Posts tagged "Medas"

E & J Properties, LLC v. Medas, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-050-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11249   E & J PROPERTIES, LLC  vs.  LISA A. MEDAS, trustee,[1] & others.[2]       March 19, 2013.     Zoning, Variance, Lapse of variance, Conditions.  Time.       The plaintiff, E & J Properties, LLC, commenced this action in the Land Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, challenging the decision of the zoning board of appeals of Fall River (board) that reversed an order issued by the Fall River building inspector.  The building inspector’s order had required the trustee of the C.B.L. Realty Trust (trust) to cease and desist from violating a city ordinance with respect to its execution of a variance previously granted to the trust for certain real property owned by it.  After trial, a judge in the Land Court affirmed the board’s decision.  The plaintiff appealed.  In an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28, the Appeals Court reversed, E & J Props., LLC v. C.B.L. Realty Trust, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2012), and we then granted the defendants’ applications for further appellate review.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the Land Court.     Facts.  In 2005, the trust applied to the board for a variance “[t]o demolish existing structures and to subdivide [the subject property] into twenty . . . buildable lots for use as sites for single-family residences.”  With its application, the trust submitted a plan indicating that an existing structure, referred to in this litigation as the Global Glass Building, was to be demolished.  After consideration, the board issued a variance; in its written decision the board stated that the variance included “permission to demolish the existing structures and divide property into twenty lots and construct a single family dwelling on each lot.”  The written decision further provided that the “[r]ights [a]uthorized by this [d]ecision shall be exercised within one year of the grant.”  Within one year of the board’s variance decision, the Fall River planning board indorsed an “approval not required” plan that showed the property divided into twenty lots, and sixteen of the lots were sold to the plaintiff.  Thereafter, the plaintiff began construction of housing units on some of those lots, and the trust demolished a portion of the Global Glass Building.  The trust retained for itself the four lots shown on the plan that were […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 20, 2013 at 3:44 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,