03/10/1999 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Terry Luff V-99-23 Mr. Svagdis, who lives at 166 Algonquin Avenue, expressed concern about water run-off in his lot. He reviewed the plans and realized that there are three lots between his lot and the subject properties. Mr. Govoni stated that it is difficult for the Board to grant a Variance before the Conservation Commission has approved the location of the proposed house. Mr. Dorgan stated that the Wetlands Act law requires the applicant to get approval from the Conservation Commission before proceeding to other Boards. The Board moved to continue the case until April 14, 1999. At the Public Hearings on April 14, 1999, Mr. David Sanicki of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the applicant and reminded the Board that they did not want to grant the Variance until the Conservation Commission had approved the project. The plan submitted by Mr. Sanicki was drawn by a wetland biologist delineating the wetlands. Due to the topography, shape and size of the property and Conservation issues, the applicant is seeking relief of 10 feet from the wetlands and a front yard variance of 10 feet. The Conservation Commission has approved the project. No other comments were received from abutters. FINDINGS General Findings the subject properties are located at 152 and 156 Algonquin Avenue and combined consist of over 13,000 square feet. 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. Specific Findings 1. the topography of the subject lots, including a steep embankment and an unusual shape, severely restricts the location of the house. 2. relief may be granted without derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-laws. 3. the subject properties are impacted by wetlands. 4. the Board determined without relief the lot could not be used for a residence, the purpose for which it had been laid out and for which the balance of the undersized lots in the subdivision were being used.