rejecting argument that “no problem exists because [the plaintiffs’] nonconforming lot will remain exactly the same with the reconstructed residence”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting argument that “no problem exists because [the plaintiffs’] nonconforming lot will remain exactly the same with the reconstructed residence”
- considering whether reconstruction of dimensionally conforming structure on undersized lot increases nonconforming nature so as to remove protections of second “except” clause
- “Creating a distinction in treatment between a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming lot is one that analytically and practically should not be made. The two concepts are intertwined and separating them would permit a landowner to circumvent valid and useful minimum lot area requirements”
- "the ultimate objectives of zoning [are] furthered by the eventual elimination of nonconformities"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
By the Court.
On June 27, 2005, this court affirmed the *853 judgment of the Land Court in these consolidated cases by an equally divided court. Justice Cowin took no part in the decision. Separate opinions of Justice Greaney, with whom Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Spina join, and Justice Cordy, with whom Justices Ireland and Sosman join, appear below.