Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck Road North <br />Nashpee, Nassachusetts 02649 <br />mitigation. She would like to look at language if upland calculation is less than current lot <br />coverage, some type of calculation. Any division by 0, doesn't make sense. Our bylaw is <br />being interpreted the wrong way. A number over 0 is not real, it's undefined. That footprint of <br />that building cannot be expanded. If you start to look at how much is actually on the site, if <br />that's smaller than your footprint, then you can't change your footprint. That is going down a <br />path which is going to be deliberated in court. If you get into this special case where existing <br />building is no more than the upland that you have, but we need to get rid of the math. She <br />thinks that still allowing ZBA, this new language is going in a pathway that she doesn't think is <br />fruitful. Because of the petition article, there is support to tweak this bylaw that addresses <br />concerns of petitioners. If we are going to throw it back to ZBA to determine detriment for <br />improving, it has to be a yes or no, she likes how it was written before. Mr. Lehrer stated <br />Counsel wrote the edits. Ms. Waygan said Counsel is involved with ZBA and those law suits. <br />Neighbors are coming to these meetings saying don't approve this. They feel like they are <br />being ignored. Our efforts should be to resolve that. In that spirit, we are really close. We <br />need to get people on board with it. Workshop with petitioners and be the bridge between <br />petitioners and ZBA. <br />Mr. Lehrer spoke to the Town Manager about 3D work ups, he is allowing him to do that when <br />workshopping. <br />Mr. Hansen supports what Ms. Waygan is saying. The fill, if you had all these calculations for <br />raze and replace based on existing conditions, less additional fill would be desirable. With the <br />height condition, he wants to go over maximum height. So he could fill his land and say he's <br />only putting 5ft. Why can't you do this with the wetlands? He suggests getting the divide by 0 <br />out of the bylaw totally, and go by the suggestions to use calculations. <br />Mr. Lehrer answered if you are in the floodplain minor or total, you can raze and replace but it <br />has to be within the footprint. We are asking property owners to make a fair amount of <br />changes, boundaries, buffers, and IA, we need to incentivize these property owners to make <br />improvements. We will continue this at another time but he is not sure when. He will come <br />back with additional options. <br />MOTION: <br />Ms. Waygan made a motion to continue to work on the amendments for the raze and <br />replace bylaw and to go over at a future date TBD. Seconded Mr. Balzarini. All in favor. <br />Tree Protection Bylaw <br />Ms. Faulkner stated this is the final draft. She would like to note three things. This only applies <br />to those engaged in a building activity. There is no way we could enforce it otherwise. Page <br />15 <br />