Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Reversed. The relevant zoning code provided that the "keeping of equines" had to be "in conjunction with the residential use of the lot." Because the easement essentially granted Blankenship the right to l<eep horses on the undeveloped Baccouche lot-which, as noted, had not been devel- oped-the municipal code prohibited the keeping of horses there. The appeals court found the'easement was unenforceable because it would allow a use not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Blankenship argued that this position was a misinterpretation of the zoning code. Because the keeping of horses was generally considered an accessory use, he argued that his was the property-which contained a residence-to which the ordinance applied. Applying the ordinance thusly, the use of the easement would be valid. However, the appeals court disagreed. The code expressly limited the keeping of horses to a residential lot, and Baccouthe's lot contained no such use. In addition, the court found that the code defined an ac- cessory use as "a use which [was] customarily incidental to that of the main building or the main use of the land and which [was] located in the same zone or a less restrictive zone and on the same lot with a main building or use." This language undermined Blankenship's argument that the keeping of horses as use accessory to his lot because there was a requireIJ;lent that the accessory use be on the same lot as the residence. The court noted that while Baccouche's predecessor had agreed to use of a portion of his property for, equine purposes, that did not re- quire such use or create a joint enterprise with the grantee for such' use. Whether the property could be used for the purposes stated in the ease- ment was subject to compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and restrictions. The appeals court reversed the decision of the lower court, invalidat- ing the easement. Special Permit-Island property owners seek special permit to build homes on substandard sized lots Abutting neighbors claim board required to consider environmental impact before approving permits Citation: Mellendick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Edgartown. 69 Mass. App. Ct. 852. 2007 WL 2390796 (2007) ( ') MASSACHUSETTS (08/24/07)-Three lal1downers sought special per-, mits to build single-family residences on three unimproved parcels of;( ) land on Chappaquiddick Island in the town of Edgartown. Each lot \...-/ was slightly more than one acre in size. All three were located in a 'res- 10 84 ) i i 1 \ \ I J I 1 l j I 1 i ~ j \ I 1 1 I I I I I I I