Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />exception to apply. Therefore, the statement was not admissible, and <br />the parish had not proven that the property was zoned residential. <br />Because of this shortcoming in the parish's case, the appeals court <br />found that the lower court had erred by granting the injunction. De- <br />spite the fact that the appeals court agreed that the evidence supported <br />the fact that Davidson was operating a business from his home, the. <br />parish could not prove that was illegal without first establishing the <br />proper zoning of the property in question. <br />The injunc-Lion was vacated, and the case was returned to the lower <br />court-at which time the parish and Davidson would have an oppor- <br />tunity to present new evidence to support their respective positions. <br /> <br />Conditional Approval-Site plan approved with <br />setback, siding material conditions <br /> <br />Homeowner objects to conditions <br /> <br />Citation: Muldoon v. Stern, 2007 WL 1289665 (Mass. Land Ct, 2007) <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (05(03/07)-Muldoon owned a corner lot in <br />the Shoreline General Residence District of the town of Marblehead. <br />She planned to tear down the existing house on the lot and build a <br />new one-family home with a brick fa~ade. The new house, as pro- <br />posed, complied with all relevant dimensional requirements of the <br />town's bylaw. <br />The bylaw required Muldoon to apply to the planrtingboard for <br />site plan approval for the project. Further, the bylaw gave the board <br />the authority to "determine whether to grant, grant with conditions, <br />or deny" an application. Conditions could be imposed by the board if <br />it found they were "necessary to achieve the purpose" of the bylaw. <br />After a hearing, the board granted a special permit to Muldoon, <br />but it listed two conditions: 1) the siding of the house had to be wood <br />clapboard or shingles and could not be constructed of brick as re- <br />quested; and 2) the location of the building had to be moved back <br />so that the footprint was no less than 30 feet from a shared proper- <br />ty line. Given the change in location, Muldoon had to submit a new <br />plan to the board to ensure the construction complied with all set- <br />back provisions. <br />Muldoon appealed the board's decision to court, challenging the <br />conditions placed on the permit, Muldoon argued that they were ar- <br />bitrary, capricious, and exceeded the board's authority. She asked the <br />court to void the board's decision. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />90 <br />