Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck RoadWorth <br />Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br />MOTION: <br />Mr. Balzarini made a motion to accept the meeting minutes of June 15, 2022 as amended. <br />Seconded by Ms. Faulkner. All in favor. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Discussion regarding potential amendment to fee schedule for special permit regulations and <br />subdivision rules and regulations <br />Mr. Lehrer asked the Chair to address this with the Board briefly. A year ago when Mr. Pesce was hired <br />as the new consultant, they altered the fee schedule for both the special permit regulations and the <br />subdivision rules and regulations. This was in an effort to take in the peer review and inspection fee <br />upon the application for subdivision or special permit, with the intent of putting the burden of paying for <br />those inspections in peer review immediately upon the applicant. As opposed to taking in a check and it <br />going into the general fund and then budgeting for it annually. What wasn't clearly delineated in the <br />regulations was inserting the procedure for when funds get drawn down below a certain value, we need <br />to make sure those funds stay full for the appropriate funding amount. In a future meeting he will <br />prepare a simple amendment that would state when the value of any particular account becomes less <br />than 50% of the account values, less than $2,500.00, and the applicant would need to replenish the <br />fund to 100%. The Board will need a Public Hearing for the subdivision rules and regulations but not for <br />the special permit. It is the expectation, but it should be spelled out more clearly in the rules and <br />regulations. The Board agreed to waiting on the draft amendment before scheduling a date for the <br />Public Hearing. <br />OLD BUSINESS <br />Floodplain Bylaw Amendments <br />Ms. Faulkner stated the Board should agree to vote on this because of the upcoming deadline and <br />ramifications. She would like to think about revising or amending later, if they could have in the bylaw <br />as written now, prohibiting the use of fill to elevate structures in the velocity zone. She inquired why <br />they cannot do that in all zones. If this does not create flooding, why not do this for all properties? <br />Mr. Lehrer commented they probably could do that, he would need to pose this question to the Building <br />Commissioner as well as the Floodplain Coordinator. He doesn't see an issue in going above and <br />beyond the minimum requirements of FEMA regulations, as long as it doesn't conflict with building <br />code. <br />Ms. Faulkner asked if Mr. Lehrer knew if building with concrete as opposed to fill foundations prevented <br />flooding. <br />Mr. Lehrer stated to his knowledge and through conversations with the County Floodplain Coordinator, <br />solid wall foundations with flood vents is always the best way to prevent loss of property, potential <br />impacts to property value, life safety situations, and certainly doesn't require the manipulation of <br />