Laserfiche WebLink
55�TU557y�; <br /> Town of Mashpee <br /> N <br /> yy 16 Great Aeck Aoad Xorth <br /> 1�Ary�AULE('U"� I <br /> lash ee, Massachusetts 02649 � <br /> MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS"- p <br /> Decision to Deny Without Prejudice <br /> A Petition for a Variance <br /> RE: NJS Development Company V-02-49 200 Surf Drive <br /> Map 102 Parcel 43 <br /> A Petition was filed on March 11, 2002 by NJS Development Company, Inc. „I <br /> of Mashpee, Massachusetts for a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws <br /> for permission to vary the side setback requirements to allow for construction of a deck <br /> to an existing dwelling on property located in an R-3 zoning district at 200 Surf Drive <br /> (Map 102 Parcel 43) Mashpee, MA. <br /> Notice was duly given to abutters in accordance with Massachusetts General <br /> Laws Chapter 40A. Notice was given by publication in The Mashpee Enterprise, a I j <br /> newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on April 5 and April 12, 2002, <br /> 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, April 24, 2002, at which time the following members of the Zoning Board of I! <br /> Appeals were present and acting throughout: Robert G. Nelson, Frederick R. Borgeson <br /> and Marshall A. Brem. Mr. James E. Regan III stepped down and left the room. <br /> I I� <br /> The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter pter 40A Section 10 and the Town of <br /> Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> Mr. John J. Sullivan of NJS Development Company, Inc. represented the Petition <br /> along with Mrs. O'Brien, the future owner of the subject property. Mrs. O'Brien said <br /> that the proposed deck would provide easier access for her handicapped mother on her <br /> occasional visits to the Town. Mr. Sullivan said that neither the Association nor the <br /> neighbors have expressed opposition to the proposal. <br /> 11 <br /> I <br /> Mr. Brem referred to the required findings outlined in Chapter 40A Section 10, I <br /> which a Petitioner must meet in order to qualify for grant of a Variance. He said that the <br /> Petitioner did not establish those required findings. <br /> In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the <br /> Petitioner did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion j' <br /> duly made and seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on April 24, <br /> 2002 to Deny Without Prejudice the Petition for a Variance, V-02-49. <br /> i <br /> , i <br />