01/24/2024 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2024 Mr. Bonvie asked Mr. Dibb if he thought it was rare that MEPA did not require a scope. Mr. Dibb said he was not required a scope of this single-family house. Mr. Dibb said that Cape & Islands provided a flood plain flow path analysis of the flood water under existing and proposed conditions. He said that there is adequate flood storage capacity on this site,and is not actually a requirement in the wetlands protection act. The only change that was required is to provide impervious pavers. Mr. Goldstein asked if the impervious pavers were added as a condition. The Board determined that it was included on the plan. Mr. Furbush questioned both Conservation and Mark Dibb. He thought the State and the Town worked together for the better of the community. He wanted to know why there was conflicting decisions. Attorney Kirrane stated that the DEP decision controls. Mr. Reidy wanted to know if MEPA had the final decision. Mr. Bonvie stated that the Board is asked to follow the Special Permit guidelines. He explained that the Board asks specific questions of the applicant to confirm that they are following those guidelines. Mr. Morris stated that he will be doing a very thorough inspection of the foundation. He said that this project is in a V-zone, and will be under major scrutiny. He had questions regarding the retaining walls. The deck with the spiral staircase is in the V-zone and needs to be free standing and not attached to the house or the house will require to be elevated. The pool equipment is at flood elevation 11, and needs to be at elevation 12. The out-building(does not meet the definition of a garage), is in the V-zone,which requires to be at elevation 16 and might have to be raised. Mr. Dibb explained that the retaining wall around the pool is decorative and only 2 ft. high. Mr. Bonvie asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Drew McManus, Conservation Department Agent addressed the Board. He stated that the in some cases the Town Bylaw vs. the State, is afforded a higher level of protection under the wetlands protection act regulations, and enforcement in certain situations such as flood zone, coastal bank,and inland bank because the State does not have any standards regarding land subject to coastal storm flow. The appeal of this particular project has no standards at the State level in regard to coastal storm flow. The local order of conditions was not filed in time because there was a misunderstanding that the 21-day appeal period starts at the close of the public hearing. He explained that the vote was taken two weeks later, and thought the 21-day appeal started after the vote of the actual decision.