Laserfiche WebLink
ouV�41 <br /> ToWn of Alubpee <br /> -a m <br /> i'. �• 16 GREAT NECK ROAD NORTH <br /> y <br /> MASHPEE, MA 02649 <br /> i <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION <br /> i FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT <br /> 1 RE: Richard W. and Mabel L. Mell for a Special Permit . SP-93-100 <br /> i A Petition was filed by Richard W. and Mabel L. Mell of Mashpee, <br /> 1 Massachusetts for a Special Permit under Section 174-17 of the Zoning <br /> By-laws for permission to construct a garage in an R-3 zoning district <br /> on property located at 90 Bluff Avenue (Map 118, Block 55) Mashpee, MA. <br />� .. Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts <br /> General Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The <br /> Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, <br />(' on November 19;and November 26, 1993, a copy of which is attached <br /> hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town <br /> Hall on Wednesday, December 8, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the <br /> following members of the Board of Appeals were present and acting <br /> throughout: John J. Friel, Michael A. Makunas and Jamie Regan. <br /> Mr. Mell informed the Board that he proposed to construct a <br /> 20' x 22' garage located 1' from the side property line. The Board <br /> questioned how construction could be done without trespassing on <br /> the neighbor's property. <br /> Comments were received from direct abutters opposing the <br /> application. The Board was informed that there are sheds in the <br /> area close to property lines but the proposed garage was substantially <br /> larger. The Building Inspector stated that lot coverage would be <br /> increased from 20. 7% to 26.4%. <br /> The Board of Appeals, after carefully considering all of the facts <br /> and evidence submitted at the hearing, made the following findings: <br /> The Board determined that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions <br /> necessary for the granting of the Special Permit. There was not sufficient <br /> evidence presented to find that the expansion would not be substantially <br /> more detrimental to the neighborhood that the existing nonconforming use. <br /> Upon motion duly made and seconded the Board of Appeals voted <br /> unanimously on December 8, 1993 to deny the Petition without prejudice. <br />