Laserfiche WebLink
B. SUFFICIENCY OF SETBACK . Although the setback <br /> for the Addition is 100 feet instead of 150 feet , Petitioner <br /> believes that the 100-foot setback is sufficient for this par- <br /> ticular situation and is contemplated by the provisions of <br /> Section 5 . 1 of the By-Law. One of the objects of a setback <br /> requirement is to provide sufficient visibility for corner <br /> clearance . In this case, the Existing Building is nearest <br /> the corner of Mashpee Neck Road and Falmouth Road and no <br /> change is proposed for that corner. The Extension doesn't <br /> appear to affect the safety aspects of ingress or egress or <br /> vehicular passage on Falmouth Road. Another object of a setback <br /> requirement relates to aesthetic quality . In this case, Petitioner <br /> believes that the aesthetics of the building are enhanced by <br /> a continuation of the front of the Existing Building, which <br /> would be preferable to having the front of the Addition set <br /> back an additional 50 feet . Petitioner further believes that <br /> the continuation of the guest parking places in front of the <br /> building does not affect the setback aspects of the building. <br /> C. NOT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETRIMENTAL. Petitioner <br /> believes that the extension or enlargement of the subject <br /> non-conforming uses will not be substantially more detrimental <br /> to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming uses . <br /> Aesthetically, the Addition is an extension of the front of the <br /> Existing Building, and the additional parking spaces comprise <br /> an enlargement of the existing parking area. The balance of <br /> the area between the building and Falmouth Road will be <br /> -4- <br />