Laserfiche WebLink
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".) <br /> 17. The decision of the Board is vague and fails to specify the reasons for <br /> denying the variance. <br /> 18. The decision exceeds the authority of the Board. <br /> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the decision be annulled. <br /> RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, <br /> AttorneMPlaintiffs, <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: November 17, 2002 <br />