Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 1, 20071 Volume 1 1 No. 11 <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed in part, reversed in part. <br /> <br />The court noted that the board had the authority to impose condi- <br />tions on permits, stating that "the use of site plan approval as a <br />permissible regulatory tool for controlling the aesthetics and envi- <br />ronmental impacts on land use" had been long recognized. To that <br />end, it was within the board's discretion to impose reasonable con- <br />ditions under the bylaw, "even if the conditions [were] objected to <br />'by the owner or [were] the cause of added expense to the owner," <br />At issue, then, was whether the conditions placed on Muldoon's <br />permit were reasonable. <br />The board had found that the brick faqade Muldoon wanted to <br />construct was "not in harmony with the prevailing character and <br />scale" of the other buildings in the neighborhood, Muldoon argued <br />that there was a municipal building directly across from her lot that <br />was constructed entirely of brick, but the court found that a single <br />building did not define the "character and scale" of the neighborhood. <br />The court found the first condition reasonable. <br />With regard to the setback condition, the board had stated that it <br />was imposed to "improve[e] light, air, and circulation and separation <br />between buildings." However, the court found that the usual setback <br />requirement for homes in the neighborhood was only eight feet, In <br />addition, the board admitted that the plan, as proposed originally, <br />met all dimensional requirements. The imposition of an additional <br />22 feet of setback was not reasonable; the court noted that "[a]ny <br />zoning ordinance or by-law which divide[d] cities and towns into <br />districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of <br />structures or uses permitted." <br />The . board argued that strict adherence to the eight-foot setback <br />would "needlessly obliterat[e] a major portion of [the] neighbor's <br />view." Nonetheless, where dimensional requirements were set out in <br />a bylaw, the board could not then require a setback that was greater <br />than the established distance, The court overturned the setback condi- <br />tion, and the case was returned to the board with an order to delete <br />this requirement from Muldoon's permit. <br /> <br />See also: Y. D. Dugout, Inc. v, Board of Appeals of Canton, 357 Mass. <br />25,255 N.E.2d 732 (1970). <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />91 <br />