Laserfiche WebLink
P1gg.E C6 P. O. BOX 1 108 <br /> MASHPEE, MA 02649 <br /> PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . 4/17/85 P. 7 <br /> Marsters : This is taking authority away from Design Review. They <br /> will review it and they have to review it . That 's why this is too <br /> rigid . It doesn't give Design Review any latitude . <br /> Mr . Makunas : If anything it should insist go to Design Review before <br /> they can take one tree down, So Design Review has something to work <br /> with <br /> Mr. 1,4arsters a That 's right , so they can take a look at what 's th_e+re <br /> This very, very rigid and r_ istrictive a The way he 's got ii, designed . <br /> In some cases like in industrial zone I can agree with him entirely and <br /> residential agree maybe where you got a suitable amount but not in C-la <br /> Mr. Dubin recognized Mr_ . Edward Donnelly, former Town Planner for Town <br /> of Yarmouth and now a planning consultant to BSC Engineering . <br /> Mr. Donnelly: I have to apologize a little bit because it 's my first <br /> time before the Board and I 'm not totally familiar with your by-laws <br /> and the operation fo your by-laws and I find the line of this article <br /> somewhat confusing. I was under the impression that the setback require- <br /> ment is at least in dealing with property in the industrial districts <br /> is 100' in industrial districts and 1/2 of the setback in commercial <br /> districts , While I agree with some of the aims of -this article as far <br /> as screening industrial uses from highly traveled roads , I think it <br /> goes a little bit over 'board , especially when you're dealing with <br /> commercial uses which are to be there and serve a service for the <br /> general population. In order to be a service for the general popula- <br /> tion they have to be able to find your business . An attempt to have a <br /> very dense screen between commercial uses and the streets people won't <br /> be able to find your business . In commercial or industrial subdivisions <br /> that exist in the streets people will be coming to that location <br /> specifically to address a commercial or industrial use . I again don't <br /> feel that you need a screen of this magnitude in subdivisions dedicated <br /> specifically to commercial and industrial uses . Again if it 's on <br /> Route 28, 151, 130 I think that significant buffers with some screening <br /> isn't bade There are some cases I understand it where the Fire Dept . <br /> has specifically asked for ponds to be located in the fronts of some <br /> of these larger commercial and industrial developments so that he can <br /> pick up some water on the way in should there be a fire . Wouldn't this <br /> prevent you from addressing that need . As already been pointed out I <br /> feel that the existing language is a sign of weakness as the authority <br /> to look into this area of setbacks , buffers and screens . I wonder if <br /> this may be the case you may have a personal problem and if someone <br /> won't do his job then you come up with a new bylaw. I think the way <br /> to address the situation is to enforce the existing by-law rather than <br /> enact new ones . <br /> R'Ira Dubin; I don' t understand the exact scope of the application of <br /> this change . I see the 100' <br />