Posts tagged "Picard"

Picard v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Westminster, et al. (Lwyers Weekly No. 10-085-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   SJC-11991   MAURICE PICARD, personal representative,[1]  vs.  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTMINSTER & another.[2] Worcester.     February 9, 2016. – June 17, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Zoning, Person aggrieved.  Practice, Civil, Standing.  Easement.  Real Property, Easement, Beach.  Beach.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 23, 2011.   The case was heard by Robert B. Gordon, J.   After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Thomas M. Bovenzi for 3333, Inc. Peter A. CampoBasso for the plaintiff.     CORDY, J.  Is a claimed injury to a private easement right sufficient to confer standing to challenge a zoning determination made by a zoning board of appeals?  In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that it is not.  Maurice Picard, as the personal representative of his wife’s estate, commenced this action in the Superior Court after the zoning board of appeals of Westminster (zoning board) upheld the building commissioner’s determination that property abutting his, owned by the defendant, 3333, Inc., enjoyed grandfathered status under the Westminster zoning by-law.  After a bench trial, a judge in the Superior Court dismissed Picard’s complaint for lack of standing.  The Appeals Court, in an unpublished decision pursuant to its rule 1:28, reversed the judgment as to standing and concluded that the property in question did not enjoy grandfathered status under the Westminster zoning by-law.  Picard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westminster, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2015).  We granted further appellate review, limited to the standing issue.  We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. Background.  The trial judge found the following facts, which we occasionally supplement with undisputed facts from the record.  See Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Billerica, 454 Mass. 374, 383 (2009) (on appellate review, judge’s factual findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous or unless there is no evidence to support them).  Picard is the owner and occupant of certain property on Laurie Lane in Westminster (town).  Picard’s property is identified as lots 34 and 43 on a plan referred to by the judge as the “Laurie Lane Plan.”  The deed that conveyed the property to Picard’s late spouse also contained within it […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

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