Laserfiche WebLink
board made subsidiary findings that the defendants ' proposal to <br /> construct a new, five-bedroom dwelling and pool would comply <br /> with the side and front yard setback requirements of the by-law. <br /> Although the proposal would not comply with the wetland setback <br /> requirements, the current nonconforming setback would improve by <br /> two feet and the total lot coverage would be reduced by 1 . 5 <br /> percent . The board concluded that (1) the proposed additions <br /> "will be an improvement to the lot and [are] similar in size and <br /> character to other existing structures in the neighborhood[, ] " <br /> (2) " [t]he proposed reconstructed dwelling will not be <br /> substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming <br /> structure or use to the neighborhood[, ] " (3) the proposed <br /> additions comply with State and town statutes, including the by- <br /> law, and (4) " [t]here is adequate land area to provide <br /> sufficient parking and setbacks [ . ] " A written finding pursuant <br /> to c. 174-17 was granted and filed with the town clerk (the <br /> decision) . <br /> The plaintiff timely appealed to the Land Court pursuant to <br /> G. L. c. 40A, § 17 (§ 17) , for review of the decision, arguing <br /> that the board exceeded its authority and that the decision is <br /> arbitrary and capricious because the board' s findings are not <br /> Special Permits in processing requests for such findings. <br /> For the purposes hereof, compliance with dimensional <br /> requirements shall be determined by the Inspector of <br /> Buildings . " <br /> 3 <br />