My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/28/1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
08/28/1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2022 2:11:28 PM
Creation date
3/15/2022 11:43:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
�lr,�r <br /> olun of � MSh�JPP <br /> ' e'qt .•�y�'. P. O. BOX 1108 <br /> MASHPEE. MA 02649 <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> DECISION <br /> FOR A VARIANCE <br /> RE: William J. and Mary L. Marsters for a Variance V-91-43 <br /> A Petition was filed by William J. and Mary L. Marsters of <br /> Mashpee, Massachusetts for a Variance from Section 174-31 of the <br /> Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the side line setbacks in <br /> an R-5 zoning district on property located at 100 Lakewood Drive <br /> (Map 28, Block 51) 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 August 9 and August 16, 199.1, a copy of which is attached hereto <br /> and made a part hereof. <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town <br /> Hall on Wednesday, August 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the <br /> following members of the Board of Appeals were present and acting <br /> throughout: William J. Hanrahan, Michael A. Makunas and John J. Friel. <br /> Mr. Marsters represented his application and presented plans <br /> indicating that a sun-room addition had been built in 1989 which <br /> resulted in a 4' setback from the adjoining lot. The plans indicated <br /> that the construction had taken place on a right of way. <br /> The Board requested additional information from the applicant <br /> on the status of the Right of Way, computation of lot coverage and <br /> statement of hardship which was not provided. <br /> The Board of Appeals, after carefully considering all of the <br /> facts and evidence submitted at the hearing, made the following <br /> findings: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.