Laserfiche WebLink
November 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 22 Zoning Bulletin <br />ordinance was only available where the aggrieved party does not have ade- <br />quate notice of the building permit's issuance in time to challenge it within <br />30 days. Otherwise, if the aggrieved party does have adequate notice, the <br />party must challenge it within 30 days of the issuance of the permit, in ac- <br />cordance with SS 8 and 15. <br />The court said that to read the statute otherwise allowing an appeal <br />under § 7 after the time for an appeal from the issuance of the building <br />permit under § % 8 and 15 has run would essentially render S 8's 30-day <br />limitation period superfluous. <br />The court found that, in this case, Connors had notice of the issuance <br />of the building permits 20 days before the 30 -day period for bringing an <br />appeal under S5 8 and 15 expired. Since he had such notice, Connors <br />could not pursue an enforcement action under % 7 (absent a zoning or per- <br />mit violation by Annino). <br />See also: Gallivan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wellesley, 71 Mass. App. <br />Ct. 850, 887 N.E.2d 1087 (2008). <br />See also: Fitch u Board of Appeals of Concord, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 748, <br />774 ICI. E. 2 d 1107 (2 002). <br />Case Note: Francis W. Connors also joined Connors in bringing the <br />legal action. . <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court emphasized that an enforcement <br />request under § 7, and a subsequent appeal from a denial of said re- <br />quest under § § 8 and 15, remained a valid procedural path for ag- <br />grieved parties to follow in appropriate circumstances. Such circum- <br />stances, explained the court, included: (1) when an aggrieved party <br />can establish that he or she was without adequate notice of the order <br />or decision being challenged; or (2) where an aggrieved party alleges <br />that an abutter failed to obtain proper building permits, and there- <br />fore seeks an enforcement request to stop the abutter from proceeding <br />with their unauthorized activity. <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations— Zoning Law <br />Prohibits Commercial Wind Farms in County <br />Wind farm proponents argue law is an unconstitutional <br />taking and violates the dormant Commerce Clause <br />Citation: Zimmerman v. Hudson, 2011 WL 5008547 (Kan. 2011) <br />KANSAS (10/21/11) case addressed the issue of whether a zon- <br />ing law that prohibited the placement of commercial wind farms in a <br />4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />