My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/08/2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
01/08/2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2022 3:04:57 PM
Creation date
2/11/2022 3:01:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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).
View images
View plain text
Mashpee Zoning <br />Board of Appeals Edmond Clermont V-03-01 <br />closely with direct abutter Mr. and Mrs. Shaw in working out their respective wishes thus <br />• the continuance from January 8, 2003. Mr. Shaw addresses the Board with his positive <br />intentions that this move forward as proposed. Petitioner is seeking to demolish the pre- <br />existing non -forming structure and rebuild a somewhat larger 3 -bedroom home to <br />accommodate his physical limitations. As all parties are in agreement, the Board moves <br />to grant the following: <br />❑ A Variance of 14.5 feet on both sidelines <br />❑ A Variance of 65,600 square feet for lot size requirements <br />❑ A Variance of 4 feet to the wetlands <br />❑ A Variance of 75 feet for the frontage requirements <br />❑ A Variance of 2.4% for the lot coverage increase <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 One Sunset Circle and contains 14,400 <br />square feet. <br />SPECIFIC FINDINGS <br />The Board determined that: <br />1. a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner. <br />2. the proposal would be an improvement to the subject lot and to the <br />neighborhood; therefore, relief may be granted without detriment to the public <br />good and without derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-laws. <br />3. the subject property is impacted by wetlands. <br />40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.