Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS 16 Great JVeck load Xorth <br /> Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Decision for a Special Permit <br /> RE: Deer Crossing Associates SP-96-3 681 Falmouth Road <br /> Map 81, Block 23 <br /> A Petition was filed by Deer Crossing Associates on December 15, 1995 for a <br /> Special Permit under Sections 174-17, 174-24C, 174-25.D.1, 174-25.D.2, 174-25.E.1, <br /> 174-25.E.1 and 174-25.H.6 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to expand Building A <br /> with a two-story addition of approximately 2,400 square feet. The proposed addition <br /> would be located between the Deer Crossing Market and Route 28. The property is <br /> located in a C-1 zoning district at 681 Falmouth Road (Map 81, Block 23)Mashpee, MA. <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 December 22, 1995 and December 29, <br /> 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A Public Hearing was scheduled on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, January 10, 1996 and canceled due to a blizzard. The Public Hearing was <br /> held on Wednesday, January 17, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the following members <br /> of the Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Edward M. Govoni, James <br /> E. Regan III 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 6 and Sections 174-17 <br /> and 174-25 of the Town of Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Attorney Robert Mills represented the applicant and presented plans for a two- <br /> story addition to the front of Building A. He explained that the building and the shopping <br /> center had never had a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. He questioned if a <br /> Variance was required for compliance with the setback requirements and the Board stated <br /> that this was not necessary since the building was a pre-existing non-conforming structure. <br /> No comments were received from abutters. <br />