Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 03/28/2012
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 28, 2012
MINUTES

The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. (Conference Room #1) at the Mashpee Town Hall, 16 Great Neck Road North.  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and Ronald S. Bonvie, and Associate Board Members Judith M. Horton and John M. Dorsey were present. Building Commissioner Richard E. Morgan attended the meeting.  Attorney Jena C. Munoz and Engineer Charles L. Rowley were in attendance as legal and engineering consultants to the Board.  

Mr. Nelson opened the meeting at 7:00 and announced that it was being televised live.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

NEW HEARINGS

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the building height requirements and the number of stories to allow for construction of a three-story Government Center building on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 483 Great Neck Road South (Map 95 Parcel 7) Mashpee, MA.  

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and Ronald S. Bonvie.

Mr. Nelson said that due to the number of hearings scheduled for tonight’s meeting, he would like to put a time limit on the Petitions.  He said he would allow the Tribe 90 minutes to present its Petition.  If the Tribe has not completed its presentation within that time frame, the Board would continue the Petition until the next meeting.  He said that he hopes that everyone understands the time constraints.

Mr. Cedric Cromwell addressed the Board in his native tongue with the greeting: Good evening, my friends.  He thanked the Board for the opportunity to represent the tribe’s proposed Government Center is very important.  He stated that the Tribe spends an enormous amount of money on rents and leasing space.  As the hub for the Tribe, the Government Center will provide educational, health and cultural services.  The  health administration and health clinic will eventually be moved inside the Center.  The proposed library is a first of its kind for the Tribe.  Funded by the USDA as a direct services loan, the USDA has also provided architects and engineers to design this world-class facility.  

In addition to Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell and many others, the following members of the Tribe’s team of experts and professionals attended the meeting:
Mark Harding, Treasurer, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.
Project Architect John Racine, RGB.
Senior Civil Engineer Mark D. Dibb, CA Engineering Services, LLC.
Wayne E. Benson, Jr., RKB Architects, Inc.
David Weeden, Attaquin’s Construction.
Richard Desmeule, RKB Architects.
Attorney Brian Hurley.

Attorney Brian Hurley said that the tribe has worked hard to cooperate with the Town.  He said that the proposal reflects the Tribe’s aspiration for a building that they can be proud of. Challenges to the siting of the building include the sloping topography on the property, the location of ancestral burial grounds, the location of the Pow Wow fields and the existing parking lot.  Attorney Hurley stated that the turtle-shaped dome structure has profound, significant cultural meaning to the Tribe.   The dome is not habitable and could be compared to a steeple on a Catholic Church.  He said that the Tribe has incorporated suggestions made at the Design Review/Plan Review Committee meeting.  The Tribe has also reached out to neighbors about the project.  The gymnasium requires a Variance from the height requirements.  

Mr. Nelson read the following article which appeared in the March 23, 2012 Mashpee Enterprise: “Typically, nonpayment of property taxes would present a roadblock for obtaining building permits in Mashpee.  Since the Tribe has appealed its tax bill to a state panel, a “stay” goes into effect, allowing it to apply for permits and enabling construction of the government center to move forward, according to Ms. Mason”.  

To Mr. Nelson’s inquiries of the location of ancestral burial places on the site,  Mr. Mark Harding, Treasurer of the Tribe, explained that the location of the remains of their ancestors are not spoken of outside the Tribe.  He said that the Tribe maintains internal records.  Mr. Nelson said that “ancestral burial places – that could bring this thing to a screeching halt”.  Mr. Harding reiterated that the location of the burial places of the ancestors is a sacred secret of the Tribal Commission.  Mr. Cromwell stated that the Tribe has federal protection on the graves and the Tribe’s ancestors are re-interred on Tribal property.  He assured the Board that the Tribe would not build either on top or near the burial grounds and their ancestors’ remains would not be disturbed in any way.  

Mr. Wayne Benson went over details of the proposed building.  The basement area contains storage for a food pantry, medical supplies, artifacts, a craft room, youth meeting room, and the Tribal judicial area.  The cultural center, gymnasium, fitness area, educational area for the youth and a medical clinic will be located on the first floor.  The second floor houses the governmental offices for the Tribe and the upper portion of the gymnasium.  The Center will be located 350 feet from the edge of the bike path.  Extensive landscaping and screening from the road are proposed. To Mr. Furbush’s question, Mr. Benson said that there would not be any flammables stored in the medical area, nor would invasive medical procedures be conducted in the medical area.  

Mr. Nelson asked if the entrance could be reconfigured to be below grade so that there would be no need for a height variance.   Mr. Benson repeated that egress to and from the gym must be from grade level for life/safety reasons.  Mr.  Nelson asked if the Petitioner could lower the height of the dome by changing the pitch. Mr. Benson said that it is already shallow and the Petitioner would prefer not to drop the height of the dome any further.  The Board discussed removing the Petitioner’s need for Variance relief for the uninhabitable dome.  Attorney Muñoz advised the Board to specify in the Written Finding if they determine that the dome does not need a height Variance.

Mr. Furbush questioned if there is enough lighting.  Mr. Blaisdell said that the Tribe has not requested a Variance on the lighting.  Mark Dibb said that Mr. Rowley’s comments about lighting will be addressed and a revised photometric plan for safe access will be submitted.  

Mr. Rowley said that he received a response from CA Engineering and is satisfied with the majority of the responses to his review.  Mr. Rowley addressed the following items:
  • Sheet C-4 Item #5: access.  Common fill is not acceptable. The dirt road will get very muddy and will become impassable.  
  • Sheet C-4 Item #6: location of nearest fire hydrant.  Only one yard hydrant is shown on the plan and the existing hydrant on Great Neck Road South may be too far away.  Fire Department jurisdiction.
  • Sheet C-5 Item #2: grading and pitching.  Installation of a very flat berm and submission of detailed plans showing same.
  • Sheet C-9 Item #6: Specifications must be submitted detailing the consistency and density of the impervious core material proposed for the drainage basin.
  • Sheet C-11 Item #1: Will the Petitioner’s civil engineer inspect the gravel?
  • Sheet C-12 Item #1: The lighting issues are being satisfactorily resolved.  
  • Sheet C-12 Item #2: The monument identifying the layout of Great Neck Road South may be destroyed during excavation at the north entrance.  Although CA Engineering responded that appropriate permanent bench site marks would be established prior to construction, bench marks are for elevation purposes and do not refer to the control point for the street layout.   Suggestion: if it is an area that will be disturbed, the monument should be temporarily moved before construction begins.  Ties should be made to the monument and it should be restored after construction.
Mr. Mark Dibb responded to Mr. Rowley’s concerns with the following comments:
  • Regarding access: gravel access or more suitable material will be installed to ensure that the new piece of roadway is passable.
  • The Petitioner will coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that service is appropriate for the site, including installation of more hydrants.  
  • Street runoff will be kept on the street; site runoff will be restricted to the site.  Details shall be provided.   
  • Impervious core material: specifications and details regarding the impervious core will be submitted.
  • Bound at the entrance: the bound will be replaced with a PK nail in the asphalt.  
Mr. Blaisdell reminded the Board that fire hydrants are under the Fire Department’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Benson said that a study has been conducted and there is no need for a fire pump.  Mr. Rowley said that none of these matters pose a serious concern, except that a PK nail is not adequate.  He urged the Board to require the Petitioner to restore the monument to its original location and ensure that the monument is visible.  

Mr. Nelson said that he wants all of Mr. Rowley’s comments addressed on a revised plan and he personally would not want to vote on the Petition tonight.  Mr. Furbush agreed.  Mr. Blaisdell clarified that the Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the height requirements and a Variance for three stories.  He reiterated that the Petitioner is not asking the Board to rule on fire hydrants, lighting, grading, or the street bound.  Attorney Muñoz agreed and said that those matters would be pertinent only if the Board feels that they relate to height.   She reminded the Board that the other matters are within the purview of  the Building Commissioner and counseled the Board to focus on the request for a Variance from the height requirements.  

Attorney Hurley said that there are tremendous time constraints and the Petitioner is eager to start the project.  

Attorney Muñoz said that the Board can close the Petition to public testimony and deliberate on it tonight.  While no more testimony would be allowed, the Board would not have to wait for the revised plans.  The Board could condition the Decision upon submission of a revised plan addressing all of the issues mentioned previously.  

Mr. Nelson asked if “the turtle roof will come down on anybody’s heads”.   Mr. Cromwell said that the architectural feature is “strong and steady like a turtle”.  Mr. Benson said that structural engineers have designed the building.  

Mr. Nelson repeated that he wants to close the Petition to public testimony.  Attorney Muñoz reminded the Board to ask for comments from anyone in the audience.  No comments were received.  

Mashpee Commons, a direct abutter, submitted a letter in approval of the proposal.

Mr. Nelson made a motion to close the public hearing.  Mr. Furbush seconded the motion.  All voted in favor.  Mr. Nelson then said that the Board will deliberate on the Petition at the next meeting with the revised plans.  Attorney Muñoz reminded the Board that they can deliberate on the Petition now without the revised plans.  Mr. Nelson insisted that he wanted revised plans addressing everything that was discussed tonight before the Board votes.  A lengthy discussion ensued.  Mr. Bonvie said that Mr. Nelson changed what the Board wanted to do.  Mr. Furbush said that he thought the Board was either going to render a Decision with a conditional approval or close it to public testimony.  Mr. Blaisdell said he didn’t understand what the Board was waiting for because he thought that the public testimony was finished and that the Board would render a conditional Decision.  Mr. Nelson said that even though all of the issues are minor, “a lot of things need to be changed in those plans”.  He said that the Building Commissioner does not have authority over the Fire Department.  Mr. Blaisdell countered that the Decision can be made conditional upon compliance with revisions.  Mr. Reiffarth agreed and said that the proposal could not proceed unless it has the Building Commissioner’s approval.  Mr. Morgan reassured everyone that the permit would not be issued until all of the conditions have been satisfactorily met.  Mr. Bonvie said he was ready to vote on the Petition tonight.  Attorney Muñoz said that anyone can make a motion for a vote tonight.

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant a Variance of 5 feet, plus or minus, from the height requirements and the number of stories to allow for construction of the Government Center. Findings: The Board determined that the Petitioner does not need a Variance of 13.2 feet to allow for the uninhabitable turtle-shaped dome.  This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with:
  • Fire Department approval.
  • Addressing Mr. Rowley’s concerns in reviews dated March 24, 2012 and March 26, 2012.
  • Submission of a revised plan addressing same.  
  • These conditions shall be met within 20 days of the ZBA office filing the Decision with the Town Clerk.  
Mr. Furbush seconded the motion.   Votes: Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes. Mr. Nelson: yes.  Mr. Furbush: yes.  Vote was unanimous.

Robert F. and Carol L. Rano: Request a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the side setback requirements to allow for removal of an existing deck and construction of a new addition onto an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 5 Forest Road (Map 117 Parcel 52) Mashpee, MA.  

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and Ronald S. Bonvie.

Construction Supervisor Greg Clancy represented the Petition and stated that plans call for removal of a deck, which will be replaced with an addition of a living room and a fireplace.  Location of the existing septic system restricts placement of the proposed addition.    The Board of Health memo states that the proposed addition requires a 6-foot wide cased opening into the room.  

Mr. Bonvie discovered an error and said that the plan should show the distance from the proposed cantilever to the side setback, not the distance from the house to the side setback.  Mr. Nelson notated “10.7” from the proposed cantilever to the side setback and initialed the plan.  Mr. Morgan stipulated that the plans showing the proposed cantilever must be stamped by a structural engineer.

No comments were received from abutters.

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant a Variance of 4.3 feet from the side setback requirements. Findings:  Soil conditions, location of septic system.  This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with the following:
  • Christopher Costa & Associates, Inc. plan “Robert F. and Carol L. Rano 6 Forest Road, Mashpee, MA 02649, Date: 02/02/12, Revised 2/15/12” and as amended and initialed on March 28, 2012.  
  • At the time of applying for a building permit, the Petitioner shall submit a plan stamped by a structural engineer showing the cantilever.
  • Board of Health memo: “In Zone II.  The proposed addition requires a 6-foot wide cased opening into the room.”  
Mr. Furbush seconded the motion.    Votes: Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes. Mr. Nelson: yes.  Mr. Furbush: yes.  Vote was unanimous.

Matt DeSutter and Donna Paglia:  Request a Written Finding under Section 174-17 and a Special Permit under Section 174-20 of the Zoning By-laws and as defined under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 6 to demolish a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and construct a new single-family dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 26 Waterway (Map 105 Parcel 205) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and Associate Member John M. Dorsey.

Matt DeSutter and Donna Paglia:  Request a Variance from Sections 174-31, 174-33 and 174-64 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the front setback requirements, side setback requirements and the setback requirements to water and wetlands to construct a new single-family dwelling and pool within a flood plain on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 26 Waterway (Map 105 Parcel 205) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth and Associate Member John M. Dorsey.

Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitions and stated that the subject property and the existing structure are non-conforming.  The odd-shaped parcel slopes significantly.  The presence of wetlands and sloping topography restrict location of the proposal.  Demolition of the 40+ year-old home and replacement with a new dwelling will be an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood.  The new structure will conform to current building code.  Other improvements include eliminating the basement bedrooms and living space that are currently below the flood plain.  Two parking spaces will be provided.  Attorney Kirrane said that the proposed pool will be located 3.6 feet from the side setback that abuts a 15-foot reserved open space strip and an unbuildable lot.  This will not create a privacy issue and will not adversely impact an abutter.  The proposal will be further away from the wetlands.

The Board of Health has approved the proposal, which is restricted to four bedrooms.  The Conservation Commission approved the proposal and issued an Order of Conditions on February 24, 2012.  The Petitioner will need the New Seabury Homeowners’ Architectural Review Committee approval.   

No comments were received from abutters.        

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the Written Finding and a Special Permit to demolish the existing structure.  Findings: the proposal is not substantially more detrimental than what currently exists; there is sufficient parking; there are adequate setbacks as may be required.  This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with:
  • Board of Health approval.
  • Conservation Commission approval.  
  • BSS Design Engineering & Surveying plan “Plot Plan – Proposed House, Prepared for Matt DeSutter 26 Waterway – New Seabury Mashpee, Massachusetts, Date Jan 28, 2012”.  
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.  Votes:  Mr. Furbush: yes.  Mr. Dorsey: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes. Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Nelson: yes.

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the following:
  • A Variance of 5 feet from the front setback requirements to the proposed pool.  
  • A Variance of 11.4 feet from the northerly side setback requirements to the proposed pool.
  • A Variance of 21 feet from the setback requirements to water and wetlands to the proposed pool.  
Findings: sloping topography and presence of wetlands impact the property; the proposal will be an improvement; therefore it will not derogate from the intent of the By-laws.  
This Decision is conditioned upon compliance with:
  • Board of Health approval.
  • Conservation Commission approval.  
  • BSS Design Engineering & Surveying plan “Plot Plan – Proposed House, Prepared for Matt DeSutter 26 Waterway – New Seabury Mashpee, Massachusetts, Date Jan 28, 2012”.  
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.    Votes:  Mr. Furbush: yes.  Mr. Dorsey: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes. Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Nelson: yes.

Alfred J. Clemens: Requests a Written Finding under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws and as defined under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 6 to demolish a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and replace it with a single-family dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 58 Spoondrift Way (Map 112 Parcel 38) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth, Ronald S. Bonvie and Associate Member Judith M. Horton.

Alfred J. Clemens: Requests a Special Permit under Section 174-20 of the Zoning By-laws and as defined under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 6 to demolish a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and replace it with a single-family dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 58 Spoondrift Way (Map 112 Parcel 38) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, William A. Blaisdell, James Reiffarth, Ronald S. Bonvie and Associate Member Judith M. Horton.

Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the Petitions and stated that plans call for demolition of the existing, non-conforming, four-bedroom, two-story home on the non-conforming lot.  Attorney Kirrane submitted photos of the property and dwelling.  The property slopes significantly from front to rear and is impacted by wetlands.  The property is an oddly-shaped pork chop and is very narrow near the street.  

Construction of a new four-bedroom dwelling will be placed largely within the foot print of the existing home.  Proposed lot coverage will remain below the 20% maximum allowed.  The new structure will meet the applicable front, side and rear setback requirements.  The new deck will extend beyond the existing footprint but will not be any closer to the wetland resource area than what currently exists.  The re-development will be a substantial improvement because the setback to water and wetlands will be reduced by two feet.  Another improvement will be replacement of the lawn area with indigenous plantings which will reduce impact on the adjacent wetlands.  

This proposal is scheduled for the April 12, 2012 Conservation Commission public hearings.    

The Board of Health has restricted the proposed dwelling to four bedrooms.

Comments from abutters include an email from Paul and Mary Lou Bast at 61 Spoondrift Way expressing concern about the proposal disrupting their existing view.  They are also concerned about the potential adverse impact on the ecosystem.  

Amy Coughlin of 56 Spoondrift Way sent an email to the ZBA office expressing concern about the proposal affecting her view.  She said that the proposed driveway will be closer to her property and raised concerns about privacy and noise.  The ZBA office mailed copies of the proposal to Ms. Coughlin and told her that the entire file was available for review in the ZBA office and the Town Clerk’s office.  Although the ZBA office told her that she could attend the public hearings to express her concerns, Ms. Coughlin kept repeating that she wasn’t aware that this would be her “only opportunity to speak and be heard.”  She said that she was not prepared.  Mr. Nelson told her that she would have another opportunity to attend the Conservation Commission hearings. While she said that she is not opposed, she stated that she would like to consult an attorney and evaluate the proposal.  Ms. Coughlin said that she bought her home a year ago for the view and its waterfront community.  She stated that “this is unfair”, “ it feels wrong” and she feels that the house could have been “designed differently”.   She asked the Board to take into consideration that she is the one “most affected by the proposal”.

Karen Twohy spoke on behalf of Eileen Tye of 52 Spoondrift Way, whose primary concern is the proposal’s impact on her view.    

Mr. Nelson commented that the ZBA does not have jurisdiction over views.  

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the Written Finding.   Findings: not substantially more detrimental than what currently exist; there is sufficient land to provide adequate parking and setbacks.  This Decision is conditioned upon:
  • Conservation Commission approval.
  • Christopher Costa & Associates, Inc. plan “Certified Plot Plan Showing Conservation Restrictions 58 Spoondrift Way in Mashpee, Massachusetts, Date 02/15/2012”.  
  • Board of Health restrictions.  
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.  Votes: Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes.  Mr. Nelson: yes. Ms. Horton: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Vote was unanimous.  

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the Special Permit.  Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.  Votes: Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes.  Mr. Nelson: yes. Ms. Horton: yes.
Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Vote was unanimous.  

Dorothy J. Cannon: Requests a Written Finding under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws to allow for construction of additions onto an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 221 Monomoscoy Road (Map 114 Parcel 56) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, Ronald S. Bonvie and Associate Member John M. Dorsey.  Board Member James Reiffarth stepped down.

Dorothy J. Cannon: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the front and rear setback requirements to allow for construction of additions onto an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 221 Monomoscoy Road (Map 114 Parcel 56) Mashpee, MA.

Sitting:  Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, Ronald S. Bonvie and Associate Member John M. Dorsey.  Board Member James Reiffarth stepped down.

Attorney Leslie-Ann Morse represented the Petitions and stated that the homeowner plans to retire soon and wishes to make some additions to her home.  Attorney Morse said that most of the parcels on Monomoscoy are very tiny.  A new entry will be constructed on the easterly side; a new kitchen will be constructed on the westerly side; a new three-season sunroom will be constructed on the northerly side.  Most of the additions will be located in the footprint of the existing deck.  Plans call for only an additional 125 square feet of space.  The existing house is angled peculiarly on the lot, which makes the proposal difficult to met the setback requirements.   

Mr. Furbush agreed that the lots in the area are quite small and are very valuable.  He said that he understands that people want to build a home that is comparable to the assessed value of their land.

Board of Health comments: “Plan needs to state that the three-season room is unheated.  A septic inspection is required.  Not in Zone II.  The existing soil absorption system limits the dwelling to three bedrooms.  The three season sun porch is required to be unheated.”  

The Conservation Commission approved the proposal.  “RDA Negative Determination issued 8/06/09**MA Permit Extension Act – Expiration date 8/06/14**.”

Mr. George Leach, an abutter at 30 Overland Road, expressed concern with the additions being too close to his property.  After Mr. Joao Junqueira, Construction Supervisor from Capewide Enterprises, showed Mr. Leach details of the plan, Mr. Leach said that he was not opposed to the proposal.  Mr. Nelson expressed confidence that Mr. Junqueira would do a great job.

Attorney Morse argued that, if the Board determines that the Petition meets the criteria for a Written Finding under Section 174-17, a Variance is not needed.  Building Commissioner Richard E. Morgan maintained his opinion that a Variance is also required to allow for this proposal.  

No other comments were received from abutters.

Attorney Morse submitted a request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice of the Petition for a Variance.  Mr. Blaisdell made a motion that the Board determine that the Petitioner does not need Variance relief.  Mr. Bonvie seconded the motion.  Votes: Mr. Nelson: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Mr. Dorsey: yes. Mr. Furbush: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes.  

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to grant the Written Finding.  Findings: not substantially more detrimental than what currently exists; there is sufficient parking; there are no known traffic issues; there are adequate setbacks as may be required; the proposal will not exceed the lot coverage requirements.  The Decision is conditioned upon compliance with:
  • Falmouth Engineering plan: “Plot Plan for #221 Monomoscoy Road Prepared for Dorothy J. Cannon in Mashpee. Plan  Date: June 17, 2009.   Revision Date: 2/16/12 Add setbacks”.  
  • Conservation Commission approval.
  • Board of Health requirements.  
Mr. Bonvie seconded the motion.   Votes: Mr. Nelson: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Mr. Dorsey: yes. Mr. Furbush: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes.  Vote was unanimous.

OTHER BUSINESS

Accept March 14, 2012 Minutes
Mr.  Furbush made a motion to accept the Minutes.  Mr.  Blaisdell seconded the motion.  Votes: Ms. Horton: yes.  Mr. Bonvie: yes.  Mr. Dorsey: yes.  Mr. Reiffarth: yes.  Mr. Blaisdell: yes.  Mr. Nelson: yes.

In compliance with §174-48 of the Zoning By-laws concerning Design Review Committee, discussion/appointments:
  • Appointment of ZBA Member as Regular Member to Design Review Committee.
  • Appointment of ZBA Member(s) as Alternate(s) to Design Review Committee.
§174-48  Design Review Committee: Membership of the Design Review Committee shall consist of four (4) persons, one (1) each from the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals and two (2) members to be appointed by the Board of Selectmen.  The Planning Board member shall be appointed by the Planning Board Chairman, and the Board of Zoning Appeals member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals.  In addition, the Chairman of the Planning Board and Board of Appeals, respectively, may appoint any number of alternate members from their Board, who may be designated by the Chairman to replace the regular member when the regular member is unable to attend a meeting of the committee.  One (1) of the two (2) members appointed by the Board of Selectmen shall be an architect, landscape architect or civil engineer.  In the event that no such person is available, the Design Review Committee may retain, with prior approval of the Board of Selectmen, the services of an architect, landscape architect or civil engineer.  History:  Amended 5-2-2011 ATM, Article 17, approved by Attorney General 8-23-2011.

Prior to approval by the Attorney General of the amended By-law, the ZBA Chairman was authorized to appoint only one ZBA Board member to serve on the Design Review Committee. With official approval of the By-law by the Attorney General in August, 2011, ZBA Chairman can now appoint a Regular Member as well as Alternates.  Mr. Nelson announced the appointment of Jonathan D. Furbush as a Regular member to serve on the Design Review Committee and the appointment of William A. Blaisdell as an Alternate Member to serve on the Design Review Committee.  Mr. Nelson announced that he will be stepping down as a Regular Member and will now serve as a second Alternate on the Design Review Committee.  

Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Dorsey seconded the motion.  All voted in favor.  Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Cynthia Bartos
Administrative Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals