03/12/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision

Home Browse Search

} 14. The evidence presented and/or made available to the Board and existing at the time of the hearing did not support the Board's finding that the proposed additions will be consistent with applicable State and Town statutes, regulations, bylaws and plans, complies with the dimensional requirements applicable to the lot under current provisions of Section 174-31 (Land Space Requirements Table Footnotes) #18 of the Popponesset Overly District, or for lots which have been developed pursuant to Section 164-21, complies with such requirements as were applicable to initial construction of the dwelling under provisions of Section 174-21 Nonconforming lots. 15. The evidence presented and/or made available to the Board and existing at the time of the hearing did not support the Board's finding that the reconstruction of the dwelling will conform to current building code requirements. 16. The evidence presented and/or made available to the Board and existing at the time of the hearing did not support the Board's finding that there is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. 17. The construction of the project as approved in the Decision will adversely impact and cause true and measurable harm to the Plaintiff's property and the use thereof as it allows for the construction of a structure and accessories which will interfere with Plaintiff s,privacy, light, air, view and use of Plaintiff's home and yard. Count I 18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-17 as if expressly rewritten and set forth herein. 19. In granting Defendant Derenzo's request for Written Findings under Article V Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws and M.G.L. Chapter 40A section 6, the Board exceeded its authority and its decision was arbitrary and capricious.