11/12/2025 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2025 Chairman Bonvie asked Mr. Morris if the project requires a raze and replace permit. Mr. Morris said no because the lot is within the New Seabury Special Permit and has no setback requirements. Mr. Furbush asked Mr. Morris will the new house be more detrimental to the neighborhood because of the increase in the size of the new house, and will it be more detrimental within the setback from the coastal bank. Mr. Reidy read the Board of Health comments dated November 10, 2025 into the record; "Septic designed for 4 bedroom, floor plans show 4 bedrooms. Gym in basement not fit for Human Habitation and cannot be used as bedroom. " Mr. Reidy read the Conservation Department comments dated November 11, 2025 into the record; "NOI application was approved with a 3:1 vote from the Commission due to currently existing unstable conditions of the coastal bank and the overall reconstruction of the entire property will benefit all resource areas. Concerns over setback of the pool from the top of bank and compelling need for a larger dwelling in the buffer zone were points of discussion. Conditions of approval are submission of a more detailed mitigation planting plan, installation of hay bales extending to the road, three year mitigation monitoring contract with a qualified professional, and pool must achieve a 25'setbackfrom top of bank. " Mr. Reidy wanted to know the points of discussion from the Commission regarding the "larger house". Attorney Wall said that the Commission reviews the performance standards that are applicable. They look at the stability of the coastal bank.The elevation of this house is 40 ft.They had concerns with stability of the bank, the depth of the pool and excavation. A condition was given that when the bank restoration is done, the pool must be a minimum of 25 ft. back from the coastal bank as part of their wetlands permit. There was a waiver required under their regulations and is a standard they review if there is a compelling need of what is proposed. The Commission approved the revetment plan and landscape plan. Attorney Wall addressed the concerns from Mr. Furbush. The house is definitely larger, but if the regular requirements were applicable, it does meet the side yard setbacks. It's currently nonconforming to the front, and is increasing that nonconformity if there was such a nonconformity. The garage is getting closer to the house and would substantially comply with lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 7.5% and increasing to 17.2% and would meet all those requirements. The only nonconformity is the setback from wetlands at 24.3 ft., and should be 50 ft. and this setback is being maintained the same. 13