Laserfiche WebLink
MAST PEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> OCTOBER 12, 2022 <br /> The Board had a conversation regarding the access casement. Mr. Morris said that there should be <br /> an.engineer to review this issue. <br /> Ms. Sangeleer read Fire Chief Phelan's comments dated 10/12/2022 into the record as follows; <br /> The Town Bylaw §174-32 Fire protection. states, "Where there is a lot with only a one-family <br /> dwelling and/or a residential accessory building, such access, where it lies within the lot, may be <br /> by a maintained all-weather surface driveway, constructed by any combination and manipulation <br /> of soils, with or without admixtures, which produce a firm mass capable of supporting fire <br /> apparatus in all weather conditions and having an improved surface width of twelve (12') feet and <br /> a cleared width of sixteen (16') feet. <br /> Additionally, see the attached photos which show the current access, including low hanging power <br /> lines between the two adjacent properties. The Fire Department does not support the requested <br /> variance, as this property cannot meet the requirements set forth in the Mashpee Town Bylaw. <br /> If the ZBA chooses to grant the variance the Fire Department requests the following stipulations. <br /> 1. The ten (10') foot casement be cleared and maintained to the sixteen (16') foot height. <br /> 2. The driveway surface be improved to an all-weather surface driveway capable of <br /> supporting fire apparatus in all weather conditions. <br /> 3. The power line moved to allow for the sixteen (16') foot clearance. <br /> 4. Two propane tanks on the property, beside the home, need to be properly disposed of. <br /> Mr. Blaisdell. asked Attorney Mills to read his response to the Fire Chief Phelan.into the record; <br /> Attorney Mills read his response letter into the record; "Please accept this e-mail as a response to <br /> comments from the Chief of the Fire Department. First, my client is not applying for a variance as <br /> the house and lot the house sits on are pre-existing non-conforming. My client has a 10' wide <br /> easement to pass and repass on foot or by vehicle over the easement as referenced on the site plan <br /> and recorded plans. We intend to remove the two propane tanks on the property and dispose of as <br /> part of demolition. The driveway surface will be improved with hard pack and crushed stone as <br /> part of the project. That is also necessary to get trucks in to pour foundation, deliver lumber etc. <br /> All wires/utilities will be put underground as part of the new construction so wires referenced in <br /> the Chief s comment s will be gone. My client does not have any authority to clear the abutting <br /> property owners land outside the 10' easement area although it is presently wide open outside the <br /> 10' area. I am respectfully asking the Board to find that the proposed demolition and reconstruction <br /> of a two- bedroom single family home with accessory dwelling unit is not substantially more <br /> detrin-iental than what currently exists. See also my comments and brief description of project <br /> attached to my application for a Special Permit." <br /> Mr.Bonvie asked Attorney Mills if he can meet the"14"requirements as read aloud into the record. <br /> Attorney Mills said that he can comply with those requests. <br /> 18 <br />