Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals Robert Wilkinson <br /> 2 V-07-29 <br /> addresses the property in question in a letter dated March 30, 2007 and feels a paved road <br /> is not required. The applicant is having the road name changed to Lori Lane as soon as <br /> the paper work goes through the Clerk's office. A letter from Charles Rowley, Planning <br /> Board's consulting engineer, addresses the other concerns the ZBA had. Again, an <br /> abutter, Carleton Meredith expresses his concern against the project and wants the Board <br /> to deny the variance request. The Board reviews all the plans and feels the variance is <br /> something they have granted in the past. All the documents that the Board has asked <br /> have been produced. The Board is most appreciative of the time and work Mr. Barry has <br /> put into this request. Jonathan Furbush makes a motion to grant the variances. Zella <br /> Elizenberry seconds the motion. All agree. So moved. <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> 1. that the subject lot is located at 90 Pequot Avenue and contains 16,499 square <br /> 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 /> The Board determined that: <br /> 1. that there are circumstances relating to the shape and topography that affect <br /> the subject lot and.not the district in which it is located. <br /> 2. that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would involve hardship to the <br /> Petitioner. <br /> 3. that relief may be granted without detriment to the public good. <br /> 4. that relief may be granted without derogating from the intent or purpose of the <br /> By-laws. <br /> 5. that the subject property is impacted by wetlands. <br /> 6. that 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 />