Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Appeals Kostas and Ina K. Nenortas - V-96-21 3. <br /> 5. the lot has been maintained as a separate lot on the Assessor's records and has <br /> never been merged. Without relief, the lot cannot be used for a residence, the <br /> purpose for which it has been laid out and for which the balance of the lots in <br /> the neighborhood have been used, and the purpose for which it is <br /> assessed.because of the topography of the lot, it is impractical to add it to the <br /> adjoining parcel. <br /> 6. a literal enforcement of the by-law would produce a substantial hardship. This <br /> hardship relates to the size of the lot, its topography and shape being bounded <br /> by two developed lots and clearly designed to stand on its own and not as a <br /> part of adjacent developed land. <br /> 7. the topography, size and shape affect this lot and not the zoning district in <br /> which it is located <br /> 8. the Board determined that relief could be granted without derogating from the <br /> intent of the by-laws or without detriment to the neighborhood <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 May 8, 1996 to grant a variance in <br /> the minimum lot size requirements to allow the construction of a single family house on <br /> property located at 134 Pimlico Pond Road (Map 2,Block 138). <br />