Laserfiche WebLink
14. The direct abutter to the property is the Town of Mashpee, which holds the <br /> property for conservation purposes. <br /> 15. Evidence was presented that there would be no detriment to the public good <br /> or derogation from the purpose and intent of the Bylaw if the variance was granted as <br /> granting the variance would not affect any abutting property owner in an adverse way or <br /> contrary to the purpose of zoning . <br /> 16. Despite the foregoing, Defendants denied the application for variance (see <br /> Exhibit "A") by making reference to a denial issued in 2003 (see Exhibit "E"). <br /> 17. The decision of the Board is vague and fails to specify the reasons for <br /> denying the variance. (See Exhibits "A" and "E".) <br /> 18. The decision exceeds the authority of the Board. <br /> 19. The decision of the Board is arbitrary and capricious as variances have been <br /> granted to others under similar circumstances. <br /> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the decision be annulled. <br /> RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, <br /> Attorney for the Plaintiffs, <br /> Robert F. Mills., Esq. <br /> WYNN & WYNN, P.C. <br /> 300 Barnstable Road <br /> Hyannis, MA 02601 <br /> (508) 775-3665 <br /> BBO #542732 <br /> Date: June 9, 2006 <br /> 3 <br />