the proposed structure, eliminating encroachment into the setback on the westerly side of the building. The proposed patio has been removed, further reducing the lot coverage to 21.22%. Attorney Kirrane said that the issue of the patio will be addressed with the Building Commissioner at a later time. Mr. Luff said that after the landscaping and hardscaping have been installed, Building Commissioner Richard Morgan will conduct a site visit to specify exactly what he considers "on grade" for placement of the patio/raised patio. Mr. Reiffarth questioned the discrepancy of the size of the property between the assessor's calculation of 12,960 square feet and the engineer's calculation of 14,000 square feet. Attorney Kirrane said that the tax records are not as accurate as a surveying engineer's stamped plan. Mr. Reiffarth said that the difference in the two figures could be a result of deeded land along the water and another party, such as New Seabury Limited Partnership, may be paying taxes on a portion of the lot. Attorney Kirrane explained that the size of the property was calculated excluding vegetated wetland. After seeing that the 21% lot coverage is based upon a 12,960 square -foot parcel, Mr. Reiffarth was satisfied. However, he remarked that the plan is confusing because it does not specifically state the square footage of the lot. Mr. Furbush asked Conservation Commission Agent Andrew McManus for his opinion • on the calculation of the lot coverage on the submitted plan. Prior to the meeting, Mr. McManus submitted a letter to the Board clarifying the definition and functions of coastal banks. Mr. McManus addressed the Board and said that the language in State Wetlands Protection Act 310 CMR 10.0 does not clearly explain the separation of resource area vs. wetlands. He stated that wetlands have very specific criteria. They contain vegetation that are adapted to certain hydric (very wet) soil conditions that contain moisture for most, if not all, of the year. These types of vegetation are "obligate" species that cannot grow anywhere else outside of wetlands. Mr. McManus stated that there is a clear distinction between what is classified as a wetland and what is classified as a coastal bank. Mr. McManus said that wetland resource areas, such as coastal banks, inland banks, flood zone and bordering land subject to flooding, are areas that are upland of wetlands. They do not contain wet conditions year round and sometimes do not contain wetland characteristics at all, but merely abut wetlands. They are included as part of the jurisdictional protection of 310 CMR 10.0, as well as Chapter 172 of the Mashpee Wetland By-law. Mr. McManus explained the different types of coastal banks that the Conservation Commission.deals with in various projects. 1) Eroding coastal banks, such as exist out on the Sound, provide a sediment source for coastal beaches and coastal dunes. 2) Non -eroding, vegetated coastal banks are fully vegetated with trees and shrubs that provide a vertical buffer to storm and flood damage and also provide wildlife habitat corridors. 3) The coastal banks, as seen in areas of New Seabury, are considered coastal banks by definition only, with a 10:1 slope, or steeper, criteria. Mr. McManus said that • the topography features in this particular area of New -Seabury are all artificial, manmade. Although this third type of banks provides a vertical buffer to storm damage and flood control, it holds no wildlife habitat value. Mr. McManus said that the third type of 3