My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/10/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
03/10/1993 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2022 2:20:40 PM
Creation date
3/14/2022 2:19:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�e 1.0"A,� <br /> U Town of iia bPee <br /> .1 '. %• 16 GREAT NECK ROAD NORTH <br /> m •' ��" MASHPEE, MA 02649 <br /> yq�'s��ei`e.CoS�r <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DETERMINATION <br /> RE: James T. and Judith E. Conery for a Special Permit SP-93-17 <br /> A Petition for a Special Permit was filed by James T. and <br /> Judith E. Conery of Mashpee, Massachusetts for permission to expand <br /> a non-conforming dwelling with a house addition in an R-3 zoning <br /> district on property located at 17 Russell Road (Map 120, Block 90) <br /> Mashpee, .MA. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts <br /> General Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The <br /> Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, <br /> on February 19 and February 26, 1993, a copy of which is attached <br /> hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A public hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee <br /> Town Hall on Wednesday, March 10, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. at which time <br /> the following members of the Board of Appeals were present and <br /> acting throughout: John J. Friel, Michael A. Makunas and Cheryl <br /> A. Hawver. <br /> Engineer John Slavinsky represented the applicants and explained <br /> that the owners were planning an addition which would result in lot <br /> coverage of 18. 19. <br /> The Board made the following findings: <br /> 1. the subject lot is a non-conforming lot given existing <br /> zoning requirements <br /> 2. under local zoning and state law, non-conforming lots are <br /> granted certain protection from changes in the Zoning by-laws <br /> 3. the subject lot and house existed prior to the establishment <br /> of the provisions of Section 174-17. The planned addition is within <br /> thetearliest.:zoning requirements on setbacks. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.