Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> AUGUST 12, 2026 <br /> Mr. Reidy read the Conservation Department comments into the record; <br /> "Resource Areas: Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF). NOI application <br /> was approved with a unanimous vote of the Commission due to improvements to <br /> water recharge capacity with the conditions of submission of an emergency <br /> response plan addressing flooding effects on the septic system, existing <br /> arborvitaes relocated away from construction area, and two-year monitoring <br /> contract with a certified professional for relocated arborvitaes." <br /> Mr. Bonvie mentioned to the Board that he had a conversation with the Health <br /> Agent. He was trying to decipher the floor plans, and there was an issue with the <br /> as-built that did not depict two leaching pits, and there's a discrepancy with <br /> what is actually existing on the property. He could not provide the Board his <br /> opinion because the plans were not clear for a bedroom count, and whether the <br /> system is properly located on the plans. <br /> Mr. Bonvie explained to the applicant that he would require approval from the <br /> Board of Health in order to move the petition forward. <br /> Mr. Goldstein agreed with the Health Agent. Mr. Furbush mentioned that the lot <br /> coverage calculations on the site plan are incorrect. Also, the existing deck does <br /> not depict dimensions. This property is located totally in the flood zone, and as <br /> indicated by the Board last year the following information four-line items should <br /> be depicted on the site plan by the land surveyor; pre-existing percent lot <br /> coverage proposed percent lot coverage, existing structure coverage, and <br /> proposed structure coverage. <br /> Mr. Bonnie stated that the lot coverage can never exceed 100%. <br /> Mr. Goldstein asked if the front entry way as proposed will be enclosed and <br /> heated. The Board generally does not require setback information because it's <br /> an entrance. If it had a roof over it than it's considered a structure and would <br /> require setback information and maybe expanding on an existing nonconformity <br /> which would be considered a Written Finding. <br /> Mr. Morris mentioned that the measurement currently depicts a distance of 29.1 <br /> ft. and the front entry distance at the landing is 21.6 ft. Mr. Morris said that a <br /> typical entry way is 4 ft. stairs are exempt. <br /> Mr. Morris noticed that the site plan depicts existing structures at 2,673 sq. ft., <br /> and the proposed is less at 2,521 sq. ft. There are two additions in the rear. <br /> 4 <br />