Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> MARCH 26, 2025 <br /> Mr. Bonvie mentioned that the Board follows the Variance criteria under MGL. 40 <br /> Section 10. <br /> Mr. Morris stated that the setback to wetlands has changed and he has always <br /> enforced 174-33. The difference with this project is that it requires a Variance rather <br /> than a Finding because this is a vacant lot. This lot is within a coastal bank is a <br /> reason to consider a wetland whether it's in the flood zone or not, and he is required <br /> to enforce. <br /> Mr. Yergatian said that this lot is 250 ft. away from the top of the coastal bank, and <br /> more than 75 ft. away from the edge of the bordering vegetative wetlands, and more <br /> than 150 ft. from the salt marsh, and the Conservation Commission confirmed that. <br /> Mr. Morris said he is incorrect, but it is an external setback to the lot. <br /> Mr. Bonvie stated this project is within 50 ft. of a wetland as defined by a judge. Mr. <br /> Bonvie wanted to confirm with Mr. Mills that this lot is exempt from zoning setbacks <br /> or setback from wetlands under the New Seabury Special Permit. Mr. Morris said he <br /> has been sending these applications to the Board. <br /> Mr. Mills said; yes, and includes setback from wetlands, but it is not specified. <br /> Mr. Bonvie polled the Board regarding the Variance criteria. The first item; does the <br /> applicant have a substantial hardship or otherwise. Mr. Goldstein said; no, Mr. <br /> Furbush, no, Mr. Blaisdell, yes, Mr. Bonvie, no, and Ms. Sangeleer, no. The Board <br /> polled 4-1 against, and believes there is not a "financial hardship or otherwise." <br /> Mr. Mills said in his opinion that a financial hardship is that there is no other <br /> practical use for this residential lot. Mr. Bonvie tends to disagree under "Bobrowski's <br /> Land Use and Planning Law Book." <br /> The second item is; the application will not cause detriment to the public good. Mr. <br /> Goldstein, no, Mr. Furbush, no, Mr. Blaisdell, no, and Ms. Sangeleer, no. The Board <br /> agreed 5-0 in favor that it will not cause detriment to the public good. <br /> The application will not derogate from the intent of the ordinance which is a 50 ft. <br /> setback from the wetlands. Mr. Goldstein, no, Mr. Furbush, yes, Mr. Blaisdell, no, <br /> Mr. Bonvie, yes, and Ms. Sangeleer, yes. The Board voted 3-2 that it would derogate <br /> from the intent of the ordinance. <br /> 7 <br />