My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/12/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
>
03/12/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2023 4:15:57 PM
Creation date
1/19/2022 3:22:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Decision
Meeting Date
03/12/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
that the legal interests of light, air and privacy protected by the By-Late have not been abridged by <br /> the ZBA Decision. <br /> Generally;concerns about the impact that a structure has on views is not sufficient to confer <br /> standing. Martin v. Com. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 <br /> Mass. 141, 146 (2001). Additionally, view protection is not a stated purpose of the By-Law. As a <br /> result, I find that Plaintiffs stated harm of interference of view is not sufficient to confer standing. <br /> Diminution in value is not a protected harm unless the diminution is tied into some other harm <br /> protected by the By-Law.Kenner v. Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Chatham,459 Mass. 115, 123 (2011). <br /> See Standerwick v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals als of Andover,447 Mass.20,31-2(2006);Central St.,LLC <br /> v. Zoning_Bd, of Appeals of Hudson, 69 Mass.App.Ct, 487, 492 (2007). Additionally, "[zoning <br /> legislation] is not designed for the preservation of the economic value of property, except in so far <br /> as that end is served by making the community a safe and healthy place in which to live."Tranfaglia <br /> v. B1dCorn'r of Winchester, 306 Mass.495, 503-04, (1940). Plaintiff has failed to provide direct <br /> facts, .beyond his speculative personal opinion set forth in the Catanzaro Affidavit, that the <br /> construction of the New House, pool and pool house will lead to a diminution in the value of the <br /> Plaintiff Property. Thus, I find that Plaintiff has failed to assert standing on the basis of diminution <br /> in property value. <br /> However, as Plaintiff points out,the New House will have more than three times the.current <br /> living area as the Original House,'which raises issues of density because the New House,including <br /> the pool and pool house,has more l of coverage than the Bylaw allows.If a by-law regulates density <br /> 6 The ZBA Decision stated that the lot coverage of the Original House was roughly 2,000 square feet.The <br /> lot coverage of the New House is approximately 6,000 square feet,as discussed,supra.Both parties agree that the <br /> New House is larger than the Original House. <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.