Posts tagged "1107514"

Deadrick, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-075-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       13‑P‑1264                                  Appeals Court     Sara Deadrick[1], & others[2]  vs.  Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham, & others[3] No. 13‑P‑1264. Suffolk.     April 2, 2014.  ‑  June 25, 2014. Present:  Grasso, Green, & Fecteau, JJ.     Zoning, Nonconforming use or structure, Special permit, Variance, By‑law, Appeal, Board of appeals:  decision.  Practice, Civil, Variance, Zoning appeal.  Statute, Construction.     Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on December 31, 2007.   Following review by this court, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2011), the case was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J., on motions for summary judgment and a motion for reconsideration was heard by him.       Daniel P. Dain for the Robert Jeffrey Chandler & another. Peter S. Farber for the plaintiffs.     FECTEAU, J.  The defendants, Robert Jeffrey Chandler and Jayne Kerry Chandler (collectively the Chandlers), appeal from the entry of summary judgment by a judge of the Land Court that reversed a decision of the Chatham zoning board of appeals (board).  The board had granted the Chandlers a special permit allowing them to reconstruct a pre-existing nonconforming structure on their nonconforming lot.  In reversing the board’s decision, the judge determined that because the proposed new structure’s increased height created a new, additional nonconformity, distinct from the pre-existing dimensional and coverage nonconformities, a variance was required.  We agree with the judge’s decision that a variance would be required if the proposed increase in height constitutes an additional nonconformity not otherwise exempted by the town by-law.  However, we also conclude that the judge erroneously concluded that the board had determined that the Chandlers’ project is ineligible for the exemption from certain height limits created by § IV.A.3 of the Chatham bylaw.  Consequently, we vacate the entry of summary judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings before the board. 1.  Facts.  The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record.  On July 1, 2005, the Chandlers purchased property located at 24 Windmill Lane in Chatham, Massachusetts containing a single-family home (old structure).  The old structure was built in approximately 1929 and is located within a residential R-40 district and in a coastal conservancy district.  The old structure is 19.2 feet high above grade, and contains 2,161 square feet of living space.  The Chandlers’ property is nonconforming as to lot size and building coverage, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 26, 2014 at 12:40 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,