Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee <br /> ib \`try <br /> 3 <br /> 16 Great JVeck 4Zgad JA/orth <br /> w� Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> Decision for a Variance <br /> Re: Donald F. and Ronni P. Baron- V-95-64 22 Driftwood Circle <br /> Map 125 Block 190 <br /> A Petition was filed by Donald F. and Ronni P. Baron of Natick, Massachusetts for <br /> a Variance from Sections 174-31 and 174-47.B.9 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to <br /> vary the setback requirements in an R-3 zoning district on property located at 22 <br /> Driftwood Circle (Map 125, Block 190)Mashpee, Massachusetts. The applicants <br /> propose to construct a swimming pool 15'6" from the rear property line and a cabana 18' <br /> from the rear property line. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws <br /> Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a newspaper <br /> of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on October 20, 1995 and October 27, <br /> 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, November 8, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the following members of the <br /> Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Edward M. Govoni, Kenneth E. <br /> Marsters and Robert G. Nelson. <br /> This Decision is issued by the Mashpee Board of Appeals pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 10 and Sections 174-31 <br /> and 174-47.B.9 of the Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane represented the applicants and informed the Board that <br /> the rear of the lot abuts reserve land and that the proposed plans will not impact the <br /> abutters. He explained that the pool would be used partly for therapeutic purposes and <br /> presented correspondence from Mr. Baron's physician. He reviewed the cluster zoning of <br /> the Little Neck Bay development and explained that the residence has been set back 60' <br /> from the street limiting the use of the remainder of the lot. Mr. Kirrane stated that the <br /> zoning created a hardship in requiring increased rear setback requirements with smaller <br /> lots and that the location of the structure on the land increased the hardship. <br /> G <br /> (Page 1 revised 12/13/95) <br />