Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION: DENIED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT <br /> Owners, BEC MA Properties, LLC <br /> 42 Spoondrift Way(Map I I I Parcel 127) <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> SP-2022-10 <br /> Mr. Blaisdell asked if the 2 ft. cantilever is included in the lot coverage calculation. <br /> Stephanie Morrison, Architect with Local Studio, Inc. explained the reason for <br /> cantilevering of the left front facade was to comply with the front yard setback requirement, <br /> and the 2 ft. is included in the lot coverage. <br /> Dave said that a 2 ft. cantilever is allowed for the first floor setback but not lot coverage as <br /> indicated under Section 174-31 footnote &.) 19. <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked Attorney Kirrane if he is using fill included in the lot coverage <br /> calculation. Attorney Kirrane said; that is correct and there is nothing in the bylaws that <br /> prohibits this calculation, and it was approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. <br /> Bonvie said that the Zoning Bylaws allows uses, and although Conservation allowed this <br /> proposal under their laws doesn't mean that from a zoning standpoint it's allowed. <br /> Attorney Kirrane said this project was approved by the Commission, and the lot coverage <br /> was reduced under the 25% to 24.9%, as suggested by the Board. He doesn't believe that <br /> the Commission would allow people to fill in lots,the intention was to enhance the coastal <br /> resource area. He believes it meets the requirements under the bylaw. <br /> Mr. Furbush asked if there is currently an intake of the coastal bank. Mr. Kirrane said yes <br /> the existing coastal bank was originally one unit,but at the time the house was built it looks <br /> like the lot was dug out for a walk-out basement. The walk-out basement is approximately <br /> 10-15 ft. below the existing grade. <br /> Mr. Goldstein said he doesn't remember if this type of proposal was ever presented to the <br /> Board in the past, but this is a unique situation. He believes that the lot may have been dug <br /> out in the past. <br /> Mr. Blaisdell said the applicant is asking for a Special Permit under Section 174-17.1, the <br /> Board needs to determine if what is proposed is more detrimental than what previously <br /> exists. <br /> Mr. Bonvie agreed with Mr. Blaisdell, but determined that the comments submitted by the <br /> Town Engineer believes it to be more detrimental.Mr.Bonvie read the comment submitted <br /> by the Town Engineer; "Filling floodplain will result in an incremental increase in flood <br /> heights." <br /> Mr. Gould commented that he believes under Conservation laws, creating a coastal bank <br /> is destroying a wetland. The Board needs to set a precedent. <br /> 3 <br />