Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck Road.North <br />-Mashpee,-Alassachusetts 02649 <br />requirement. This repeal and replace, any property in the floodplain that requires flood insurance will <br />lose their flood insurance. This seeks to remove the ZBA that states they can issue variances from <br />state code, which they cannot. These are minimum requirements that are mandated by FEMA to <br />maintain our status in the national flood insurance program, which the town has participated in since <br />the late 1970's. Not passing these as presented would jeopardize insurances and could compromise <br />mortgages if tied to flood insurance. He met with Barnstable County Floodplain Coordinator and <br />building commissioner and rectified any conflicts with current zoning. There are a few provisions that <br />exist in current provisions that are captured, such as manufactured homes. There are no manufactured <br />home parks in the floodplain in Mashpee. The building code definition for modular housing and pre fab <br />housing implies a manufactured home, we did not want to remove them as it was a gray area. We kept <br />that language with exception of removing language regarding compacted fill, we don't want to <br />encourage compacted fill when solid wall foundation is more pleasing to the eye and well equipped to <br />handle flood waters. Everything else is consistent with the state model. There have been situations <br />where towns have not adopted these at Town Meeting and it was a mess. We can go above and <br />beyond and he thinks we have an opportunity to consider enhancing these regulations and making <br />them more robust. For the purposes of getting to October Town Meeting he wants to submit this with <br />the idea there is an opportunity to make it more robust in consideration to existing needs. He needs to <br />submit this by July 11tn <br />Ms. Faulkner looked at the MA 2020 model floodplain bylaws on page 19, the procedures for granting <br />of variances by community, is the community a zoning board? Why not put all these great definitions <br />and rules under variances. Some of these are great answers. For example, a variance shall not be <br />issued by community within a designated regulatory floodway if an increasing flood level during base <br />flood discharge in result, there are 7 of them, in the model flood plain, these are good rules and maybe <br />that would help the problem we have now with the easy granting of variances. <br />Ms. Waygan wanted to take a moment to read all seven. <br />Mr. Lehrer noted this is covered in variances to building code floodplain standards, so the intent of this <br />is to make sure any provision that's a mandate of the building code is not contemplated in zoning at all. <br />Variances are granted by a state commission. <br />Ms. Faulkner echoed building code rules when it comes to the floodplain. Tell me why we wouldn't want <br />to put any of these. <br />Ms. Waygan referenced number one, is there a problem with putting number one in? She also noted <br />they are approved but we can go above them. She stated that Ms. Faulkner is suggesting we approve <br />1-7. Number one under variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory <br />area floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. <br />Mr. Lehrer stated the whole purpose of this bylaw is to remove any building code related provisions <br />from the zoning bylaw where it implies the ZBA has the authority to grant a variance, which they do not. <br />23 <br />