My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/13/1995 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
09/13/1995 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2022 1:39:21 PM
Creation date
3/1/2022 1:37:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 Board of Appeals John J. Trotto - V-95-56 2. <br /> Findings: <br /> A. General <br /> 1. the subject property is located at 58 Quaker Run Road and contains <br /> 25,600 square feet. <br /> 2. the subject property has 145' frontage on Popponesset Bay and is in an <br /> area of single family homes, many of which have docks on the Bay. <br /> 3. the proposed dock would be accessory to an existing dwelling and is a <br /> permissible use within the zoning district upon the grant of a Special <br /> Permit from the Board of Appeals. <br /> 4. the length of the proposed dock does not comply with the provisions <br /> and would require a Variance to exceed 70'. <br /> B. Variance Criteria <br /> Section 10 of Chapter 40 A. requires that the permit granting authority detrmine <br /> that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography of the lot which <br /> affect this lot and not the district in which it is located and that a literal <br /> enforcement of the by-laws would involve hardship. <br /> C. Specific Findings <br /> I. the granting of this Variance would give special privileges to the applicant not <br /> enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity who have complied with the <br /> length restrictions of the By-laws. <br /> 2. reasonable use can be made of the property without this Variance. <br /> 3. the proposal has not been approved by the Conservation Commission to <br /> address impacts on the coastal environment. <br /> 4. the applicant failed to meet with-the Harbormaster and present any alternative <br /> plans. <br /> For the foregoing reasons, the Board of Appeals found that the applicant failed to <br /> meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion duly made and <br /> seconded, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously on September 27, 1995 to deny the <br /> application for a Variance without prejudice. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.