My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-ZBA APPEALS - BLACKBOOK
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
1986
>
1986-ZBA APPEALS - BLACKBOOK
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2016 7:13:28 PM
Creation date
11/17/2016 3:37:45 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
460
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
TOWN OF MASHPEE <br /> BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> TOWN HALL, MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS 02649 <br /> Pigg �p DECISION <br /> RE: Petition of Levio J. & Anita M. Cibelli for a Variance Case #V-86-02-016 <br /> A petition was filed by Levio J. & Anita M. Cibelli of Mashpee for per- <br /> mission to vary the sideline requirements in a Residential zoning district <br /> on property located on 65 Highland Street, Mashpee, Massachusetts. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General <br /> Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in the Falmouth Enterprise, <br /> a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee on February 12 and <br /> February 19, 1986 a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. <br /> A public hearing was held on the petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on <br /> Wednesday, February 26, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at which time the following members <br /> of the Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: William Hanrahan, <br /> Cheryl Hawver and Peter Lawrence. <br /> Mr. Cibelli explained that the engineer had said that there would be no <br /> problems in moving the house back to protect a holly tree. The house was <br /> moved back and the need for a variance was discovered. <br /> It was noted that Rick Perkins an abutter from lot #64 had no objections <br /> to the variance request. <br /> It was the Board' s feeling that the hardship was not self-imposed. The <br /> Board also established that granting the variance would not be detrimental <br /> to the Town, and would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent <br /> of the ordinance or By-Law. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.