Laserfiche WebLink
W,W,r ry. <br /> s= Town of Mashpee <br /> H 16 Great JVeck Poad JVorth <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Decision for a Variance <br /> RE: Kostas and Ina K. Nenortas - V-96-21 134 Pimlico Pond Road <br /> Map 2 Block 138 <br /> A Petition was filed on February 8, 1996 by Kostas and Ina K. Nenortas of <br /> Dorchester, Massachusetts for a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for <br /> permission to vary the minimum lot size requirements to allow the construction of a single <br /> family house on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 134 Pimlico Pond Road <br /> (Map 2, Block 138) 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 February 23 and March 1, 1996, a copy <br /> of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Notice was repeated to abutters and <br /> legal advertising repeated in The Mashpee Enterprise on April 19 and April 26, 1996. <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, March 13, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the following members of the <br /> Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Edward M. Govoni, Kenneth E. <br /> Marsters and Robert G. Nelson. The Hearing was taken under advisement and reopened <br /> on May 8, 1996. <br /> This Decision is issued by the Mashpee Board of Appeals pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 10 and Section 174-31 <br /> of the Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Attorney John Alger represented the applicants and reviewed plans of several lots <br /> in the area which had been purchased in 1968 and subdivided in 1986. He explained that <br /> the subject vacant lot contains 52,000 square feet and that the zoning has been changed to <br /> require 80,000 square feet. The Board was informed that additional land cannot be <br /> acquired from adjoining lots since they have been developed. Comments were received <br /> from an abutter on the use of land across the street and the basis of hardship in the <br /> application. <br />