Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Mario DiPaolo V-00-12 2 <br /> Board of Appeals <br /> Attorney George Hazel attended the meeting and said that he represented <br /> MaryJane A. Doorly, an abutter. Ms. Doorly is in opposition to the proposal. <br /> The Board voted unanimously to take the Variances under advisement until <br /> February 9, 2000 in order to conduct research on other contiguously owned lots in the <br /> `Y � Y <br /> area. <br /> At the February 9, 2000 Public Hearings, Mr. Govoni read a letter from Attorney <br /> Hazel on behalf of MaryJane Doorly, an abutter in opposition to the proposal. Attorney <br /> Hazel's correspondence acknowledged that the petitioner has held the subject lots in <br /> r <br /> common ownership. The Zoning By-laws land space requirements were amended in <br /> 1989 and Section 6 does not provide relief for the petitioner. Attorney Hazel further <br /> stated in his letter that"establishing each one of the three requirements under the statute <br /> is a very difficult task and few variances stand up-when challenged in court... Both <br /> parties will be put to unnecessary legal expense in litigation fees if improper relief is <br /> granted". <br /> 0 <br /> 40 <br /> GENERAL FINDINGS <br /> ' 1. that the subject lot is located at 121 Summer Sea Road and consists of 8,531 <br /> square 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 /> 1. that a literal enforcement of the By-laws would not involve hardship to the <br /> petitioner. <br /> 2. that granting relief would derogate from the intent or purpose of the By-laws. <br /> 3. that the shape and topography do not affect the subject lot. <br /> f ~} In view of the foregoing,the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the <br /> t <br /> applicant did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion <br /> ! duly made and seconded,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on February <br /> 9, 2000 to deny without prejudice the request for a Variance. <br /> �r <br />