A Portsmouth couple may tear down an old waterfront cottage and build a new house in its place, the state Superior Court confirmed earlier this year.

In a decision filed January 30, the court ruled that it had no grounds to overturn an earlier decision by the state Coastal Resources Management Council allowing the new house to be built in place of the old, despite objections and an appeal by several neighbors.

At issue is a waterfront "camp" on Prospect Lane by the Sakonnet River (roughly east of Town Hall). Built in 1930, the cottage is described in the court record as an "uninhabited (and uninhabitable) three-room cottage dwelling (that) sits on the approximately 11,800 square-foot property."

Michael and Maureen Antonellis purchased the property and, in 2005, applied to the CRMC for permission to tear down the cottage and build a two bedroom house in its place.

The old house sits 55 feet from the nearest coastal feature (coastal bluff and coastal freshwater wetlands), so needed variances to mesh with today's CRMC standards which require a 50-foot buffer and 75-foot setback for new residential development. The applicants submitted an engineer's report describing the 'Advantex" septic system that would be built, and also demonstrated that town water was available.

Neighbors David and Mary Elizabeth MacBain, and Thomas Whittendon and Judy Whittendon objected on several fronts.

They argued that the new house and septic system would be a threat to the environment, that the proposed house would touch an easement through the property, and that the necessary silt fence would actually block that right-of-way. They further contended that an hardship was of the applicants' own creating since they "knowingly purchased this property with all current (coastal) regulations in place."

The court, however, ruled against the appeal on several counts.

Although the new house doesn't meet today's CRMC standards, the lot on which it sits was drawn in 1959 — well before the CRMC was created in 1971.

"Accordingly, although a predecessor ... created what is now a substandard lot, at the time the lot was created it was not in violation of CRMC ... provisions," the court stated.

In addition, the court ruled that the appeal failed to prove several objections, including that the house would have harmful impact on the environment or that the new house would result in "direct loss of property of the objector(s)." Specifically, the court said that the objectors asserted that an underground stream drains directly into the path of the proposed septic system but provided no evidence of this. The objectors also argued that the lot was not a valid substandard lot of record, but the court replied, "that's a zoning board issue."

In its conclusion, the court said it finds no reason to overturn the CRMC's conclusion that, "[n]otwithstanding the arguments of an abutting property owner, the CRMC finds that the existing structure qualifies as a pre-existing dwelling and that the proposed project will re-establish the use of the deteriorated structure and land to residential use ..."