1987 JAN-JUN-ZBA APPEALS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the buildings . This issue is clouded by the fact that the complex is surrounded by a private drive and not a pub- lic way, that the focal point of the project is the interior courtyard and the entrances to the units are designed to be on the interior of the buildings and that the Town By-Law offers no clear definition as to what constitutes the "front" of a building. However, to the extent that the Applicant' s architectural plans establish a front and rear elevation, we are inclined to find that the proposed parking scheme would require a variance from section 8 . 6. The Board reached the following Finding of Facts : 1. ) The applicant has established that to deny the request would constitute a substantial hardship. 2. ) The hardship is sufficiently linked to the size and shape of the parcel, paying particular atten- tion to the fact that the parcel is in, part bi- sected by a public way approved by the Planning Board pursuant to the subdivision control law making it quite unique from other similarly zoned parcels in this District. 3. ) The Board established that the relief sought will in no way be detrimental to the neighborhood, in that the proposed development scheme is designed, in part, to provide a buffer zone around the peri- meter of the parcel and a substantial open space buffer between the developed area and the nearest residentially zoned abutting property. 4. ) The Board established that the intent of the By- Law (village concept) was not intended to govern or to preclude a project -of this nature, which is " set off a considerable distance from Great Neck Road and therefore, to grant this relief will not derogate from the intent of that By-Law. Upon motion duly made and 'seconded the Board of Appeals voted unanimously on January 14, 1987 to grant this request for a variance. uBY: 0 MASHPEE BOARD OF APPEALS IN FAVOR > 7b JA i iam Hanrahan IN FAVOR vn: mictidel Makidnas v IN FAVOR Chert' awver