Laserfiche WebLink
that the Cape Cod Commission reported that the Cape was 22,000 housing units behind what was <br /> needed, adding that it was not financially feasible to build large structures to accommodate the need <br /> and ADUs would create much needed housing diversity. <br /> Melinda Baker, South Sandwich Road, agreed that it should be easier for homeowners to create a space <br /> to allow residents to live in Mashpee. Ms. Baker suggested not to add a lot of restrictions and to allow <br /> homeowners to become part of the solution. <br /> The Chair read letters from John Miller, Shellback Way and Amanda Kaiser supporting the ADA <br /> Bylaw. <br /> Mr. Rowley inquired whether there had been correspondence with the Board of Health, referencing the <br /> long term effects of nitrogen loading as a potential issue, although, a few added units per year may be <br /> negligible. The Chair would follow up with the Health Department and the Sewer Commission. The <br /> Chair noted that, should the Bylaw be added to the Town Meeting Warrant, a public hearing would be <br /> held by the Planning Board to render their decision on the matter. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that the <br /> Board of Health would provide certification that the existing septic system could handle the additional <br /> flow, in order to receive a Rental Certificate. Mr. Rowley added that the Bylaw suggested that if the <br /> existing septic system could not manage the flow, the system could be upgraded to do so, provided it <br /> met with Title V requirements. <br /> There was no additional Public Comment. <br /> The Chair referenced the graph regarding review of detached and attached by right or by review. Mr. <br /> Balzarini liked the idea of abutters being notified for a detached accessory apartment. Mr. Lehrer <br /> inquired about adding an accessory apartment to an existing detached structure. Mr. Balzarini <br /> responded that he was suggesting notification to abutters for a newly built detached structure, though <br /> he also liked the idea of making the process easier in order to provide greater access to affordable <br /> housing, but further agreed to remove the requirement to allow all by right. Mr. Hansen stated that a <br /> new structure on a lot could provide more variables, such as drainage, that may not be closely <br /> considered by the Building Commissioner, but would be by the Planning Board. Mr. Rowley inquired <br /> how it would differ from the construction of a 2-car garage, which had no further requirement. Mr. <br /> Rowley suggested that a plot plan could be provided to show that there would be no impacts to <br /> adjacent properties. Mr. Phelan suggested that the construction of a garage typically included a site <br /> plan with elevations, but not the grading. Mr. Rowley suggested that language could be drafted <br /> providing discretion to the Building Commissioner, should there be perceived impact. There was <br /> consensus from Board members and language was suggested that"The Building Commissioner shall <br /> have the authority to request the applicant for further information, if conditions require it to show that <br /> there was no negative impact to the abutters." <br /> The appointed time having arrived, the Chair opened the 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing. (See Public <br /> Hearings). At the conclusion of the 7:25 Public Hearing, the Chair returned to discussion about <br /> Accessory Dwellings. <br /> 4 <br />