Laserfiche WebLink
�utieN lown o <br /> Alashpec <br /> ,rr a.eJ,+Qm <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 Great NV ck Pvoad,jVo)rth <br /> iy <br /> iWE Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Decision for a Variance <br /> (Amended Variance for Pool) <br /> RE: Heather Puopolo 53 Tobisset Street <br /> Map 38 Parcel 23 <br /> V-07-58 <br /> A Petition was filed on August 21, 2007 for a Variance from the frontyard setback <br /> requirements from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws in order to amend a previously <br /> issued variance on a swimming pool on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 53 <br /> Tobisset Street(Map 38 Parcel 23) Mashpee, MA. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General <br /> Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, <br /> a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on August 24, 2007 and <br /> August 31, 2007, 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 Hail on <br /> Wednesday, September 12, 2007 and continued until Wednesday,November 28, 2007, at <br /> which time the following members of the Zoning Board of Appeals were present and <br /> acting throughout: Robert Nelson, Zella Elizenberry, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth <br /> and George Bolton. <br /> The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 10 and the Town of <br /> Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Walter Zerosky represents his client Heather Puopolo at this continued hearing. <br /> Chairman Robert Nelson had a discussion with Town Counsel on this matter and upon <br /> further discussion with the Board suggests that they grant the requested amended <br /> variance of 23 feet to rectify a measuring mistake. Mr. Nelson states that the fence and <br /> landscaping the applicant installed shields the pool completely from the street and is not <br /> anymore detrimental to the neighborhood. In addition, the distance to the wetlands has <br /> been reduced as well. Having the applicant remove the pool and destroy all the <br /> landscaping would be extremely costly. The Board feels they can grant the new variance <br />