Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 9 <br />ticipation; the court's determination that "[c]ommon sense" made <br />clear that "the legislature did not intend to preclude participation <br />of unseated alternate members in public hearings" since "a public <br />hearing affords an opportunity ... for other members of the com- <br />munity to `register their approval or disapproval' ... [and] to ob- <br />tain any and all information relevant to the inquiring on hand"; <br />and "the fact that an alternate member ... may well be called on <br />to act in the place of a regular member [and thus it would not <br />make sense to] vest in such an alternate the statutory power to <br />decide the substantive matter before the board yet preclude that <br />alternate from asking pertinent questions or otherwise comment- <br />ing during the public hearing." <br />Case Note: Komondy had argued that the term "hear," as it <br />was used in the phrase "hear and decide," constituted active <br />participation in public hearings. The court disagreed, finding <br />the term "hear" merely indicated that the zoning board of ap- <br />peals was the proper forum for certain appeals and matters. In <br />other words, the court found the term "hear" simply expressed <br />the board's power to entertain such matters. <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court likened the participation of <br />an unseated alternate board member to that of an alternate ju- <br />ror. The court said that, similar to the participation of an alter- <br />nate juror in the jury's deliberations, the participation of an un- <br />seated alternate "tarnishes the deliberations of a zoning board <br />of appeals, as it permits one not authorized to vote on the mat- <br />ter before the board to nevertheless pass on the merits thereof." <br />Proceedings —Board Denies Developer's <br />Applications but Fails to Provide Required <br />Statements of Its Reasons <br />Developer argues this failure should result in remand of the <br />applications to the board <br />Citation: Nexum Development Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Framing- <br />ham, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 943 N.E.2d 965 (2011) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (04/18/11)—This case addresses the issue of <br />whether a board's denial must be remanded, under Massachusetts <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />