Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> P. 15 <br /> Mag 19 04 09: 08p <br /> E <br /> frontage requirement throughout the front yard depth unless it falls within the provisions of footnote <br /> t <br /> 1 of the Land Space Requirements Table that appears as § 174-31 of the Mashpee By-Laws. <br /> r Standing under G. L.c. 240, § 14A,differs from that required under G. L. c.40A, <br /> 17, in that "it is sufficient for - plaintiffs to have established that they will suffer an adverse <br /> impact from the legislative zoning action,without establishing,in addition,that their injury is special <br /> and different from the concerns of the rest ofthe community," Van Renselaarv.Sprinafield,58 Mass. <br /> App.Ct. 104, 107(2003). "A landowner may. ._•petition under G.L.c,240,1§ 14A concerning land <br /> other than [her] own in the limited circumstances where the proposed use on that other land has a <br /> direct effect on jhers]. Fitch v Board of AQpeals of Concord, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 748, 753-754 <br /> (2002), This court finds that the unrebutted allegations of harm found to be the basis for plaintiffs' <br /> standing under G.L.c.40A,§ 17,are sufficient to provide standing for plaintiffs as landowners under <br /> G. L. c. 240, § 14A, <br /> As of the time the planning board approved the 1972 plan,the Zoning Enabling Act <br /> provided for a seven year freeze period for the land shown on an approved definitive subdivision plan. <br /> See St. 1965, c. 366,,§ 1, amending G. L. c. 40A, § 7A, first par. Thus,locus had the benefit of a <br /> zoning freeze protection until June 30, 1979. At the time of the zoning freeze protection for the 1972 <br /> wnership with lot 29 and lot 31 at a time when the <br /> plan, Ms. Borenstein held locus in common o . <br /> uare feet and 150 feet of frontage in the district in which locus was <br /> minimum lot size was 40,000 sq <br /> then situated. <br /> Ellis maintains that locus was legally created in 1972 as a lot in a cluster development. <br /> the argument of Ellis appears to be that the zoning freeze for cluster developments is indefinite. <br /> Thus, argb <br /> Ellis has not offered any support for that proposition, and this court has found none. <br /> 14 <br /> • E <br />