Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals Wayne MacKimlon <br /> 4 V-04-154 <br /> foot total. Fred Borgeson said he feels they should go with Town Counsel's advice and <br /> stay with 6,000 square feet. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Elizenberry also feel it is appropriate to <br /> follow the advice of Town Counsel. However, the request of a 2.3% lot coverage <br /> variance is addressed. Mr. Borgeson mentions that several years ago the Board decided <br /> to keep the houses at a 20%maximum for lot coverage and would like to stick to that <br /> decision. Mr. Nelson feels this may be a unique situation whereby the lot fronts Rock <br /> Island Road and therefore the applicants buffer lot that others in the neighborhood were <br /> able to use in their square foot total is unavailable to the MacKinnons. Mr. Nelson <br /> suggests that if the variance is granted that these lots be sold as one parcel in the future <br /> and that the average setback rule will be applied. The Board seems to agree to this, as <br /> does Mr. Slavinsky. Robert Nelson makes a motion to grant the following: <br /> ✓ A 4.5 foot variance on the northerly side <br /> ✓ An 11 foot variance from Cross Street using the average setback rule <br /> ✓ A 2.3% lot coverage variance <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. that the subject property is located at 17 Cross Street and contains 6,000 <br /> square feet. <br /> SPECIFIC FINDINGS <br /> The Board determined that: <br /> 1. a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve substantial hardship to <br /> the petitioner. <br /> 2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public <br /> good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or <br /> purpose of the by-law. <br /> 3. Should 17 Cross Street become available to sell, all parcels of land herein <br /> contained at 17 Cross Street (also known as the "buffer lots") will be sold <br /> together as one parcel. <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 February 2, <br /> 2005 to grant the following: <br />