12/13/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

i Plaintiff has no objection to the garage for locating Defendant Hatcher's purchased or leased non-business related vehicle. Plaintiff does object to the proposed !� I I height of Defendant Hatcher's garage—said height goes beyond the necessity to protect ii the vehicle described herein. The garage height, as proposed, is eight (8) to ten(10) feet higher than Mr. Hatcher's dwelling. It will contain a loft or similar area above the j. necessitated location for parking. The design form of said disattached building, amounting to more than a garage, is distinctly similar to a garage with second floor for a basic Cape two (2) story dwelling attached to said garage with second floor. This proposed building with the additional eight (8) to ten (10) feet will alter Plaintiff's view of the ocean. Plaintiff accepts the Board of Appeal's decision that a garage, for merely locating j Defendant Hatcher's non-commercial vehicle, may not affect generally the zoning district i in which it is located and may be necessary owing to circumstances relating to the soil I conditions, shape or topography of Defendant Hatcher's land. Plaintiff believes that the proposed second floor to the building affects the zoning district in which it will be located, and is not necessary to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or i topography of Mr. Hatcher's land. Also, Plaintiff does not agree that the second floor of the building is in any way necessary to the protection of the Hatcher vehicle, nor that a literal enforcement of Mashpee ordinances or by-laws create a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to Defendant Hatcher if the building housing a protective site for Mr. Hatcher's non-commercial vehicle does not contain a second floor. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the creation of the second floor does do substantial detriment to the public good in that it changes the identity of the summer vacation neighborhood near and about i I i i