Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

/_..--=----...\ ( i ,. February 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.4 suIt in additional nonconformities. If the reconstruction would not increase the non-conformities, then it would be lawful and permit- ted, the court said. However, if the reconstruction would increase the nonconformities, then it must be submitted to the special per- mit procedure for a determination by the board as to whether it would cause detriment to the neighborhood, the court said. The court said that in determining intensification of the non- . conformity, a structure;s footprint was a factor to consider. The court also said that where an undersized (nonconforming) lot ex- ists, the 'proposed reconstruction may be allowed without special permit only if the proposed new residence does not intensify exist- ing nonconformities. The court concluded that the Reconstruction would intensify the nonconformity of the undersized lot. The court said the fact that the nonconforming undersized lot would remain exactly the same did not. matter because the treatment of a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming lot were intertwined. The court found that the expansion of the home's footprint and living area would, at the very least, tend to reduce the open space previously existing on the lot. It would also, the court found, increase the density of the residential neighborhood. Accordingly, it followed, the court found, that because the Reconstruction would increase nonconformities, it must be submitted to the special permit pro- cedure for a determination by the board as to whether it would cause detriment to the neighborhood. Although that specific ques- tion was not before the court, the Board had determined it would cause detriment to the neighborhood. In its decision, the court also found that a minimum lot area requirement represents a proper exercise of police power that serves many useful purposes. Those purposes the court said in- cluded: avoidance of congestion in the streets; ability to secure safety from fue and other dangers; prevent overcrowding of land; obtain adequate light, air and sunshine; enable a neighborhood to be furnished with public necessities such as water and sewer; .and beautification of the town. The court also noted that many com- munities did not welcome "mansionization," particularly when the structures involved reconstruction on nonconforming lots. " The court held that it was a proper exercise of police power for ! a municipality to attempt to limit the potential adverse effects of "mansionization." The court listed such adverse effects as includ- ing: decreases in the availability of would be "starter homes" in a 11 163