Section 7 of Chapter 40A contains a statute of limitations for actions by individuals and municipalities to compel the removal, alteration, or relocation of any structure due to a zoning violation.  In Bruno v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Tisbury, the Appeals Court considered when the statute of limitations commences based on a zoning violation arising from an ANR (Approval Not Required) subdivision of land.

The Goethals owned a large lot with a single family home and guesthouse.  In 2001, the local planning board endorsed the Goethals’ plan to subdivide that lot into two parcels and, for a time, the Goethals retained both Lots.   Their guesthouse was on Lot 1 and a single family home was on Lot 2.  Lot 1 is about 12,000 square feet, whereas zoning requires a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet for a single family home.


Continue Reading

Today the Appeals Court decided Gund v. Planning Board of Cambridge.  That case concerns the former location of the Middlesex Superior Court, an asbestos-filled, anomalous sky-scraper near Lechmere in Cambridge.  The building, which does not comply with zoning, has been sold to a developer.  At issue was whether the court house is a preexisting, nonconforming

Last week the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its much-anticipated decision in Palitz v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Tisbury.  The fact that the high court took this appeal directly from the Land Court (bypassing the Appeals Court) caused some to wonder whether a dramatic change in the law on the relationshipYou have a variance for that? between zoning

In a case of first impression, the Appeals Court recently ruled that a dimensionally conforming structure used for a nonconforming use can’t be considered a nonconforming structure under M.G. L. c. 40A, § 6 (Section 6), first paragraph.  The case is Welch-Philippino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Newburyport (pdf).

Under Section 6, the alteration

In a previous post we discussed Gale v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester (pdf) and the “difficult and infelicitous” language of the first two sentences of M.G.L. c. 40A, § 6 governing nonconforming uses and structures.  In Gale, the Appeals Court upheld the grant of a special permit authorizing the reconstruction of a single-family house

For three years we’ve been following the saga of 81 Spooner Road, the Brookline property at the center of a contentious zoning dispute and, more recently, an arson investigation.  See our original post here, and our follow-ups here, here and here.  Now, a trio of Northeastern University journalism students under the supervision of their professor – former Boston

In a decision that re-affirms its 2001 ruling in Preston v. Board of Appeals of Hull, the Appeals Court last week held that the grandfathered status of a lawful pre-existing nonconforming lot is not perpetual, and can be lost if the lot later comes into common ownership with adjoining land.  In such circumstances, the adjoining lots merge to the extent necessary to

The Brookline house at the center of a zoning controversy that resulted in an important 2010 Appeals Court decision (pdf) on nonconforming uses, “infectious invalidity” and standing, which in another important decision (pdf) was partiallly reversed by the Supreme Judicial Court, has been destroyed by fire.  Our prior posts on the case are here and here.  As reported