Laserfiche WebLink
`.down o Mashpee <br /> r ,tip <br /> " MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> ' 16 great J�eck load JVorth <br /> Decision for a Variance Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> RE: Pauline A. Hicks V-00-41 26 Hicks Way <br /> Map 44 Block 54 <br /> A Petition was filed on January 10, 2000 by Pauline A. Hicks of Mashpee, it <br /> Massachusetts for a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for <br /> permission to vary the lot space requirements on property located in an R-3 zoning <br /> district at 26 Hicks Way(Map 44 Block 54)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, <br /> I , <br /> a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Mashpee, on February 4 and <br /> February 11, 2000, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. !' <br /> I, <br /> A Public Hearing was held on the Petition at the Mashpee Town Hall on I� <br /> Wednesday, February 23, 2000, at which time the following members of the Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals were present and acting throughout: Edward M. Govoni, Zella E. <br /> i <br /> Elizenberry and Frederick R. Borgeson. <br /> The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals issues this Decision pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 10 and the Town of <br /> Mashpee Zoning By-laws. <br /> I <br /> Mrs. Pauline A. Hicks represented her application and was accompanied by I' <br /> several family members. Mrs. Hicks said that she became owner of several lots on Hicks <br /> " I ' <br /> Way after her mother died. <br /> Mr. Govoni informed Mrs.s Hicks that an app P <br /> applicant must develop a subdivision <br /> f <br /> ,I <br /> within <br /> Y g <br /> ears of Planning Board's s app g Appeals <br /> a d royal. He said that the Zoning Board of A eals <br /> does not have the authority to act on the petitions until Mrs. Hicks goes back to the <br /> Planning Board for subdivision approval and for approval to have the road paved. <br /> In view of the foregoing, the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals found that the <br /> I' <br /> applicant did not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a Variance. Upon motion li <br /> duly made and seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on February Ii I <br /> 23,2000 to deny without prejudice the petition for the above-referenced Variance. <br />