Laserfiche WebLink
P .03 <br /> Oct-25-00 11 : 09A , , 1 <br /> t� <br /> Tolman o Mashpee <br /> N <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS If (;recu Xeck Pr)ad,IVorth <br /> �w H Masl�tpee, Matisachttsetts 02G.49 AOL <br /> PETITION FOR A VARIANCE <br /> Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 10 <br /> and Mashpee Zoning By-laws <br /> To: Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Date: December 19 , 2003 <br /> The undersigned Petitions the Mashpee: Zoning Board of Appeals to vary, in the manner <br /> and for the reasons hereinafter set forth, the application of the provisions'of the Zoning By-laws <br /> to the following described premises: <br /> Applicant: Robert L. Bateman, III 14 Jessica Way, E. Falmouth, MA 02536 <br /> (Full name) (Address) (Telephone #) <br /> Property Owner: Robert L. Bateman, III 14 Jessica Way, E. Falmouth, MA 02536 <br /> (Full name) (Address) (Telephone 4) <br /> Location of Property; 55 Pequot Avenue T <br /> P Y� <br /> (House Number and Name of Street) (Subdivision Name) <br /> Assessor's Map/Block Number: Map 9: T 72 Block 9: ^ 68B. <br /> Dimensions of Lot: 150' 110 Area _ <br /> (Frontage) (Depth) (Square FeelyCP <br /> -_ <br /> Zoning District in which premises are located: R-3 <br /> 6 '! <br /> What is current use of the property? __Vacant land s - <br /> p � <br /> How long have you owned premises'. 2 & 1/2 year_ " <br /> How many buildings are now on the lot? n/a <br /> Give size of existing buildings: n/a Proposed buildings <br /> State proposed use of premises: Single family residence <br /> What section(s) of the Zoning By-laws do you ask to be varied? Section 174-31 <br /> State reasons for Variance: Applicant acquired several non-conforming lots which <br /> have been combined to create a large non-conforming lot which happened to be <br /> Have you submitted plans for above to the Building Department? <br /> Has permit been refused? <br /> Hearing Date set for: <br /> licant s Si ature M( pp gn ) Kevin Kirrane, Esquire <br /> ( separately owned until he acquired it. He assumed that because it was buildable <br /> when he acquired it, that it would continue to be buildable. However , due to the <br /> fact that he had previously acquired another adjacent non-conforming lot, the <br /> Building Inspector has informed him that he has lost the protected status. <br />