Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin <br />behavior which results in an abandonment or abolition of the individual <br />lot lines." <br />Here, the court found there was sufficient evidence to find that the <br />conduct of the Landrigans and their predecessors in title had resulted in <br />the merger of lots 3 and 4 for at least several decades. <br />See also: Town of Seabrook v. Tra-Sea Corp., 119 N.H. 937, 410 A.2d <br />240 (1979). <br />See also: Robillard v. Town of Hudson Zoning Bd. of Adjustment., 120 <br />N.H. 477, 416A.2d 1379 (1980). <br />Uses —Zoning board denies <br />application for solar farm <br />Applicant argues that zoning bylaw's failure to <br />include solar energy systems as a principle <br />use was an "unreasonable regulation" on <br />such systems in violation of Massachusetts <br />statutory law <br />Citation: Briggs v. ZoningBd. of Appeals ofMarion, 2014 WL 471951 <br />(Mass. Land Ct. 2014) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (02/06/14)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether municipal bylaws that only allowed the use of solar energy <br />systems as accessory uses constituted "unreasonable regulation" of solar <br />energy in violation of Massachusetts statutory law, G.L. c. 40A, § 3. The <br />case further addressed whether a zoning board was required to determine <br />if a solar energy farm was "light manufacturing" under its bylaws. <br />The Background/Facts: Dale and Laura Briggs (the "Briggs") owned <br />a 5.93-acre vacant lot (the "Property") in a residential zoning district in <br />the town of Marion, Massachusetts'(the "Town"). In August 20412, the <br />Briggs filed an application (the "Application") with the Town Building <br />Commissioner for a building permit 'to c.onstruct and install a "solar <br />energy system" on the Property. The proposed solar energy system was <br />to contain 3,520 panels in a fenced area, and met all applicable setback <br />and yard requirements of the Town zoning bylaws (the "Bylaws"). <br />The Building Commissioner denied the Application. The Briggs ap- <br />pealed to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"). The ZBA <br />voted to deny the appeal. Among other things, the ZBA found: (1) solar <br />energy facilities were permitted as accessory uses to residential and <br />nonresidential uses in the Town; (2) solar energy facilities were permit- <br />ted uses within the "limited industrial district" ("LI District"); (3) solar <br />4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />