08/08/2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES • AUGUST 2012 form; coastal bank is not anaturally-occurring land form; therefore, the performance standards (natural functions) associated with coastal banks are not applied. There is even a Town By-law provision for a waiver of the requirements. This allows for encroachment on or over these coastal banks closer to the.wetlands, as long as compensatory (mitigating) plantings are proposed. Mr. McManus said this mitigating planting actually works in Conservation Commission's favor because turf is replaced with natural vegetation. This helps eliminate runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen and other elements into the wetlands. To Mr. Bonvie's question, Mr. McManus answered that the coastal bank running through 172 Waterway does not qualify as a wetland and should be considered upland. Mr. McManus said that he agrees with the lot coverage calculation of 21.22%. Mr. Paul Morgenstern at 189 Waterway delivered a letter to the Board just a few minutes before the meeting started, which Mr. Blaisdell read into the record. Doris and Paul Morgenstern 189 Waterway Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 Tel 508-477-3566 August 8, 2012 Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals • ATTN Jonathan D. Furbush, Chairman 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 Subject: 172 Waterway Dear Chairman Furbush: As an interested party by virtue of our proximity to the subject property, I wish to bring to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals my concerns regarding two of the three petitions presently before the Board relating to this property. Written Findine The petitioner's representatives claim that the new dwelling structure constitutes an improvement because it will conform to the current building code, will add substantial value to the property, and will enhance the neighborhood. 1 maintain that these goals are achievable without subjecting the neighborhood to the more substantially detrimental effects of decreased setbacks and significant higher lot coverage. The key to this is architecturally innovative building plans. For example, the petitioner cites the abutting property at 166 Waterway that was • approved for construction with 21.9 percent lot coverage. Instead, I cite the property directly across the street at 161 Waterway that was renovated recently withqut any El