02/23/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 23, 2011 MINUTES • need not have an architect's signature. All Projects of five or more units must have site development plans prepared by a registered architect or engineer. ' In response to the Board's request for additional information, Attorney Brodie also read the DHCD Guidelines: "Some requests for additional information, however, are improper. Examples include: 1) Final Plans - The ZBA may not require final plans before granting the comprehensive permit. Examples include complete engineering plans, final construction plats, and final architectural drawings. (Before construction begins, final plans should be submitted, with the comprehensive permit, to the building inspector for review prior to issuance of building permits). " Attorney Brodie read the Mashpee ZBA Comprehensive Permit regulations: -3. OP The application for a Comprehensive Permit shall consist of: (a) preliminary site development plans showing the locations and outlines of proposed buildings; the proposed locations, general dimensions and materials for streets, drives, parking areas, walks and paved areas; and proposed landscaping improvements and open areas within the site. All structures offive or more units must have site development plans signed by a registered architect; (e) where a subdivision of land is involved, a Preliminary Subdivision Plan conforming to all of the applicable requirements of the Mashpee Regulations for the Subdivision of Land. " • Attorney Brodie read the following letter dated February 22, 2011 from Land Surveyor Robb Sykes addressing issues brought up by the ZBA at the February 9, 2011 Public Hearings: "Dort Dickinson, Director Habitat for Humanity Yarmouth, MA Re: Issues raised by ZBA last week The Board raised the issue of a difference of areas between a prior plan and the current plan. The prior plan had not been reviewed by the Engineers of the Land Court, the current plan has been. The Engineers approved the boundary of the parcel as shown on the current plan as being the line of Mean High Water and the area shown reflects that. Under Commonwealth of Massachusetts law, in most cases, including this one, land beneath the Mean High Water (MHW) belongs to the Commonwealth. This line is subject to irregularities due to(erostn accretion of soils along the land/water border as is often seen in storm events. The Land Court recognizes MHW as a boundary without it being in a strict, definite, immoveable location. Simply put, land under the water at a mean high tide belongs to the Commonwealth. The area of any parcel with a tidal boundary is therefore indefinite and subject to erosion or accretion. The physical location of a MHW boundary is subject to the conditions at the moment of measurement. As you see on my plat, I noted that the lines • of the water boundary are "tie lines" and delineate MHW on 7-14-2010. The trite boundary line can only be described as Mean High Water' at any given moment. I G