Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />MARCH 28, 2012 <br />MINUTES <br />gym must be from grade level for life/safety reasons. Mr. Nelson asked if the Petitioner <br />could lower the height of the dome by changing the pitch. Mr. Benson said that it is <br />already shallow and the Petitioner would prefer not to drop the height of the dome any <br />further. The Board discussed removing the Petitioner’s need for Variance relief for the <br />uninhabitable dome. Attorney Muñoz advised the Board to specify in the Written <br />Finding if they determine that the dome does not need a height Variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Furbush questioned if there is enough lighting. Mr. Blaisdell said that the Tribe has <br />not requested a Variance on the lighting. Mark Dibb said that Mr. Rowley’s comments <br />about lighting will be addressed and a revised photometric plan for safe access will be <br />submitted. <br /> <br />Mr. Rowley said that he received a response from CA Engineering and is satisfied with <br />the majority of the responses to his review. Mr. Rowley addressed the following items: <br /> Sheet C-4 Item #5: access. Common fill is not acceptable. The dirt road will get <br />very muddy and will become impassable. <br /> Sheet C-4 Item #6: location of nearest fire hydrant. Only one yard hydrant is <br />shown on the plan and the existing hydrant on Great Neck Road South may be too <br />far away. Fire Department jurisdiction. <br /> Sheet C-5 Item #2: grading and pitching. Installation of a very flat berm and <br />submission of detailed plans showing same. <br /> Sheet C-9 Item #6: Specifications must be submitted detailing the consistency and <br />density of the impervious core material proposed for the drainage basin. <br /> Sheet C-11 Item #1: Will the Petitioner’s civil engineer inspect the gravel? <br /> Sheet C-12 Item #1: The lighting issues are being satisfactorily resolved. <br /> Sheet C-12 Item #2: The monument identifying the layout of Great Neck Road <br />South may be destroyed during excavation at the north entrance. Although CA <br />Engineering responded that appropriate permanent bench site marks would be <br />established prior to construction, bench marks are for elevation purposes and do <br />not refer to the control point for the street layout. Suggestion: if it is an area that <br />will be disturbed, the monument should be temporarily moved before construction <br />begins. Ties should be made to the monument and it should be restored after <br />construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Dibb responded to Mr. Rowley’s concerns with the following comments: <br /> Regarding access: gravel access or more suitable material will be installed to <br />ensure that the new piece of roadway is passable. <br /> The Petitioner will coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that service is <br />appropriate for the site, including installation of more hydrants. <br /> Street runoff will be kept on the street; site runoff will be restricted to the site. <br />Details shall be provided. <br /> Impervious core material: specifications and details regarding the impervious core <br />will be submitted. <br /> Bound at the entrance: the bound will be replaced with a PK nail in the asphalt. <br /> <br />Mr. Blaisdell reminded the Board that fire hydrants are under the Fire Department’s <br />jurisdiction. Mr. Benson said that a study has been conducted and there is no need for a <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />