This morning the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued an important zoning decision, Connors v. Annino (pdf).  This decision holds that, where an abutter has received "adequate notice" of the issuance of a building permit, he has 30 days in which to appeal, as provided in M.G.L. c. 40A, § 15 (pdf).  The abutter cannot take advantage of the much longer "repose" provision in M.G.L. c. 40A, § 7 (pdf), under which an action challenging any use undertaken or structure built pursuant to a building permit can be brought up to six years after commencement of the alleged zoning violation.  In reaching this conclusion, the SJC endorses the approach that the Appeals Court first took in its 2008 decision in Gallivan v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Wellesley (pdf).   

In footnote 10 of its decision, the SJC notes that, while none of the parties in Connors disputed that the 20 days' notice the plaintiffs had received was adequate, "difficult questions concerning adequacy of notice may arise at the margins — if, for example, an aggrieved party were to receive notice twenty-eight days after a permit's issuance.  Whether notice is adequate is a question of fact that depends on the particular circumstances; we agree with the Appeals Court [in Gallivan] that it is not appropriate to create a bright line rule . . . ."  The court goes on helpfully to observe that "an applicant for a building permit such as Annino might avoid such a dispute by giving notice of the permit's issuance to abutting neighbors."