Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Minutes—June 14, 2000 7 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Attorney Rob Mills of Wynn&Wynn, P.C. and Mr. Sanicki of Cape &Islands <br /> Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Mycock also attended the meeting. Attorney +' <br /> Mills stated that the plan for construction of two buildings complies with all of the a <br /> landspace requirements (as required in §174-31 of the Zoning By-laws) in terms of lot <br /> size, lot coverage, density, front, side and rear setback requirements. Attorney Mills said <br /> that Design Review has held several meetings on the proposal, including an on-site 40 <br /> meeting. The plan has been revised with the elimination of 6 parking spaces, reduction to <br /> by 600 square feet of the size of one of the buildings and provision of larger buffer and <br /> setbacks from the residential area. w" <br /> Mr. Govoni stated that the lot does not abut Route 28 and does not have to abide by a <br /> 50-foot setback and that the proposal is an allowable use within a C-2 zoning district. <br /> However,the Design Review Committee asked the applicant to reduce the size of the <br /> building,to leave a large buffer of tall pines and to install additional plantings out of <br /> consideration for the abutting residents and in order to screen the construction from <br /> Route 28. The dumpster has been relocated and will be shielded from view. Mr. Govoni �^ <br /> said that the Design Review Committee spent several weeks improving the proposal. <br /> Attorney Mills submitted a copy of the extensive landscaping plan. <br /> The Conservation Commission approved plans with a final revision date of February 9, <br /> 2000 on the subject filing and the Zoning Board has plans with a final revision date of <br /> February 27, 2000. <br /> On June 14, 2000, Cape &Islands Engineering submitted plans and a letter to the <br /> Conservation Commission. The letter reads: <br /> "Through the approval process for the proposed retail and office building,minor 'llr,"'� <br /> revisions and additional notes were added to the plan. The northerly building <br /> was decreased in size from that originally presented. The northerly end of the <br /> parking area was also decreased in size, which area is beyond the 100' buffer „<< <br /> area to the resources. The State DPW requested the State highway stations be <br /> shown on the plan along with the abutter's names and addresses. The Board of <br /> Appeals... is concerned that the Commission does not have the latest revised <br /> plan, thus we are submitting for your review and administrative approval of thenONO.." <br /> revised plan last revised May 4, 2000. Thus,the Board of Appeals decision and <br /> the pending Order of Conditions will reference the same revised plan date." al" � . �•,� <br /> Mr. Govoni read the memo from the Conservation Commission regarding the revised Y 00 14 i <br /> plans. The memo states that: tj <br /> "It would appear that the revisions are not significant and could be handled <br /> administratively that <br /> the filing of an amended order. These plans will be <br /> presented to the Commission at their meeting on 6 July for a formal decision." z ` �I i► <br /> In answer to Mr. Guerrera's question,Attorney Mills indicated that there are no definite <br /> tenants at this particular time. <br /> `l. <br /> �illl <br /> tE <br /> e Jf y <br /> +I�MGI <br />