Home/Massachusetts Appeals Court/Heald v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield

Heald v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield

387 N.E.2d 170, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 387 N.E.2d 170 (Heald v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Heald v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield, 387 N.E.2d 170, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Kass, J.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 40A, § 17 (inserted by St. 1975, c. 808, § 3), from an adverse interpretation by the board of appeals of Greenfield of that town’s zoning by-law. The parties’ dispute revolves around whether, for purposes of application of the zoning by-law, the word "lot” should mean a lot as described in a deed, record plan, or other source of title, or should mean contiguous lots held in common ownership. We agree with the Superior Court judge that the latter interpretation is correct.

[287]*287Anciently, lots easterly of Federal Street (then called Bernardston Road) in Greenfield were arranged in the classic Nineteenth Century grid mode on a plan recorded December 23, 1890. See figure A of the accompanying sketch plan. By 1950, the boundaries of the land which the plaintiffs now own had been altered so that their land appeared as parcels 1,2,3, and 4 in figure B of the sketch. All parties agree that parcels 2 and 4 may be used for commercial purposes. The defendants and the interveners dispute that parcel 3 (cross-hatched) may be so used, even if used in conjunction with parcel 2 (or parcels 2 and 4). What we decide as to parcel 3 governs parcel 1 (diagonal lines). The plaintiffs had applied for a building permit to build a fast food restaurant on parcels 2, 3, and 4. The building inspector refused a permit, the board upheld his refusal, and the Superior Court judge annulled the decision of the board, in effect requiring the issuance of a building permit. From this judgment of the Superior Court the interveners have appealed.

Greenfield first adopted a zoning by-law in 1957. At that time parcels 1, 2, and 3 were held in common ownership, although the deed into the common owners, James and Grace Roberts, described the land conveyed by references to three separate prior deed descriptions. As first enacted, the by-law defined "lot” as "a piece or parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by one main building and its accessory buildings.” The zoning map which accompanied this by-law established a commercial district along Federal Street "for depth of lot but not greater than 400 feet.” In his memorandum of decision and order for judgment (we refer to a substituted memorandum and order filed July 11,1977), the trial judge found that there was commercial use along Federal Street within one half mile in either direction from the locus. At its 1965 annual town meeting, Greenfield adopted various amendments to its zoning by-law, including a revised definition of "lot” which read:

[288]*288 VOwL8zDOMlwxA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burdo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chelmsford
113 N.E.3d 934 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2018)
Siddharth v. Reid
21 Mass. L. Rptr. 715 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2006)
McKenna v. Swartz
21 Mass. L. Rptr. 730 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2006)
Preston v. Board of Appeals
744 N.E.2d 1126 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2001)
Asack v. Board of Appeals
716 N.E.2d 135 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1999)
Seltzer v. Board of Appeals of Orleans
510 N.E.2d 309 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1987)
Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton
439 N.E.2d 308 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Duhaime v. Planning Board
12 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1981)
Robillard v. Town of Hudson Zoning Board of Adjustment
416 A.2d 1379 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 N.E.2d 170, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heald-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-greenfield-massappct-1979.