1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Minutes - November 30, 1988 Page 3. BOARD OF APPEALS • CHARLES TALANIAN - Requests a Variance under Section 7.4 of the Land Space Requirements for permission to vary the building height in an R-3 zoning district on property located at 29 Ockway Bay Road (Map 100, Lot 55) Mashpee, MA. Members sitting: W. Hanrahan, M. Makunas, C. Hawver Attorney Kevin Kerraine represented this petition. He presented plans of the lot and explained that the hardship is the topography of a difficult lot in a sensitive area. Both the DEQE and the Conservation Commission have issued orders on the location of the dwelling to protect the wetland areas. Mr. Robert Bergman, engineer, and Mr. Peter Vanderbil, builder, were also present. Mr. Bergman explained that the original location of the house would have required paving due to the steepness of the slope. The DEQE recommended that the situation would be improved by raising the house to eliminate the need for paving. The Mashpee Conservation Commission concurred with the DEQE finding. The new location requires a Variance of 4' in the height of the building. Mr. Hanrahan read a letter from an immediate abutter, William R. Haney, objecting to the Variance petition. . Mr. Makunas moved to grant the Variance of 4' in the building height. Mrs. Hawver seconded. All agreed. NOTICE OF APPEAL - James Kerrigan (owner of record: Thomas R. Saunders) hereby appeals the Building Inspector's decision to deny the construction of a single family dwelling on a non -conforming lot in an R-2 zoning district on property located at 30 Lettie Lane (Map 36, Lot 47B) Mashpee, MA. NOTICE OF APPEAL - James Kerrigan (owner of record: Thomas R. Saunders) hereby appeals the Building Inspector's decision to deny the construction of a single family dwelling on a non -conforming lot in a C-2 zoning district on property located at 11 Lettie Lane (Map 36, Lot 47E) Mashpee, MA. Members sitting: W. Hanrahan, C. Hawver,.M. Makunas Attorney John Connolly represented the petitioner. He presented plot plans of both lots and explained that a subdivision plan for the lots was approved in 1970 with the requirement that a turn -around be included at the end of the street. He stated that Lot 2 (30 Lettie Lane) is in a residential zone and reviewed the zoning by-law in which three or less adjoining non -conforming lots are protected. He said Lot 5 (11 Lettie Lane) on the opposite side of the street, is now partially in a commercial zone, although it was originally a residential • lot.