MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 13, 2015
MINUTES
The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, May 13, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the Waquoit Room at the Mashpee Town Hall, 16 Great Neck Road North. Board Members Jonathan D. Furbush, William A. Blaisdell, Ronald Bonvie, Associate Members Domingo K. DeBarros and Scott Goldstein were present. Board Member Richard Jodka and Building Commissioner, Michael Mendoza were absent.
Mr. Jonathan Furbush announced that the meeting is televised live on Mashpee TV.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mashpee Commons: Board to vote on 40B Comprehensive Regulatory and Use Agreement as part of their submission to Mass Housing.
Mr. Bonvie stepped down from this hearing. Mr. Furbush announced that four positive votes are required for this particular hearing.
Mr. Tom Feronti, representing Mashpee Commons and Jobs-Whitings Trust seeking Board approval of the Regulatory Agreement and signatures of the Acknowledgment form for final submission to Mass Housing. At the previous hearing, there were five items in the draft Agreement that were addressed and needed clarification by the Board and Town Counsel. These five items were revised and approved. There was and additional item brought to the Board’s attention during Town Counsel review indicating three (3) bedroom units in the Rent Table-Attachment B. This was revised confirming there are no three (3) bedroom units.
Mr. Furbush told the Board that Town Counsel approved the Acknowledgement Form and was acceptable for the Board to sign. Mashpee Commons had a notary present and formally authorized the Agreement in front of Chairman Furbush.
56 Kim Path: Owners, Richard and Jennifer Manganiello request a Variance under §174-31 for lot coverage relief to construct an 8’ x 10’ shed on property located in an R-3 Zoning District, (Map 117 Parcel 97), Mashpee, MA.
Mr. Kevin Kirrane, Attorney representing the Manganiello’s for approval to construct a modest size shed for storage of beach chairs and bicycles. Mr. Kirrane provided pictures of the newly constructed home that was approved by the Board in 2011. The original lot coverage relief request was 24.1% and was reduced to 21.7%. The 80 sq. ft. shed will increase the lot coverage to 22.9% and is still below the 24.1% which existed prior to the reconstruction project.
The structure will meet the required setbacks under the zoning bylaw and is consistent in size and design with other properties on Kim Path. Mr. Kirrane listed a few examples of lot coverage in the neighborhood; 53 Kim Path, 28%, 54 Kim Path , 22.6%, 26 Kim Path, 25.3%, 2 Kim Path, 21.7%, 45 Kim Path, 21.57%, 46 Kim Path, 23.5%, 43 Kim Path, 24.6%. All these are similar to 56 Kim Path.
Mr. Furbush read a comment from the Inspections Department into the record; “The area is zoned R3 and the property is in the VE Flood zone. The property is also in the Pre-contact Archaeology Sensitivity area – listed as “Moderate Sensitivity”. Because the shed will be placed within the VE Zone, it will need to be secured to site, secured to the site with sono-tubes or any other method approved by either FEMA and or the Massachusetts State Building Code for building in a VE Zone.”
Mr. Furbush read a comment from the Conservation Agent into the record; “any excavation required to install proposed shed will require a permit application to the commission.”
Mr. Furbush read an abutter letter dated May 5, 2015 from Beth Prunier McGinnis, at 50 Kim Path into the record; “I am a resident of Kim Path. I am writing this letter to let you know that I have absolutely no concerns with the additional 80 square feet of coverage that the Manganiello's are requesting for their shed. It is not an issue for me and I am surprised anyone else would care about such a small request.”
Mr. Bonvie read an abutter letter dated April 19, 2015 from John & Christine Mizzi at 54 Kim Path into the record; “We have received the public hearings notice for the hearings to be held by the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals this Wednesday, April 22. Unfortunately, as this is the April vacation week for MA public schools, we will be out of town and unable to attend. We had the opportunity to review the plans in the building department office and are comfortable with a minimum of 5 feet setback of the shed from our property as outlined by those plans. If the setback is reduced from the 5 feet outlined in the plans, we will have an issue with it. We thank you in advance for taking our feedback into consideration. Kind regards.”
Mr. Goldstein made a comment stating that the shed would have probably been approved at the time of the original house application. He was wondering what would be the outcome of a future applicants applying for similar relief ten years later.
Mr. Bonvie stated he is a strong advocate of the 20% lot coverage rule but was still indecisive. Mr. Blaisdell reviewed the fact the applicant has a hardship regarding storage and would grant the relief.
Mr. James Candito, an abutter at 70 Nick Trail. He stated he is not against change but is opposed to the size, placement, and height of 12-13 feet of the shed that will block his water view. He stated back in July, 2014 he asked the homeowner to move the shed closer to his home approximately 3 feet from the side property line. He has no problem with it being moved 1 ft. from the back property line.
A notification letter of violation by the Building Commissioner was sent to the homeowner back on September 3, 2014 asking the shed be removed because there was no building permit on record with the Building Department.
Mr. Kirrane stated the shed will be placed closer to the house and away from the property line at the 5 ft. requirement. It might be possible to move it closer to the home however that would require another filing for relief request of the back lot line. Where there’s only 3 ft. between the house and the placement, it would be too close to the house.
Mr. Bonvie wanted to confirm with Mr. Candito if moving the shed 2 feet from the side lot line would not be adequate and in his opinion, place it 5 feet off the side line and closer to the rear lot line. Mr. Candito said; “yes”.
Jenifer Manganiello, the homeowner said that her neighbor Jamie Saganey sent a letter in favor of the shed, but the Board did not receive it.
Mr. Candito wanted to know the Mashpee bylaws regarding blocking a scenic water view, and if it does not, can a proposal be submitted to the ZBA or submitted for Town Meeting.
Mr. Kirrane stated that some towns do have water view bylaws, but Mashpee does not.
The Board agreed that another filing for Variance relief is required. Mr. Kirrane will submit a Variance
Mr. Bonvie made a motion to accept a continuance until June 10, 2015. Mr. Furbush, seconded, yes, Mr. Blaisdell, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, and Mr. DeBarros, yes. All were in favor.
181 Wheeler Road: Owner, Noreen T. Capo requests a Written Finding under Article V §174-17 to allow for construction of a 12’ x 16’ deck located on property located in an R-5 Zoning District, (Map 49 Parcel 45), Mashpee, MA.
Ms. Noreen Capo, homeowner stated she would like to build a deck next to the existing sunroom. There will be a stairway built off the back of the deck going toward the rear of the yard.
Mr. Furbush read the Inspection Department comments into the record; “the area is zoned R5 and the property is in the Pre-contact Archaeology Sensitivity area – listed as “High Sensitivity”. The Board gave the applicant the contact information regarding §174-24 C (3)
Mr. Bonvie made a motion to accept the application for the 12’ x 16’ deck. He made reference that the stairs be built off the back of the deck. Mr. Blaisdell, seconded, yes, Mr. Furbush, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, and Mr. DeBarros, yes. All were in favor.
71 Echo Road: DECH, LLC requests a Special Permit under §174-25 (G) 5 and §174-25 (G) 14 to allow for construction of a 7,135 sq. ft. building for use to manufacture and assembly of wooden doors, windows, cabinets, and general woodworking/millwork with rear area contractor bays located on property located in an I-1 Zoning District, (Map 19 Parcel 3-5), Mashpee, MA (Owner of record: Pamela M. Gangemi, Trs.)
Mr. Mark Boudreau, Attorney representing the applicant who is seeking a Special Permit for the assembly of wooden materials and two contractor bays. He introduced Dan Ojala, Principal Engineer of Down Cape Engineering who presented the application to Design/Plan Review. He provided the detailed site plan, landscape plan, and sign detail of the proposed building. He mentioned the site has a fire hydrant located in front of the west entrance and will be moving it. There is plenty of turning radius for fire trucks in the front and around the building. The landscaping design will have the required detailed plantings. There will be a catch basin on the side of the building and should have no drainage issues. The septic system is an oversized design and not in a Zone II, and is not in an area that contributes to nitrogen in the
wells. The woodworking will be milling and construction with a state-of-the-art dust collection system with all metal piping.
At the Design/Review Meeting, the members requested a recycle dumpster which will be located in the Northeast corner of the lot. There will be an infiltration basin for the loading dock which will be located in the back. The code requires the piping be located along the grass line. There will be dedicated floor drains that are connected to an external tight tank and is required under the new plumbing code with a safety alarm system.
The Fire Department requires a Knox Box alarm system which will be installed at the rear and the front of Echo Road. The lighting will be LED wall packs on the building only.
Mr. Bonvie asked the Chairman, when an applicant presents a project in front of Site/Plan Review who reviews the engineering plans and facts.
Mr. Goldstein stated in his opinion, he believes that applicants should not be required to pay extra for an outside consultant for engineering review when they hire a licensed professional engineer to design their building.
Mr. Ojala briefly spoke with Charlie Rowley and discussed the loading dock filtration system. He said he is a licensed professional engineer and this project is under Construction Control which requires him to inspect the site work for the client. He will sign off on the site, landscape and gravel work.
Mr. Boudreau said this communication needs to be brought in front of the Site Plan Review Committee.
Mr. Furbush read the comment from the DPW; “If approved, the project at 71 Echo Road will require a Curb Cut permit from the DPW prior to start of construction (Echo Road is a Town road).”
Mr. Furbush read the comments from the Inspection Department into the record; “The area is zoned I-1 and the property IS NOT in any Archaeology Sensitivity area.”
Mr. Ojala reviewed the comments from the Board of Health listed below and will comply with all requirements.
After a discussion, the Mashpee Board of Health approved the site and septic plan with the following conditions:
- The MDC catch basins and forebays and bio-retention areas shall be monitored and maintained to mitigate standing water annually. An executed contract for servicing of the MDC-type catch basins and bio-retention areas shall be provided to the Board of Health prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
- Safety Data Sheets (SDS) shall be kept on premises in bound notebooks for all hazardous products. The MSDS shall be available for inspection by an agent of the Board of Health.
- Operations shall not cause a nuisance or the operation will be considered a noisome trade.
- All changes in tenancy and/or use of each unit shall be approved by the Board of Health prior to the issuance of a lease or sale of each unit.
- Board of Health Regulation Part IX Section 5.00 requires the installation of the reserve area to be installed at the same time as the primary leaching area.
- Commercial washing machines are prohibited on Title V septic systems. They are considered industrial discharge and require connection to municipal sewer or industrial tight tanks.
- Commercial washing of vehicles is considered industrial discharge and requires connection to municipal sewer or industrial tight tanks.
- Hazardous materials and hazardous waste shall be limited in volume to 200 pounds dry weight and 220 gallons of liquid storage. Hazardous waste shall be limited to in accordance with 310 CMR 30.00, Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations. Storage of hazardous materials outside is prohibited. An executed contract for the removal of hazardous waste from the facility by a licensed hazardous waste removal company shall be provided to the Board of Health prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
- The unit labelled as Unit B shall have two bathrooms, if divided into two leased spaces.
Mr. Furbush stated that any tenants will be required to apply for a Special Permit.
Mr. Bonvie made a motion to issue a Special Permit to the applicant. Issuing this permit referencing a letter dated May 12, 2015, from the Board of Health, with the listed conditioned items. Also conditioned in this motion is a letter from the DPW regarding the curb cut, installing the Knox Box system as required by the Fire Department, and a condition that the applicant must seek and obtain from a registered certified engineer prior to occupancy that the property is built and completed to the specifications outlined in the plans submitted to the Board.
Mr. Blaisdell seconded, yes, Mr. Furbush, yes, Mr. Goldstein, yes, and Mr. DeBarros, yes. All were in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
Approve April 22, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Mr. DeBarros approved the meeting minutes, yes, Mr. Furbush seconded, yes, Mr. Blaisdell, yes, and Mr. Goldstein, yes. Mr. Bonvie abstained. Four approved and one abstained.
Mr. Goldstein made a motion to adjourn. All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ann Romero
Administrative Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
