My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/28/2005 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
09/28/2005 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2022 5:05:11 PM
Creation date
2/9/2022 3:19:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Maslipee Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals Jemm Real Estate <br /> 2 V-05-111 <br /> They are losing 50% of the lot to the wetlands which is the reason they need relief to <br /> build within the 50-foot buffer zone. The additions will be on slabs and will maintain <br /> 18.5% lot coverage when complete. The abutters are in frill agreement with this project <br /> since it is a father/son situation. Several of the Board members made site visits to the <br /> property and feel this will not be more detrimental to the ileighhorhood. After reviewing <br /> the plans and some further discussion Marshall Brem moves to grant the following <br /> variances: <br /> ✓ An 8 foot variance to Sunset Circle <br /> ✓ A 26 foot variance to the wetlands <br /> ✓ A 21 foot variance on the sideline setback <br /> ✓ A 67,920 square foot landspace variance <br /> Robert Nelson seconds the motion. James Reiffarth votes in favor. Frederick Borgeson <br /> votes in favor. Evano Cunha votes no. The motion is carried 4-1. <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. the property is located at 55 Sunset Circle and contains 7,862 square feet. <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 /> SPECIFIC FINDINGS <br /> The Board determined that: <br /> 1. the shape and topography affect the subject property and not the district in <br /> which it is located'. <br /> 2. the subject property fronts on a river and is impacted by wetlands. <br /> 3. without relief the property could not be used for a residence,the purpose for <br /> which it had been laid out and for which the balance of the undersized parcels <br /> in the subdivision were being used. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.