Laserfiche WebLink
V! <br /> E <br /> aton of Mas4pre <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> �s�` - "���'• P. O. BOX 1108 <br /> kti ne�E cod MASHPEE. MA 02649 <br /> DECISION <br /> FOR A VARIANCE <br /> Re: Petition of Charles Talanian for a Variance <br /> Case: V-88-10-105 <br /> A Petition was filed by Charles Talanian of Boston, Massachusetts <br /> under Section 7.4 of the Land Space Requirements for permission to vary the <br /> building height in an R-3 zoning district on property located at 29 Ockway <br /> Bay Road (Map 100, Lot 55) Mashpee, Massachusetts. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts <br /> General Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in the Falmouth <br /> Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on <br /> November 16 and November 25, 1988, a copy of which is attached hereto and <br /> made a part hereof. <br /> A public hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, November 30, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at which time the following members <br /> of the Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: William Hanrahan, <br /> Michael Makunas and Cheryl Hawver. <br /> Attorney Kevin Kerraine represented the Applicant. He presented plans of <br /> the lot showing a 20 foot drop in elevation from the top of the drive to the <br /> Southeasterly side of the dwelling. He explained that both the DEQE and the <br /> Conservation Commission recommended changing the location of the house on the <br /> lot to protect the wetlands area. The new location will result in a total <br /> building height elevation of 59.5 feet. Opposition was received from an abutter. <br /> However, the Board determined that because of the way in which the dwelling is <br /> set down, it would be hardly visible to neighboring houses. <br /> Upon motion duly made and. seconded the Board of Appeals voted unanimously <br /> on November 30, 1988 to grant a Variance of 4 feet in the building height, <br /> requirements.. The Board found that the topography of the lot created a hardship, <br /> and that the Variance request would not derogate from the intent or purpose of <br /> the By-laws and would not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. <br />