Source: https://www.massachusettslandusemonitor.com/author/rgallogly/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:07:14+00:00

Document:
In a decision that brought cheers from thirsty beachgoers, the Appeals Court in Almeida v. Arruda, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 241 (2016) affirmed a lower court finding that the sale of beer and wine at a pre-existing, nonconforming convenience store was neither a substantial change in use nor a detriment to the neighborhood.
In its recent rescript opinion in Pelullo v. Croft, the Appeals Court affirmed a Land Court decision that overturned a building inspector’s interpretation of an undefined term in the Natick Zoning Bylaw. The Appeals Court found that the building inspector’s interpretation was unreasonable and therefore not entitled to deference.
In a case of first impression, the Appeals Court recently ruled that a dimensionally conforming structure used for a nonconforming use can’t be considered a nonconforming structure under M.G. L. c. 40A, § 6 (Section 6), first paragraph. The case is Welch-Philippino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Newburyport (pdf).
Last week the Appeals Court decided Miles-Matthias v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Seekonk (pdf), the latest opinion to address the 30-day window under M.G.L. c. 40A, § 15 for appealing the issuance of a building permit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15