01/10/2024 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2024 Mr. Reidy read Evan Lehrer's comments dated January 5, 2024 into the record. "I have notified the applicant that I missed a critical detail in my first review of this Plan. While the applicant correctly and satisfactorily addressed all of the comments submitted at the opening of the public hearing,Inoted in my review of the revised Plan that in addition to the Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) on the site there is also a significant portion that is Inland Bank. The portion of the lot that is Inland Bank may need to also be considered in the lot coverage calculation. MGL Ch. 131 Sec. 40 reads: "The term 'freshwater wetlands", as used in this section, shall mean wet meadows, marshes, swamps, bogs, areas where groundwater, flowing or standing surface water or ice provide a significant part of the supporting substrate for a plant community for at least five months of the year; emergent and submerge plant communities in inland water; that portion of any bank which touches inland waters. " If any portion of the Inland Bank shown on the Plan touches the edge of water of Mashpee-Wakeby all of that land area should be considered wetland for the purposes of calculating lot coverage. This really doesn't bear any impact on the project proposed however the Board of Appeals must consider the totality of nonconformities on the site. If the area of Inland Bank is removed it seems likely that lot coverage is also pre-existing nonconforming. That nonconformity needs to be considered by the Board in their findings and motion. I've asked the applicant to address this issue, if necessary. Mr. Reidy read Evan Lehrer's email sent to Peter McEntee dated January 8, 2024 into the record. The Board reviewed both the existing and proposed revised plans and noticed that the engineer did not subtract and correct the date on both plans to depict the land subject to coastal storm flowage. Mr. Cannata stated that the plan was revised with the notations that were requested by Mr. Lehrer, but the date on the plan was remained the same. Mr. Reidy read the Board of Health comments into the record, and Conservation Department comments into the record, and comments from Catherine Laurent, DPW Director. No comments from David Morris, Building Commissioner.No comments from the audience. Mr. Blaisdell suggested that the Board request that both the existing and proposed plans be revised if a motion is made. Mr. Bonvie agreed. If a motion is made, it should include that the applicant's engineer is certain that the existing condition on the plan depicts 16.7%and that he cannot utilize land subject to coastal storm flowage (Section 13140). But the plan might already be correct. Mr.Reidy addressed the Board asking to review his statement if a motion is made as the following: "Conditioned upon that the applicant's engineer to review the existing and proposed plans for the property and confirm that 16.7% existing percentage is the correct lot coverage; at 3,065 sq. ft., as well as the proposed 17.8% lot coverage; at 3,195 sq. ft., and to be submitted to Mr. Morris, Building Commissioner prior to issuance of a building permit, or a letter stating that the figures are correct." 2