My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/10/1992 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
>
05/10/1992 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2023 2:24:31 PM
Creation date
3/15/2022 10:37:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Decision
Meeting Date
05/10/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br /> .. TOi1NQr <br /> y l'1DEIJIt of c IISh�JPP <br /> 5• <br /> t�ARLE Co' P. 0• BOX 1106 <br />' MASHPEE. MA 02649 <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION <br /> FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT <br /> RE: Marcia D. Johnson for a Special Permit SP-92-44 <br /> A Petition was filed by Marcia D. Johnson of Mashpee, Massachusetts <br /> for a Special Permit under Section 174-25.I.5 of the Zoning By-laws <br /> for permission to operate a real estate business as a home occupation <br /> in an R-5 zoning district on property located at 85 Timberlane Drive <br /> (Map 22, Block 24) 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 May 22 and May 29, 1992, a copy of which is attached hereto and <br /> made a part hereof. <br /> A public hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town <br /> Hall on Wednesday, June 10, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the following <br /> members of the Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: <br /> John J. Friel, Michael A. Makunas and Edward M. Govoni. <br /> Ms. Johnson represented her Petition and explained that her <br /> current real estate office affiliation was changing and she was <br /> required to set up another office. No comments were received from <br /> abutters. <br /> The Board of Appeals determined that the use was not in harmony <br /> with the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-laws and did <br /> not comply with the provisions set forth therein. The Board found that <br /> such use would be a commercial activity in a residential zoning district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.