- Our Blog
In a decision that brought cheers from thirsty beachgoers, the Appeals Court in Almeida v. Arruda, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 241 (2016) affirmed a lower court finding that the sale of beer and wine at a pre-existing, nonconforming convenience store was neither a substantial change in use nor a detriment to the neighborhood. Pursuant to G.L.c.
Home > Zoning > No Deference for Unreasonable Interpretation of Zoning Bylaw In its recent rescript opinion in Pelullo v. Croft, the Appeals Court affirmed a Land Court decision that overturned a building inspector’s interpretation of an undefined term in the Natick Zoning Bylaw. The Appeals Court found that the building inspector’s interpretation was unreasonable and t ...
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).
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 that increased existing setback nonconformities.