Posts tagged "MilesMatthias"

Miles-Matthias, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Seekonk, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-010-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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       13‑P‑635                                                                              Appeals Court   PAUL MILES-MATTHIAS & another[1]  vs.  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF SEEKONK & another.[2] No. 13‑P‑635. Bristol.     November 14, 2013.  ‑  February 11, 2014. Present:  Rapoza, C.J., Cypher, & Fecteau, JJ.   Zoning, Timeliness of appeal, Accessory building or use, Board of appeals: decision, By‑law.  Notice, Timeliness.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 16, 2010.   The case was heard by Robert J. Kane, J.     Marc E. Antine for John Dias. Gregory D. Lorincz (John Jacobi, III with him) for the plaintiffs.       FECTEAU, J.  Defendant John Dias appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Paul Miles-Matthias and Linda Coffin, which overturned a zoning board decision that Dias’s proposed common driveway was permissible under the town of Seekonk’s zoning by-law.  Specifically, Dias claims the judge erred in finding (1) that the Superior Court and the zoning board had jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ appeal to the zoning board was timely, (2) that the plaintiffs, as abutters, had the requisite standing to bring the action, and (3) that Seekonk’s zoning by-law prohibits common driveways.  The judge correctly concluded that the plaintiffs, as abutters, have standing to prosecute the appeal.  However, because the plaintiffs’ appeal was untimely and the decision below relied upon misinterpretation of the zoning by-law, we reverse. 1.  Background.  The basic facts found by the judge and which underlie this appeal are not disputed.  The plaintiffs own and reside at premises known as 363 Ledge Road in the town of Seekonk, which they purchased on June 28, 1985.  The plaintiffs and another neighbor share an easement in common over a pathway of land owned partially by the plaintiffs and partially by Dias. This common driveway was in existence before Seekonk adopted its first zoning by-law in 1942.  After the plaintiffs purchased their land, a home was constructed on what is now known as lot 4 and on December 21, 2007, Dias purchased property to the south and east of the plaintiffs, including lot 4 and what are now known as lots 1-3. On March 11, 2008, the Seekonk planning board endorsed  Dias’s plan to divide his land off Ledge Road into six lots as an approval not required plan (ANR plan) pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81P.  Although lots […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 11, 2014 at 5:06 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,