11/22/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Play 18 04 09:09p p. 14 of the requisite findings in the 2001 decision. The ZBA failed to address circumstances relating to soil conditions or topography that especially affect'locus but"do not affect generally land in the surrounding zoning district.' Furthermore,the 2001 decision was silent as to whether desirable relief could be granted for locus without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Mashpee By-Law. The statement in the 2001 decision that Ellis"met the criteria necessary for the granting of a[v]ariance" is not a legally acceptable substitute for specific findings. The ZBA found hardship to Ellis in that,without zoning relief,locus could not be used for a residence. As discussed in more detail below, Ellis' hardship arises from the fact.that he acquired locus after the expiration ofthe applicable zoning freeze. See Tsaaronis v.Board of Appeals of Wareham,415 Mass. 329,332 (1993); Valcourt,48 Mass. App.Ct. at 130. Accordingly,judgment shall enter for plaintiffs on Count I of the amended complaint. The 2001-decision shall be declared:null and void in-that theZBA acted in excess of its authority in granting the frontage variance without making the statutorily required findings. Under Count II,plaintiffs seek a determination from this court as to the extent to which the Mashpee By-La`v affects the project proposed for locus. Plaintiffs allege that,apart from the issue of the frontage variance,other provisions of the Mashpee By-Laws prohibit the use and construction of the project. Specifically,plaintiffs contend that a buildable lot in a R-5 district must(a) contain a minimum area of 80,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 150 feet and (b) maintain the "Nothing about the shape of locus,however, would have provided the ZBA a valid ground to grant a variance. "[I]nadequate frontage-of a lot does not satisfy the statutory standard for the granting of a variance." Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham,415 Mass. 329, 332 n.3 (1993). Sde also Warren v.-Zoning Bd. of Appeals-of Amherst,,383 Mass. 1, 11.(1981). 13 i