Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Carol Kelley 2 <br /> Board of Appeals V-07-79 <br /> existing deck and her request to have no new construction closer to her home/lot line. <br /> Although the deck was previously existing, the Kelley's were amenable to clipping the <br /> edge of the deck to keep it 10 feet from the lot line. The Board appreciated his effort to <br /> comply with the neighbor's request. Additionally, Mr. Harris told the Board that the <br /> septic system has been turned to align with Captain's Row at a better angle and the <br /> garage is now attached to the main dwelling and the driveway will be made out of porous <br /> pavement. Mr.Nelson thanks Mr. Harris for completing the new plot plan with the <br /> requested changes. James Reiffarth makes a motion to grant the Special Permit. Robert <br /> Nelson seconds the motion. James Reiffarth makes a motion to grant a 5 foot variance on <br /> the southerly side. <br /> VARIANCE CRITERIA <br /> Section 10 of Chapter 40A requires that the permit granting authority determine <br /> that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography which affect this lot and <br /> not the district in which it is located and that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would <br /> involve hardship to the petitioner. <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. that the subject property is located at 174 Captains Row and contains 18,761 <br /> square feet. <br /> SPECIFIC FINDINGS <br /> The Board determined that: <br /> 1. the subject property is located on a cul-de-sac; therefore, the shape affects the <br /> subject lot and not the district in which it is located. <br /> 2. the location of the septic system dictates the placement of the proposed <br /> addition; therefore, a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve <br /> hardship to the Petitioner. <br /> 3. the proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood; therefore, relief <br /> may be granted without detriment to the public good. <br /> In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the <br /> Petitioner met the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion duly <br /> made and seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on January 9, 2008 <br />