Keywords: Subdivision Control, Approval not required, Zoning requirements. Zoning, Enforcement, Nonconforming use or structure. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Zoning appeal, Statute of limitations. Limitations, Statute of.
Plaintiffs brought this action under G.L. c. 40A, § 7, in 2014, just shy of 10 years from the landowner’s conveyance of a “lot” shown on a 2001 ANR plan. The Court summarized: “The Goethals [landowners] subdivided a piece of land on which there was a primary house and a guesthouse, separating the two structures and leaving the guesthouse on an undersized lot. We conclude that the ten-year statute of limitations under G. L. c. 40A, § 7 ‑‑ which governs actions to compel the removal of a structure because of alleged zoning violations ‑‑ commenced at the time that the lot containing the primary house was conveyed , rather than at the endorsement of the approval not required (ANR) subdivision plan . The Plaintiff claims to have brought this action in 2014. As the Land Court judge concluded otherwise, we reverse that portion of the judgment and remand for further proceedings, while affirming the judge’s denial of the Brunos’ request for attorney’s fees and costs from the members of the board.” Click here for the full text of the decision.