Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 13 The Background/Facts: In 1986, the Town of Blackstone's (the "Town") zoning board of appeals (the "Board") granted a variance to Roland M. Michaud ("Roland"). The variance allowed the re- configuration of three lots —lots 33, 47, and 48—into two build- able lots. The variance was subject to the condition that the aban- doned building on historic lot 48 be removed. The building was not removed. The variance was not recorded. Nevertheless, Ro- land constructed and sold a house on historic lot 47. He also built a two-family home on historic lot 33. He conveyed historic lot 48 to his brother Ernest. Ernest later conveyed that lot to his nephew, Norman W. Michaud ("Norman") —the son of Roland. In 1995, the Town's building inspector issued a permit for con- struction on the original lot 48. Soon after, he rescinded the permit on the ground that the abandoned building had not been removed as required by the 1986 variance. Norman applied to the Board for a special permit, which the Board denied. Eventually, the Superior Court entered final judgment in 2000 (the "2000 Superior Court judgment") that conclusively determined that historic lot 48 was not a buildable lot. Raymond and Marcia Cornell (the "Cornelis") owned land adja- cent to historic lot 48. In the spring of 2005, the Cornells observed that construction of a large structure had begun on historic lot 48. After inquiring, they learned that Norman and Roland had entered an "agreement" with the then -current Town building inspector, Gerald D. Rivet ("Rivet"). Rivet, Norman, and Roland purportedly agreed that "historic lot 48 was eligible for a building permit." Citing the 2000 Superior Court judgment, the Cornells filed a for- mal enforcement request with Rivet. Getting no response, the Cor- nelis then appealed Rivet's nonaction to the Board. The. Board heard the appeal and denied it. The Cornelis then filed an action in Su- perior Court. The judge ruled that the 2000 Superior Court judg- ment conclusively determined that historic lot 48 was not a separate, buildable lot, and that Rivet could not issue the subject permit. The judge ordered Roland to remove any and all structures and restore historic lot 48, as nearly as possible, to its undeveloped state. Roland appealed. Among other things, he argued that "the judge erroneously ordered [him] to restore historic lot 48 to its precon- struction condition without determining whether, in its current state, historic lot 48 could support a permissible use." DECISION: Affirmed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts first held that the "agree- ment" between Norman, Roland, and Rivet was "void ab initio." © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9