Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 23 GB district "so long as all zoning requirements [were] met." A November 30, 2001 (the "November Letter ") letter from the CEO acknowledged that the Property was located in the GB dis- trict and that automobile sales were a permitted use in the GB district. The court found these letters were insufficient to give rise to a vested right. To be sufficient to give rise to a vested right, the letters would have had to approve a specific project. They did not. The June Letter did not even address a specific parcel of land. The November Letter simply reiterated (and did not interpret) the UDO, and it did not address a specific proj- ect since it was sent three years before the Dealerships even pro- posed the auto park to the town. Additionally, the letters indi- cated that all zoning requirements would still have to be met. Case Note: The Dealerships had also sued the town for "tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospec- tive economical advantage." The trial court issued summary judg- ment on those claims in favor of the town. The Dealerships ap- pealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the town was not liable for tortious interference because it did not act without justification in amending the zoning ordi- nance. The town had concern that the prior zoning (allowing auto sales) was not appropriate for the location, which was surrounded by residential districts. Also, the town acted within its authority to amend the zoning ordinance and reclassify the Property's zoning. Nonconformity — Developer divides conforming lot, rendering it nonconforming Abutting property owner argues newly created lot is invalid because its creation rendered original lot nonconforming Citation: 81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brook- line, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 233, 2010 WL 4398719 (2010) MASSACHUSETTS (11/09/10) —This case addressed the issue of whether the division of an existing conforming lot— rendering that previously developed lot nonconforming — "infected" the new build- ing lot so as to render it invalid. In other words, may a developer form a new building lot by dividing an existing conforming lot if as a result the latter is rendered nonconforming by such a division? The Background/Facts: In June 2004, 81 Spooner Road, LLC ( "LLC ") acquired property known as 81 Spooner Road. 81 Spooner Road was then comprised of 22,400 feet of land, on which stood a © 2010 Thomson Reuters 9