Laserfiche WebLink
61. Defendant Mashpee ZBA's decision was in error, was not supported by the facts'or the law, <br /> and was arbitrary and capricious and should be annulled. Defendant Mashpce ZBA should <br /> have found that.the'Special.Perinit should not have issued.' <br /> 62. Plaintiffs presented credible evidence with testimony and documents that the Defendant did <br /> not meet the requirements for a Special Permit under the Raze and Replace Bylaw and did <br /> not apply for all Special Permits. <br /> 63. Defendant Mashpee ZBA made no findings before the hearing was closed or during the <br /> deliberations that the carport was eligible to be considered to be a dwelling or an accessory <br /> building-and that its increased intensity and use creates "no newnonconformities." <br /> 64. Defendant Mashpee ZBA's finding that the"project is not creating a condition that is <br /> substantially more detrimental than exists prior to the removal of the existing structures" <br /> was based upon error and did not take into account the sizes of dwellings and dimensional <br /> conformity of the other dwellings in the neighborhood. <br /> Request for Declaratory Relief <br /> (G.L. e.231A, §1) <br /> 65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the facts and allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 64, <br /> above. <br /> 66. The Defendant ZBA's decision is based upon its interpretation of the Raze and Replace <br /> Bylaw. <br /> 67. The Raze and Replace Bylaw allows the razing and reconstruction of a"dwelling." <br /> 68. "Dwelling"is not a defined term under the Raze and Replace Bylaw. "Dwelling"is defined <br /> as: "Dwelling,Detached-A building designed for or occupied as a residence and separated <br /> from any other building, except accessory buildings,by side yards". <br /> I <br /> 12 <br />