04/14/1999 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Fred Glass V-99-24 2 with the neighbors, that Mr. Slavinsky consider working out a new plan that does not include a front setback variance. Mr. Slavinsky requested the withdrawal of the Variance from the front yard setback requirements. Mr. Dorgan referred to Section 174-86.F., which reads: " The Board of Appeals, in considering applications hereunder, shall give primary importance to the protection of the environment." Mr. Dorgan then stated that the Board of Appeals always requests direction and approval regarding conservation issues from the Conservation Commission before granting a Variance or Special Permit. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing until April 28, 1999. At the continued hearing on April 28, 1999, Mr. John Slavinsky of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the applicant. He reminded the Board that at the last meeting on April 14, 1999, he withdrew the application for the front setback variance. The dwelling will be set back 30 feet from the street. The Conservation Commission sent a letter to the Board indicating approval of the project. Mr. Regan reminded the Board about correspondence received at the April 14, 1999 hearing. Abutters expressed concern regarding entrance and egress to and from the subject lot and maintaining natural vegetation between the lots. Mr. Slavinsky assured the Board that no natural vegetation would be touched between the two lots. Mr. Regan confirmed that those concerns have been addressed and agreed that the applicant has worked hard to keep the neighbors and Little Neck Bay Association satisfied with the proposed project. A denitrification system will be installed. The lot coverage will be 14%. No other comments were received from abutters. FINDINGS General Findings 1. the subject property is located at 133 Tide Run and consists of 15,700 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.