Laserfiche WebLink
The plaintiff argues that the judge erred in affirming the <br /> board's decision because the evidence does not support a <br /> conclusion (1) that the defendants' proposed home would not be <br /> substantially more detrimental than the existing structure, and <br /> (2) that it would be similar in size and character to others in <br /> the neighborhood. This contention lacks merit. The plaintiff' s <br /> affidavit does nothing to rebut evidence, proffered by the <br /> defendants and relied upon by the board, that, unlike the <br /> existing structure, the new structure "will be able to take <br /> winds well over 100 mph without lifting off the foundation or <br /> having the roof break apart and be hurled around the site or on <br /> neighboring properties" during a hurricane. The plaintiff does <br /> not challenge the defendants ' evidence that the proposed <br /> construction "will meet the new fire codes" and be "much safer <br /> for its occupants and the abutting residences [, ] " that it "will <br /> provide greater separation between the pool patio and coastal <br /> bank . . . provid[ing] an improvement over the existing <br /> conditions" with respect to wetlands, and that it will <br /> "eliminate" the danger presented by the existing septic system, <br /> which "relies on pumps and, in the event of a power loss, could <br /> have presented a health hazard. " He offered no "facts which <br /> would establish the existence of a genuine issue" regarding the <br /> conclusion of the defendants' expert, Pederson v. Time, Inc. , <br /> 404 Mass. 14, 17 (1989) , that, " [a] s proposed, the site plan <br /> 5 <br />