My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/13/1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
02/13/1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2022 1:53:51 PM
Creation date
3/15/2022 11:34:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
" '' ' l'lIIE1JII of C MSh�JPP <br /> �. <br /> lot, <br /> P. O. BOX 1106 <br /> � •�gC�•\'\!5 <br /> MASHPEE. MA 02649 <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION FOR A VARIANCE <br /> RE: Stephen R. and Barbara Ball - V-91-21 <br /> A, Petition was filed by Stephen R. and Barbara Ball for a <br /> Variance under Sections 174-31 and 174-33 of the Zoning By-laws <br /> for permission to vary the lot frontage requirements and the <br /> setback from the wetlands on property located in an R-3 zoning <br /> district at 328 Red Brook Road (Map 109, Block 15) Mashpee, MA. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with <br /> Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by <br /> publication in The Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation <br /> in the Town of Mashpee on January 28 and February 4, 1991, a <br /> copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A public hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town <br /> Hall on Wednesday, February 13, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the <br /> following members of the Board of Appeals were present and acting <br /> throughout: Cheryl A. .Hawver, Michael A. Makunas and William J. <br /> Hanrahan. <br /> -Builder Moe Cassenelli represented the applicant. He reviewed <br /> plans for a residence showing house placement 32' from the wetlands <br /> and explained that this was the only possible location due to the <br /> topography of the lot. Comments were received from the Conservation <br /> Agent stating that Conservation had no objections if building was <br /> done in conformity with Conservation conditions. <br /> The Board found that there were conditions relating to the <br /> topography of the lot which affected the land in question but did <br /> not affect the zoning district generally and that a literal <br /> enforcement of the By-laws would involved substantial hardship. <br /> The Board found that relief could be granted with derogating from the <br /> intent of the By-laws or without detriment to the public good. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.