Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 4 --iDecember 1995 z,.g. [ The or~inance's accessory use section did not give Zwick the right to vio- l late minirgum yard requirements. The ordinance permitted residents to build tennis cou[rts if o.~her nonconflicting ordinance provisions allowed them. The minimum ~,ard requirements did not conflict with the accessory structure sec- tion. The 3~ard requirements addressed where residents could put structures on their lots, iand the accessory structure section allowed tennis courts in the residentiall district. The yard minimums controlled; Zwick could not violate them to bt~ild a tennis court. Even i~f violation of minimum yard requirements was the only way Zwick could bull{el a tennis court, he was not entitled, to keep it. The city's zoning ordinance permitted tennis courts; it did not guarantee them. Not every lot was bufldable, ~nd if Zwlck wanted a tennis court he would have to find a lot with fewer hilla or larger acreage. Zwick ~. Board of Adjustment of Ladue, 857 S. I~2d 325 (1993). Special P~rmit -- Neighbor Challenges Change From Storage Barn to Home for lMentally Disabled Watrosl v. Greater L),m~ Mental Health and Retardation Association Inc., 653 N.~.2d 589 (Massachusetts) 1995 Greater Lynn Mental Health and Retardation Association Inc. was a pri- vate, nonprofit foundation established to engage in educational and other activi- ties. It war!ted to establish a facility to house and educate up to three mentally disabled adults and their caretakers. The association found property in a single [ residence district of the town of Winchester, Mass. The property had a barn in disrepair tl~at had been used exclusively for storage since 1962. It also had a two-unit d~velling. Both structures were preexisting nonconforming uses. The barn was a~ accessory building. The association leased only the barn from the property's owner and applied for a buil4ing permit and zoning compliance certificate to renovate it. The town's but!ding commissioner refused to issue either, saying the proposed use would violhte the town's zoning bylaws. The association appealed to the town Board of Appeals, and asked for a special permit to renovate and use the barn. The board granted the special permit. Th~ board found that use of the barn to educate the mentally disabled was more ~ppropriate to the neighborhood than using the barn for storage. Th'e board also ~held that the special permit would comply with all other provisions of the towa's bylaws. Watrosf a neighbor, asked a court to review the board's decision. He claimed the associa!ion could not convert the nonconforming storage building to a new dwelling ugit. The association replied that a state statute made use restrictions contained i~ local zoning ordinances and bylaws inapplicable to "land or struc- tures ... [used] for educational purposes on land owned or leased ... by a non- profit educ~ttional corporation." /0?