My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/23/2025 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
04/23/2025 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/5/2025 12:29:33 PM
Creation date
5/19/2025 2:33:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/23/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> APRIL 23, 2025 <br /> Last, you may consider looping in Town Manager's Office and/or Town Counsel as <br /> early as possible in this process." <br /> Mr. Caggiano read the Conservation Department comments dated April 18, 2025 <br /> into the record; "Wetlands are present on this lot. Conservation review will be <br /> required should this project move forward." <br /> Ms. Sangeleer read bylaw 174-11 Lots located in multiple zoning districts. <br /> Mr. Serber commented that there seems to be some misunderstanding with the <br /> project and zoning districts. <br /> Mr. Alex Eddinger represented the applicant NextGrid. He noted that this is an <br /> appeal of the Building Commissioner's determination that the proposed large scale <br /> project solar array is not allowed in the R-5 zoning district on based on the decision <br /> of the Tracer Lane solar project, that solar facilities can be regulated in <br /> municipalities. <br /> Mr. Milbury questioned if the Board has the authority to approve this project and <br /> thought that Town Counsel would need to review. <br /> Mr. Furbush mentioned that this bylaw is fairly new, and believes that the Board <br /> could possibly deny it, and would be heard in Land Court. <br /> Mr. Serber said that the Board is welcome to deny this appeal. <br /> Ms. Sangeleer believes that the applicant didn't go through the appropriate process. <br /> She mentioned a list of meetings with specific Committees that were required for <br /> review prior to applying with the appropriate Boards. <br /> Mr. Serber said that the application is not allowed so he could not apply with Design <br /> Review or Plan Review. <br /> Mr. Furbush said that the applications could be separated. Mr. Serber said that <br /> there is no separation. He said that this project is not two separate projects. There's <br /> a portion in the sand pit that is entirely in the R-5 Zoning District. This was <br /> separated as asked by the Board, and is appealing under the "Dover Amendment". <br /> Mr. Furbush asked if the project will be located in the C District. Mr. Serber said no; <br /> that most of the disturbed area is in the C District, and almost entirely in the R-5 <br /> District which is the southern portion of the parcel. <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.