Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> AUGUST 13, 2025 <br /> This particular property, is land subject to coastal storm flowage. It's considered <br /> a wetland under the wetlands protection act. Sometimes it's called the flood <br /> plain. <br /> Attorney Wall gave an example; a lot that's 10,000 sq. ft. and half of the lot is <br /> wetlands; and excluding half the lot now becomes 5,000 sq. ft. For zoning <br /> purposes, it's actually 10,000 total. By excluding wetlands, it's increasing the <br /> area requirements for property owners who apply for a building permit. So they <br /> need more area if they have wetlands. His contention is that it's protected under <br /> Section 40A Section 6. He quoted case law in his letter in Taunton from 2007 <br /> that went to the appeals court. The appeals court treated an increase in the <br /> amount of contiguous upland. So if you think about contiguous upland, it's not <br /> a wetland; Mashpee uses the word excludes wetlands. They could have easily <br /> said contiguous upland. And so what the appeals court said was that an increase <br /> in the amount of a contiguous upland required as a change to the lot area <br /> requirement in applying the grandfathering protection under Section 40A <br /> Section 6. His argument is excluding wetlands is an antonym of upland; <br /> excluding wetland area which is upland. It's essentially the same thing. <br /> Mr. Morris said that two variances are required. The other variance is from the <br /> setback to wetlands under Section 174-33. He outlined in his letter that the <br /> setback to wetlands is essentially an increase in the area requirement because <br /> there's an area of wetland that must be set back. The area of wetland takes away <br /> area from the lot and then increases that requirement by a set back from that. <br /> An alternative kind of side argument to that is it's a setback. <br /> This Board routinely talks about front, rear, and side yard setbacks; and what <br /> those setbacks do is limit the area that can be developed. Attorney Wall believes <br /> that the setback references a yard requirement. This lot which has been in <br /> separate ownership prior to the adoption of zoning, and are protected from these <br /> requirements. He mentioned that the Town Attorney has issued an opinion on <br /> this matter and is referenced in his letter. <br /> Chairman Bonvie commented he didn't know how the Town Attorney reached <br /> her conclusion. <br /> Mr. Reidy mentioned there were letters submitted to the Board from Mr. Morris, <br /> and the Board of Health, and Conservation. There are also abutters who have <br /> sent letters. <br /> s <br />