Photo of Richard Gallogly

Rich Gallogly’s practice focuses on zoning and real estate development, from site acquisition to permitting, financing and development on behalf of clients throughout Massachusetts. For over 28 years, he has advised clients on all aspects of land use law, including zoning, subdivision, wetlands, historic preservation and environmental impact review and regulatory compliance.

In an “unpublished” decision in the case of Carney v. Town of Framingham (pdf) (further appellate review denied), a panel of the Appeals Court ruled that the statutory 60-day period for filing a certiorari appeal starts on the date the administrative agency takes its “last administrative action” – in this case a vote – not when the agency later reduces its decision to

In Solans v. McMenimen (pdf), the Appeals Court reversed a lower court decision and ruled that an attachment against a person’s “right, title and interest” in real estate attaches all property then owned by that person, including property owned under an unrecorded deed.  More significantly, the court ruled that such an attachment takes priority over a prior, unrecorded mortgage.

In this case

In 2007, when the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Rourke v. Rothman (pdf), it seemed clear that the court was endorsing the principle that a local bylaw exemption from the effects of the common law zoning merger doctrine could itself give rise to grandfathering protection under M.G.L. c. 40A, sec. 6 (pdf) (Section 6).  A recent Appeals Court decision, Kimmett v. Town of Tolland

Believing that excessive off-street parking has a negative impact on the character of residential neighborhoods, the Town of Barnstable adopted a general bylaw that limits the number of vehicles that can be parked overnight in residential districts.  A disgruntled resident filed suit, alleging that the town was attempting to impose a zoning regulation without complying with the procedures in M.G. L. c.

In the typical definitive subdivision plan scenario, if a plan requires waivers from the planning board’s rules and regulations, the developer goes before the board on bended knee, fearful the board will either deny the plan outright or – as often happens – impose onerous conditions in exchange for granting the necessary waivers.  In Collings v. Planning Board of Stow (pdf), the Appeals Court

In Town of Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Department, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD).  MHD sought dismissal of the Town of Boxford’s complaint claiming a right to regulate a salt storage facility operated by MHD.  In remanding the matter for trial, the SJC

In Rosenfeld v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Mendon (pdf), the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered the plaintiff abutters’ challenge to the defendant zoning board’s issuance of a special permit authorizing the construction of an equestrian facility on a 46-acre parcel in a residential zone.  As proposed, the facility would feature stables, an indoor training arena, a trainer’s