Mauri, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Newton, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-033-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑359 Appeals Court MAUREEN M. MAURI & another[1] vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NEWTON & others.[2] No. 12‑P‑359. Suffolk. December 5, 2012. ‑ February 22, 2013. Present: Cypher, Brown, & Cohen, JJ. Real Property, Merger. Zoning, Person aggrieved, Lot size, Nonconforming use or structure. Practice, Civil, Standing. Statute, Construction. Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on January 7, 2010. The case was heard by Harry M. Grossman, J., on motions for summary judgment. Mark W. Corner for Bonnie E. Chansky & others. Hugh V.A. Starkey for the plaintiffs. Jason A. Rosenberg, G. Michael Pierce, & Terrence P. Morris, pro se, amici curiae, submitted a brief. R. Lisle Baker & Brian Yates, pro se, amici curiae, submitted a brief. BROWN, J. Once again, we are asked to address the longstanding rule that considers adjoining undersized lots held in common ownership as one lot for zoning purposes, in the context of a local zoning ordinance that has been interpreted to provide protection against such merger. A judge in the Land Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff abutters, Maureen and Ronald Mauri, and revoked a building permit issued by the city of Newton (city) inspectional services department for a residential lot owned by the defendants, Bonnie and James Chansky. On appeal, the Chanskys contend that (1) the Mauris lack standing and (2) the judge erred in concluding that the two adjoining lots owned by the Chanskys had merged for purposes of zoning and thus do not qualify for an exemption contained in the local zoning ordinance. We affirm the judgment. The background facts were stipulated by the parties. Three abutting lots on Bradford Road in the city were created by a plan dated July 9, 1890. Lots forty and thirty-nine, now owned by the Chanskys, abut one another and lot thirty-eight, owned by the Mauris, abuts lot thirty-nine. Each of the three lots contains 8,400 square feet and sixty feet of frontage. Lots forty and thirty-nine have been held in common ownership since 1916. Since at least 1917, a single-family home has been located on lot forty (the house lot) and a garage, servicing the single-family home, has been located on lot thirty-nine (the garage lot). There were no minimum frontage or lot size requirements in […]