Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin In the first argument, the claim was that it operated its business in a manner that was protected by the constitution; in the second argu- ment-and the argument upon which it prevailed-the claim focused on the plain language interpretation of the ordinance and whether it ap- plied to its business. Though both were zoning claims, the court noted that "were not so inextricably intertwined" to create a common nucleus of facts. The request for attorneys' fees was therefore denied. See also: Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S. Ct. 3457, 82 L. Ed. 2d 746,1 A.D.D. 168, 18 Ed. Law Rep. 148 (1984). Zoning Decision-Board interprets by-law to allow broad changes to storage permit Neighbor argues by-law unconstitutionally vague Citation: Fordham v. Butera, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 2007 WL 624344 (2007) MASSACHUSETTS (03/0S/07)-Butera and Fordham were neighbor- ing property owners in the town of Weston. The to"wn's by-law al- lowed residents to obtain permits for certain uses. Butera received a permit allowing him to store landscaping and snowplowing equipment related to his business on his property. The relevant part of the by-law stated in part that the "Permit Grant- ing Authority" could issue permits "for the storage of vehicles, materi- als, supplies, and equipment in connection with commercial or business activities principally carried on in the Town." Butera's permit stated that he could store a landscaping trailer on his property, and allowed him to keep one truck and tools in his barn, noting that the equipment had to be kept indoors "at all times." In 2003, Fordham alleged that Butera was storing additional equip- ment and supplies in his yard in violation of the permit. As a result, the building inspector conducted a review of the property, finding that Butera was storing rock, wood chips, bark mulch, and cut wood in violation of the permit. The inspector ordered Butera to remm>:e those things that were not "technically" allowed under the permit. Butera appealed the building inspector's decision to the zoning board of appeals. In addition, Butera asked to amend the permit to include all of the things for which he had been cited. After a hearing, the board approved the amendment to the permit, effectively allowing everything that Butera claimed was needed to run his landscaping business to be stored on his property. Fordham appealed the board's decision to court, challenging the va- lidity of the by-law. The trial court found that the by-law was invalid, because it was overly broad and lacked sufficient standards for grant- 8 46 )