Keywords:   Zoning, Nonconforming use or structure, By-law, Judicial review, Appeal. Statute, Construction

In yet another case the Appeals Courts again revisits the “infelicitous” and “impenetrably dense” text of G.L. c. 40A, Sec. 6, dealing with nonconforming uses and structures.  In this case, the Leonards had operated a florist shop in the Town of Hanover for some time.  The florist shop has displayed and sold flowers, pumpkins, and other seasonal plant products from inside and outside of a building in the town’s commercial zoning district.  The building commissioner told the Leonards that outdoor display of goods requires a special permit. A concrete barrier had been constructed along their property to separate it from an abutting restaurant property.  Assorted enforcement actions led to this appeal. On cross motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court judge declared that the Leonards’ outdoor displays were not lawful prior nonconforming uses and therefore required a special permit, thereby upholding the town’s cease and desist orders.  But the judge also found that the placement of concrete barriers was not an “alteration” of the property and did not require a special permit or site plan approval under the town’s zoning bylaw, reversing the cease and desist order relating thereto.  The Appeals Court today vacated in part and reversed in part.  Click here for the full text of the Appeals Court’s decision.

Leave a Comment