" Chartrand v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 347 Mass. 470, 473. Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 175. Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 273.

Wayland v. Lee, 325 Mass. 637, 643. Consistent with this view we have approved the installation of heat and electricity in a nonconforming structure ( Morin v. Board of Appeals of Leominster, 352 Mass. 620, 622) and interior remodeling, including the enclosure of porches ( Paul v. Selectmen of Scituate, 301 Mass. 365, 368, 370; Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 177-178). Although each circumstance must be assessed on its facts, and particularly in relation to the applicable by-law, interior changes not amounting to reconstruction or structural change (G.L.c. 40A, § 5) generally may be made in a nonconforming building.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1371 (3d ed. 1992). SeeCrawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 179-181 (1969). The zoning by-law itself distinguishes between "piers" and "boat launching ramps."

There is no evidence in the record that the addition of the individual sets of stairs extended the use of the facility as a hotel. Compare Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 248 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1969) (holding enclosure of small ten-foot-by-two-foot landing-porch area to repair rotting wood did not enlarge the nonconforming use), with Grundlehner v. Dangler, 29 N.J. 256, 148 A.2d 806, 808, 810-11 (1959) (holding addition of 260-square foot area to create an office, elevator, stairway, and smoking room was an enlargement of a nonconforming use that could not be viewed as insubstantial). Second, it is also clear from the record that the board was justified in its conclusion that the decking, stairs, and courtyards did not change the use of the land or the use of the structure from that of a hotel.

See Lovequist v. Conservation Comm'n of Dennis, supra; Golden v. Selectmen of Falmouth, supra. Cf. Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 180 (1969) ("No special rights accrue . . . because the pier was constructed under a license granted by the Commonwealth's Department of Public Works. The license was 'subject to all applicable Federal, State, County, and Municipal laws, ordinances and regulations'").

Such minor changes do not remove the signs from the protection of G.L.c. 40A, § 6. See Derby Ref. Co., supra (changes to liquid storage facility, including changing the product stored, installing a heating system to heat storage tanks and pipes, insulating the exteriors of the tanks and adding scales to truck loading docks); Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 176-178 (1969) (enclosing outside porch and removing external stairs; decided under prior G.L.c. 40A, § 5). Third, the changes do not constitute an "alteration of a structure . . . to provide for its use for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent."

No inquiry was made as to whether these changes were sufficient to take the premises outside of the protection granted by § 6 to a nonconforming structure. See Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 176-178 (1969) (enclosing outside porch was minor alteration that could be made as of right to nonconforming structure; decided under prior G.L.c. 40A, § 5). Section 6 also allows changes, extensions, and structural alterations to a prior nonconforming structure or use in certain defined circumstances with the approval of local zoning officials.

Since the action is of equitable origin, all issues of law and discretion are open for our consideration, and we may decide the case on our own judgment. Crawford v. Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 175 (1969). See Hanrihan v. Hanrihan, 342 Mass. 559, 564 (1961); Muir v. Leominster, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 587, 588 (1974).

See Jasper v. Michael A. Dolan, Inc. 355 Mass. 17, 24 (long standing use, protected by a specified statutory saving clause, St. 1965, c. 629, § 2, of premises for the sale of wine and beer under a renewed license allowed to continue; alteration of premises for use under an all-alcoholic beverages license enjoined as a nuisance). Cf. Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 180 (State license issued subject to "[m]unicipal laws"). Cases in other jurisdictions allowing amortization or other partial protection of a billboard company's interest in an existing billboard, or continuance of its use as nonconforming, arise under statutes specifically providing such protection.

The judge's order is supported by his findings and rulings and must be affirmed. See Goldston v. Randolph, 293 Mass. 253, 255; Crawford v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 175. Order affirmed.