Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />community; and the exclusion of low to moderate income families <br />from neighborhoods. <br /> <br />See also: Bransford v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Edgartown, <br />444 Mass. 852, 832 N.E.2d 639 (2005); Fitzsimonds v. Board <br />of Appeals of Chatham, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 53, 484 N.E.2d 113 <br />(1985); Willard v. Board of Appeals of Orleans, 25 Mass. App. Ct. <br />15,514 N.E.2d 369 (1987). <br /> <br />Case Note: Most of the reasons given by the court for its con- <br />clusion were found in the concurring opinion in another case: <br />Bransford v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Edgartown, 444 Mass. <br />852, 832 N.E.2d 639 (2005). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court suggested that the Own- <br />ers could reconstruct a house on the lot, or modernize the ex- <br />isting house, in keeping with the existing structure's building <br />. footprint and living area. The. court even listed examples of <br />permissible improvements, which it said could not reasonably <br />be found to increase the nonconforming nature of a structure <br />and constitute intensification. The listed examples of permis- <br />sible improvements included: addition of a dormer; addition <br />or enclosure of a porch or sunrooIn; addition of a one-story <br />garage for no more than two motor vehicles; the conversion <br />o.f a one-story garage for one motor vehicle to a one-story ga- <br />rage for two motor vehicles; and the addition of small-scale <br />proportional .storage structures, such as sheds used for gar- <br />dening, lawn or pool equipment. The court further made clear <br />that more substantial improvements or reconstructions would <br />require approval under the second except clause and under the <br />terms of a bylaw, which usually would require a finding as to <br />whether it would cause detriment to the neighborhood. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />164 <br /> <br />:'~ <br />