My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/10/2024 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
01/10/2024 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2024 5:01:03 PM
Creation date
1/29/2024 9:34:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/10/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> JANUARY 10,2024 <br /> Mr. Reidy read Evan Lehrer's recommendation comments dated January 5, 2024 into the record; <br /> "It is my opinion that the ZBA can approve this request as presented if it is found that the proposed <br /> site improvements will not result in a detriment to the neighborhood, that there are no new <br /> nonconformities being created and that there is adequate parking. Given that the density on the <br /> site is unchanged we can't reasonably state that this project would result in an impact to surface <br /> or groundwater quality that exceeds what exists today. Wildlife habitat will be improved by the <br /> removal of existing invasive species and substantial mitigation plantings. We can't reasonably <br /> state that there would be a detriment to traffic flow or traffic safety, waterways, fisheries and <br /> fisheries given the density of the site is not proposed to increase. I believe the Board could find <br /> that the proposed replacement dwelling and barn is not substantially more detrimental to the <br /> neighborhood than existed previously and that the request for a special permit could be approved. <br /> The applicant has thoughtfully addressed the many concerns raised in recent years relative to <br /> structural expansions in the floodplain. " <br /> Mr. Reidy read the Conservation Department comments dated January 4, 2024 into the record; <br /> "This project is scheduled for review by the Conservation Commission on January 11 th, 2024. In <br /> the opinion of the Conservation Agent, the project does involve additional structure from what's <br /> existing; however, with a substantial amount of mitigation proposed to offset an increase in <br /> structure on a property that has no naturally vegetated buffer strip between the home and the <br /> coastal bank/land under ocean. Additionally, the upgrade of the septic system to an IA system, <br /> removal of invasive plants and replacement with native species and providing flood storage <br /> capacity in the crawl space under the proposed home should help to improve site conditions <br /> overall in terms of wetland values and reduction of impacts to water quality Overall, this results <br /> in a net environmental benefit over existing conditions on the lot. It is important to note that the <br /> majority of this property is previously/legally altered with little to no natural vegetation left. " <br /> Mr.Morris stated that he met with the applicant and agrees that the project will be an improvement. <br /> Mr. Jacque Morin a direct abutter spoke at the meeting and is in favor of the project. He agrees <br /> that the new dwelling will be an improvement to the neighborhood. <br /> Mr. Bonvie polled the Board for their comments regarding the fact that the project has not been <br /> heard by the Conservation Commission and is scheduled for January 11, 2024. Mr. Blaisdell has <br /> no issues after hearing Drew McManus' comments. Mr. Furbush agreed. Ms. Sangeleer can move <br /> forward as long as it is conditioned upon approval by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Reidy <br /> agreed to move forward conditioned upon approval by the Conservation Commission if there are <br /> any changes to the plan will require the applicant to return to this Board. <br /> Mr. Furbush had a question on the existing plan depicting the setback on the left that is 10.9 ft. <br /> The shed has a setback of 6 ft. and because it is over 120 sq. ft. it's considered pre-existing <br /> nonconforming. <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked for a motion to close the public comment. Mr. Reidy so moved. Mr. Furbush <br /> second. All were in favor. <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked for a motion for the application. <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.