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
based on the facts in the record,giving no evidentiary weight to the zoning board's findings. Roberts <br /> v. Sw. Bell Mobile Svs.. Inc., 429 Mass. 478, 485-86 (1999). Case law provides that a court should <br /> not set aside a zoning board's decision unless the decision was"based on a legally untenable ground, <br /> or is unreasonable,whimsical, capricious or arbitrary." MaeGibbon v. Bd. of Appeals of Duxburv, <br /> 356 Mass.635,639(1970).The court is deferential to the zoning board of appeals'determination and <br /> the court must determine that"no rational view of the facts the court has found supports the[zoning <br /> board of appeals'] conclusion..." in order to overturn the decision of a zoning board of appeals. <br /> Britton v.Zoning,Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 68, 74-5 (2003). <br /> The ZBA made a written finding that the New House met the criteria set forth under Section <br /> 174-17 of the By-Law,supra,based on material presented during a public hearing on the Application. <br /> The Trustee Property is already non-conforming in lot size and frontage, and the Original <br /> House,including the pool,raised patio and sheds,was non-conforming as to lot coverage and setback <br /> from a wetland. Plaintiff argues that the New House will be substantially more detrimental to the <br /> neighborhood than the Original House because it is a bigger house. Plaintiff admits that the New <br /> House, even with the pool and pool house, will reduce the lot coverage percentage. Additionally, <br /> Plaintiff admits that the wetland setback non-conformity will be reduced as it relates to the pool. <br /> Plaintiff also admits that the New House will conform with the building height requirement,and front <br /> and side yard setback requirements under the By-Law. Moreover, Plaintiff agrees that adequate <br /> parking exists based on the Trustees' proposal. <br /> Plaintiff submitted the Catanzaro Affidavit as evidence of the alleged detriment caused by the <br /> New House. The Catanzaro Affidavit contains concerns about the size of the New House and the <br /> proximity of the New House to the Plaintiff Property, focusing specifically on the alleged detriment <br /> that the New House's size and location will have on the Plaintiff Property.The Catanzaro Affidavit <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.