Laserfiche WebLink
<br />August 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No. 16 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The Appeals Court of Massachusetts also affirmed the Board's deci- <br />sion. It found that Martinosis's new house was "rebuilt in substantially <br />, the form" of the old house. <br />m reaching its conclusion, the court construed the "in substantially <br />the form" language of the Ordinance. It gave: the words "their usu- <br />al and accepted meanings;" and "some measure of deference" to the <br />Board's interpretation:. The coUrt found that the Ordinance's phrase "re- <br />built in substantially the form as it was at the time of the destruction or <br />damage" meant: "to build again with an outer shape or structure resem- <br />bling toa considerable degree or extent the outer shape or structure at <br />the time of destruction." Under the Board's interpretation of the Ordi- <br />nance, found the court, a new house could have: "a somewhat different <br />architectural style from that of a destroyed home and still have substan- <br />ti;3.lly the form of the destroyed home, as long as the homes share[d] sim- <br />ilar footprints and the new home [wa]s more conforming than the old <br />home," The court found that the Board's interpretation of the Ordinance <br />did not conflict with its interpretation. The Ordinance required: "a de- <br />gree of reseniblance between the outer shape and structures of [Martino- <br />sis's] two homes." <br />The court cautioned, however, that it would be "unwise" to apply <br />that requirement restrictively because "[e]xcessive strictness in the recon- <br />struction of [an old home] after a catastrophe would reflect the triumph <br />of sentimentality over practicality." The court concluded that the "flex- <br />ibility" wit:hiP. the language of the Ordinance allowed for "the practical <br />accommodation of reconstructive variations from a residential structure <br />of a prior century." The court concluded that the new home was per- <br />mitted as of right under the Ordinance beca'use it: was more conforming <br />than the old home and had "nearly the, same': footprint as the old home. <br /> <br />See also: Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chathant, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 754 <br />N.E.2d 101 (2001). <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />58' <br /> <br />n <br /> <br />(~). <br /> <br />) <br />.--/ <br />