Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br /> structure could be relocated further from the ocean, without encroach- <br /> ing on the wetland,if not for the proposed addition. <br /> Johnson again appealed. <br /> DECISION:Vacated and matter remanded. <br /> The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine agreed that the Planning Board <br /> erred in its determination. The court found that the Planning Board <br /> misinterpreted and misapplied the SZO. While § 12(C)(2) of the SZO <br /> (which had been applied by the Planning Board)governed relocation of <br /> nonconforming structures, § 12(C)(3) governed replacement of existing <br /> nonconforming structures. Similar to § 12(C)(2), § 12(C)(3) provided <br /> that a nonconforming structure located within a setback may be <br /> reconstructed or replaced if the replacement is "in compliance with the <br /> water setback requirement to the greatest practical extent. Section <br /> 12(C)(3) also provided that"[i]f the total amount of floor area and vol- <br /> ume of the original structure can be relocated or reconstructed beyond <br /> the required setback area, no portion of the reconstructed or relocated <br /> (sic) shall be replaced or constructed at less than the setback require- <br /> ment for a new structure." <br /> Here, Johnson wasn't relocating the dilapidated deckhouse, he was <br /> demolishing it and replacing it with a new structure, plus an addition, <br /> noted the court. Thus, found the court, the Planning Board had applied <br /> the wrong section of the SZO. The court acknowledged that whether or. <br /> not § 12(C)(2) or 12(C)(3) was applied, the Superior Court had been <br /> correct that the Planning Board was required to consider how the origi- <br /> nal structure's footprint could be relocated/replaced before considering <br /> the proposed addition. In any case, the appellate court here found that <br /> the Planning Board's application of the wrong section of the SZO <br /> required the court to remand the case to the Planning Board for <br /> reconsideration of Johnson's application. <br /> Standing—Abutting Property <br /> Owner Challenges Permitted <br /> Development, Arguing it Would <br /> Interfere with. His Easement Right <br /> Developer argues challenger lacked standing <br /> as he could not show injury from <br /> development <br /> Citation:Picard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westminster, 474 Mass. <br /> 570, 52 N.E.3d 151 (2016) <br /> 4 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />