11/17/1999 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Stephen G. &Rona Miller V-99-84 3 Board of Appeals Mr.Nelson informed Mr. Sterling that the Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction over any construction inside a dwelling and has no legal right to act on such issues. Ms. Sterling, a daughter of an abutter, also expressed concern that the breakaway panels would constitute a hazard. Mr. Kelley, an abutter, opposed the project and stated that the scope and size of the garage are out of character with the rest of the homes in the area. Mr. Kelley claimed i that the proposal is not a hardship. He also said that the proposed construction would obstruct people's views and have an adverse impact on traffic in the area. Ms. Karen Murdeen stated that she has no objection to the construction of a garage on the Miller residence. She said that many children, bicyclists,parents with carriages and pedestrians use the beach path that abuts the Miller property. She said that anyone backing out of the Miller residence would have difficulty and a large construction would further hinder parking availability and visibility. Ms. Murdeen suggested that the Millers reduce the size of the garage or relocate it. Several other neighbors voiced the same concerns with safety and traffic. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. the subject property is located at 22 Squaws Lane and consists of 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 Board determined that relief could not be granted without detriment to the public good. 2. the Board determined that relief could not be granted without derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-laws. 3. the Board determined that hardship was not been established. 4. the Board determined that there are alternatives to the proposed construction and location of the garage. In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicants did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on December 8, 1999 to deny without prejudice the request for a Variance.