Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Lisa Drake 2 <br /> Board of Appeals SP-05-28 <br /> (413 Monomoscoy Road) <br /> 32,000 square feet just short of the required 40,000 square feet for the R-3 zoning district. <br /> They plan to construct a 5 bedroom, 4,824 square foot house that will maintain 15.9% lot <br /> coverage, well under the 20%maximum allowed. The new dwelling will be less non- <br /> conforming that what currently exists there now. The Board moves to grant the Special <br /> Permit. <br /> The Conservation Commission and the Board of Health have approved the <br /> proposal. <br /> No comments were received from abutters. <br /> SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA <br /> Section 174-17 and 174-20 of the Mashpee Zoning By-laws and Massachusetts General <br /> Laws Chapter 40A, Chapter 6, require a finding that the razing, extension, alteration or <br /> change shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing <br /> non-conforming use. <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. that the subject property is located at 413 Monomoscoy Road and contains <br /> 14,256 square feet. <br /> SPECIFIC FINDINGS <br /> The Board determined that: <br /> 1. the proposal will decrease the non-conforming nature of the structure and the <br /> changes will not result in a structure or use which is more detrimental to the <br /> neighborhood than the prior non-conforming structure and its use. <br /> 2. the immediate neighborhood consists of single-family homes of similar size; <br /> many of which have been improved with additions or reconstruction. <br /> 3. applicant has agreed to cantilever the deck on the northerly side by two feet. <br /> 4. applicant will be combining lot 417 Monomoscoy Road with this property to <br /> make the lot less non-conforming and a total of 32,000 square feet. <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 Special Permit. Upon motion <br /> duly made and seconded,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on May 11, <br />