01/28/2009 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

The ZBA reviews all the testimony and plans. The Chairman mentions this matter was before the Board in 2007 with a proposed footprint of 24% and was withdrawn by the applicant after the same abutters stated the same complaints. Now applicant is appearing before the Board with a proposal for an even larger home. Mr. Furbush asks the applicant what the hardship is. Mr. Kirrane feels the assessed value of the lot being $2.7 million constitutes a reason to build a home according to the Value of the lot. Mr. Nelson informs the Board and Mr. Kirrane that the ZBA cannot look at financial issues and tax assessments alone as hardship criteria. Mr. Nelson informs the Board that he cannot be in favor of a dwelling that contains 30% lot coverage, and the applicant has not met the statutory criteria for granting a variance. The other members agree. Mr. Nelson makes a motion to deny the variance request with prejudice. James Reiffarth seconds the motion. All agree. So moved. The variance request is denied unanimously. This Decision is conditioned on plans submitted by Cape & Islands Engineering, dated October 20, 2008, revised December 1, 2008, Plan No. 072507 At the Public Hearing on February 11, 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to Deny the Petition for a Variance With Prejudice. VARIANCE CRITERIA The Town of Mashpee Bylaws §17-28(A) states that "no existing building or structure shall be enlarged or altered except in conformance with the regulations of this Zoning Bylaw as to lot coveraee. lot area, land area per dwelling unit, lot width, front, side and rear yards and maximum height of structures in the several districts as set forth below except as may otherwise be provided elsewhere in this Zoning Bylaw." General Laws c. 40A, §10 authorizes local zoning boards to grant variances where: 1. "owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located." 2. "a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve 0 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner...'; and