01/23/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning S.V. Raleigh Corporation V-02-17 2 Board of Appeals Attorney Butler referred to the traffic report, which estimates that the provision of r 42 parking spaces would be adequate for the project. The Petitioner is seeking permission to reduce the required number of parking spaces by 53 spaces. Attorney Butler read a letter from Attorney Michael J. Princi on behalf of a competitor, Mr. Donald Priestly. The letter claims that the Petitioner does not meet the criteria for grant of a Variance and that Mr. Priestly is in opposition to the project. Attorney Butler countered that a competitor does not qualify as an `aggrieved party'. Attorney Butler said that the proposal would be a `high end' storage facility consisting of 725 storage amts with humidity and temperature control. Access would be by accomplished by use of punch card or key code. No hazardous materials of any type would be stored in the facility. Lot coverage would not exceed the allowed 20%. Mr. Raleigh stated that plans call for installation of extensive landscaping of approximately $75,000 on the subject property. The Board went into a lengthy discussion of the proposal and whether or not the Petitioner could meet the parking space requirement. r VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 10 of Chapter 40A requires that the permit granting authority determine that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography which affect this lot and not the district in which it is located and that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. that the subject property is located at 486 and 490 Main Street and consists of over 3.5 acres of land. I� SPECIFIC FINDINGS The Board determined that: 1. the circumstances relating to the unusual shape and sloping topography affect the subject lot and not the district in which it is located. 2. the presence of a large sinkhole on the subject property renders a large portion of the lot unbuildable and restricts the location of the proposed building and parking spaces; therefore, a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner. 3. the soil conditions dictate location of the proposed building, drainage areas and parking spaces; therefore, a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner. 4. less paving with the proposed reduction in parking spaces on the subject property and maintenance of a larger buffer, more green space and open space translate into a benefit for the groundwater district, for the neighborhood and for the Town; therefore, relief may be granted without detriment to the public good.