Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />10 <br />I <br />I ~ <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />September 25,20091 Volume 31 No.18 <br /> <br />Lot Merger-City says parcels merged into <br />single lot for zoning purposes when they came <br />under common ownership <br /> <br />Landowner argues no merger since parcels maintained <br />"separate identities" and ordinance overrode common-law <br />merger doctrine <br /> <br />Citation: Hoffman v. Board of Zoning Appeal of Cambridge, 74 <br />Mass. App. Ct. 804, 910 N.E.2d 965 (2009) <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (08110/09)-Maximiano Gouveia and Narciza <br />Gouveia (the "Gouveias") purchased a parcel of land in 1942 ("Par- <br />cell"). Parcell had a building with four dwelling units. In 1950, the <br />Gouveias purchased a second, adjacent parcel ("Parcel 2") on which <br />they operated an open-air parking lot. When the Gouveias took title <br />to Parcel 2, the two parcels (collectively, the "Parcels") came into <br />common ownership. <br />The uses of the Parcels continued until 2000, when they were sold <br />to Husam Azzam. <br />Aftet purchasing the Parcels, Azzam applied to the city for building <br />permits for the construction of two single-family dwelling units on Par- <br />cel 2. In October 2000, the building permits issued to Azzam. There- <br />after, Azzam built the dwelling units and obtained certificates of occu- <br />pancy for them. <br />In July, 2003, the city's building commissioner (the "Commission- <br />er") rescinded the certificates of occupancy based on his determina- <br />tion that the two Parcels had merged into a single lot for zoning pur- <br />poses. This, the Commissioner said, occurred when the Parcels came <br />into common ownership in 1950. I.f the Parcels were a single lot <br />when the city issued the building permits, the two additional dwell- <br />ing units on Parcel 2 would be in violation of the city ordinance's <br />minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement. <br />Azzam appealed the Commissioner's determination to the city's <br />board of zoning appeal (the "Board"). The Board upheld the Com- <br />missioner's determination. <br />Azzam then appealed (the "enforcement appeal") to theSupe- <br />rior Court. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed; vacated; remanded. <br /> <br />The Appeals Court of Massachusetts explained that under the <br />common-law merger doctrine, when adjacent nonconforming lots <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />77 <br />