My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/22/2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
10/22/2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2022 4:15:03 PM
Creation date
2/11/2022 4:12:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 Christopher Johnson <br /> V-03-137 <br /> permits in 2004 would be acceptable. David Chadwick, a direct abutter is very concerned <br /> about the speed of growth in Mashpee and feels this would not be beneficial for the <br /> Town. Mr. Johnson informs the Board that he has sold lots 5 and 6 and the road is going <br /> in forthwith. He also adds that it is difficult financially to tie up 6 lots for so many years. <br /> The Board feels his request is reasonable. Zella Elizenber y moves to grant the variance <br /> for growth management which would allow lots 5, 6 and 8 to be given building permit is <br /> 2003 and the remainder of the lots in 2004. Richard Guerrera seconds the motion. <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. the property is located at 29 Christopher Lane, (40,000 square feet) 33 <br /> Christopher Lane, (40,409 square feet) 37 Christopher Lane, (46,180 <br /> square feet) 32 Christopher Lane, (63,604 square feet) 26 Christopher <br /> Lane (40,077 square feet) and 18 Christopher Lane (40,019 square feet). <br /> VARIANCE CRITERIA <br /> iSection 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 /> 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 /> 4. the property has been maintained as a separate buildable lot on the Assessor's <br /> Records and is subject to betterments from the Water District. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.