09/19/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

14. The grant of the Variance also exceeded the authority of the Board and was also f; II I� based upon inadequate legal and factual grounds. Among other things, Taylor does not suffer Ii i any actionable hardship and does not need relief from enforcement of the zoning requirements of L' the By-Laws in her present ownership, use and occupation of the Taylor Property. Rather, i Taylor will purportedly suffer a hardship and will purportedly need relief from the zoning I �,I requirements only after she destroys and removes the existing dwelling, and then undertakes to purposely build a new, non-conforming dwelling on the property. In other words, Taylor's purported basis for the Variance is artificial, self-imposed and contrary to the intent and purpose of the By-Laws. 15. Additionally and independently from the Special Permit or any action Taylor j takes pursuant to the Special Permit, the Board's findings in granting the Variance that"the circumstances relating to the shape and topography affect the subject lot and not.the district in which it is located," and that"a literal enforcement of the By-Laws would involve hardship to the Petitioner," were not supported by the facts and there was no legal basis for granting the Variance. 16. Moreover, Taylor and the Board did not serve proper notice with regard to the I! hearing which preceded the Decision For Special Permit and the Decision For Variance as I � required by G.L. c. 40A, Sections 1, et seq. Among other things, the Board improperly II' i rescheduled the hearing which preceded the issuance of these decisions, and then purportedly voted to establish the new hearing date such vote being at a time and place other than those of the published hearing thereby denying interested parties, including James and Nancy Mitchell ( I Opportunity to be heard in this respect. 4