My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/25/2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
>
03/25/2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2023 3:30:45 PM
Creation date
1/12/2022 11:13:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Decision
Meeting Date
03/25/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
February 27, 2015 <br />Page 8 <br />asserted to the Planning Board that this area is not for parking and therefore, the site plan <br />complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, including the "location of <br />facilities" provisions set forth in § 174-37. <br />In the event that the Planning Board disagrees with Mr. Carter's assertion, then <br />Mr. Carter has requested that the Planning Board make a determination under § 174-37 <br />that the outdoor display are may be allowed as proposed. Section 174-37 states, in <br />pertinent part: <br />Required parking facilities shall be provided in the same lot or parcel as <br />the principal use they are designed to serve ... Parking facilities shall be <br />located to the side or rear of the principal structure(s) on a lot or parcel, <br />unless the permitting authority determined that an alternative location <br />will improve the project aesthetically, substantially reduce impacts in <br />natural or historic resources or improve public safety. (Emphasis added). <br />The bold language confers upon the Planning Board discretion to allow parking in <br />a location other than the sides or rear of the building if it "will improve the project <br />aesthetically, substantially reduce impacts on natural or historic resources or improve <br />public safety." In this case, having the cars offered for sale located in the front of the <br />building improves the project aesthetically. This is the location uniformly used in the <br />sale of cars. Having the cars displayed anywhere else would be detrimental to the <br />aesthetics of the project. Further, moving the display area to the back of the building <br />would require substantially more site work due to the sloping topography and, for this <br />reason, allowing the display area in the front reduces impacts on natural resources. <br />In the event that the Planning Board disagrees with Mr. Carter's position and <br />determines that "outdoor display" of his inventory is not "parking" and the Planning <br />Board does not make the requested determination to allow the outdoor display area in <br />front of the building, then Mr. Carter requests that the Zoning Board approve the <br />proposed outdoor display use under its Special Permit Granting authority in § 174-241 <br />This section allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a use that is not <br />specifically listed in the Table of Use Regulations upon a finding that the use may be <br />allowed in a specific district on the basis that it is substantially similar in its construction, <br />operation, traffic and environmental impact to a specific use allowed as of right or by <br />special permit and it is substantially dissimilar in those respects from any uses prohibited <br />• in said district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.