Court Opinion

ID: 9743529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:35:58.935279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:41.801421
License: Public Domain

Tauro, C.J.
(concurring). The judge below has raised the question of “substantial diminution” in value without indicating the extent of the diminution. The majority opinion takes the position that the court is unable to conclude that the “substantial diminution” in value caused by the by-law was such as to render the by-law unconstitutional. In my view, this statement in the majority opinion might be used (possibly without justification) as a reason for the administrative denial of future petitions for special building permits. For this reason, I would add the following statement to the opinion: “[W]e need not now decide whether the . . . [petitioner is] the ‘uncompensated victim ... of a taking invalid *239without compensation.’ Commissioner of Natural Resources v. S. Volpe & Co. Inc. 349 Mass. 104, 111. That decision may depend in part on the board’s . . . action on the . . . [possible petitioner’s] application for . . . [a] special permit.” MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 635, 641.