Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 8 new nonconformities lawful; thus, the 1995 variance was necessary to render the new nonconformities lawful. Since Palitz's proposed reconstructed dwelling would have expanded the nonconformities cre- ated by the § 81L division, which were made lawful by the 1995 vari- ance, Palitz was required to obtain a new or amended variance to proceed with her proposed project, concluded the court. "It would be anomalous if a variance, by its nature sparingly granted, functioned as a launching pad for expansion as a nonconforming use," said the court. Palitz argued that even if new nonconformities created by a division of land could deprive a structure of grandfather protection under the Zoning Act, new nonconformities created pursuant to the subdivision control law's existing structures exemption "should be ignored for zon- ing purposes." Looking at the history and purposes of the subdivision control law, the court disagreed. The court found the "notion . . . that a division of land would bestow immunity from zoning compliance simply because it was exempted from planning board oversight" was "abrasive to the independent character of [the distinct and separate regulatory regimes of zoning approval and subdivision rules and regulations]." The court noted that the Zoning Act's grandfather provi- sion failed to incorporate § 81L or § 81P of the subdivision control law. The court thus concluded that "the consequences of an § 81L divi- sion should be confined to the regulatory regime of the subdivision control law"—qualifying a plan for ANR endorsement but not attesting to compliance with zoning regulations. See also: Howland v. Acting Superintendent of Bldgs. and Inspector of Bldgs. of Cambridge, 328 Mass. 155, 102 N.E.2d 423 (1951). See also: Rockwood v. Snow Inn Corp., 409 Mass. 361, 566 N.E.2d 608 (1991). See also: Gifford v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 383 N.E.2d 1123 (1978). © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5