12/11/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

7. The Applicant proposes that Housing Assistance Corporation shall serve as the monitoring agent for the proposed project. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION i 1. The proposed project is described on theplans of David Thulin, as revised �s through February 13, 2003. The Applicant has also submitted architectural plans j exhibiting a variety of traditional styles, including a"ranch" style that was included at the Board's request. The plans are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Plans." 2. The property on which the project is proposed is located at 30 Meetinghouse I Road and shown on Assessor's Map 36, Parcel 30. The Property contains approximately 4.2 acres and is presently undeveloped. Meetinghouse Road is ( I heavily traveled road in Mashpee. The Property contains significant changes in topography and is within proximity to the Mashpee River. j 3. The Application, as described in the Plans, is for 12 dwelling units. The dwelling units are to be offered for purchase rather than rental. Each of the buildings is C; located on its own lot. Lot areas are approximately 10,000— 15,000 square feet, although one lot that contains a drainage easement is 28,000 square feet. 4. Ten of the proposed lots are served by a single dead-end roadway and two of the lots front directly on Meetinghouse Road and are served by a common driveway. 5. The Applicant proposes access to public water. Sewerage will be through private individual Title V soil absorption systems. I 6. In addition to the three homes that are to be restricted for sale to households of I low or moderate income, the Board and the Applicant have agreed that a fourth unit shall be restricted for sale to a moderate income household. I' k i III. FINDINGS Ij 1. Based upon the comments received by the deputy fire chief, the Board finds that the original dead-end road design did not provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the originally proposed driveways were to shallow to provide sufficient parking. The Board finds that the Applicant's revisions to the Plans have substantially addressed these concerns. 2. The Applicant has provided a general design of the stormwater management j system but has yet to provide sufficient information to conduct a thorough and I' necessary review of the same. The Board finds that such information is necessary in order to determine the adequacy of the stormwater management system. 3. The Board finds that the report of Charles Rowley, attached hereto as Exhibit A, i provides recommendations that should be implemented by the Applicant when preparing the final plans for construction. I' 2 ' j'