Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Appeals Charles W. Alexander V-99-43 <br />Mr. Dhan Haridat, an abutter, expressed concerns about the rural character of the <br />neighborhood being spoiled and the possibility of traffic problems with further <br />development in the area. Mr. Haridat also submitted a letter from abutters, Karl and <br />Erich Prinz, restating the same concern with the rural character of Horseshoe Bend Way. <br />Mr. Cygan stated that he moved to Horseshoe Bend Way because of the woods <br />and wildlife and disapproved of further development in the neighborhood <br />No other comments were received from abutters. <br />FINDINGS <br />General Findings <br />1. the subject lot is located at 89 Horseshoe Bend Way and consists of 22,862 <br />square feet. <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 />Specific Findings <br />1. the Board determined that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve <br />hardship to the petitioner. <br />2. the Board determined that relief may be granted without derogating from the <br />intent or purpose of the By-laws. <br />3. the Board determined that without relief the lot could not be used for a <br />residence, the purpose for which it had been laid out and for which the <br />balance of the undersized lots in the subdivision were being used. <br />4. the Board determined that the lot has been maintained as a separate buildable <br />lot on the Assessor's Records and is subject to betterments from the Water <br />District. <br />5. the Board determined that the subject lot is larger than any of the other <br />developed lots in the area. <br />In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Board of Appeals found that the applicant <br />met the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion duly made and <br />seconded, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously on June 9, 1999 to grant a Variance <br />of five feet from the frontage requirements and a Variance of 57,138 square feet from the <br />lot size requirements. <br />