Court Opinion

ID: 9518926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:05:09.531295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:00.309832
License: Public Domain

*354Cuttee, J.
(concurring). I concur but wish to emphasize that the plaintiffs have not established on this record that the amended by-law wholly precludes Sorenti from all residential or other reasonable use of lot 3. The record shows that Sorenti, when he conveyed away lot 2, granted an easement over the 9.9 foot strip which was part of lot 3 and reserved an easement over the 9.9 foot strip of lot 2, in each case for road or street purposes. Whether some appropriate use or development of the land in the light of these easements could affect Sorenti’s position under the amended by-law does not appear. Accordingly, there is no occasion to consider the plaintiffs’ contention that the case is governed by decisions such as Gem Properties, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 341 Mass. 99,104-106.