Rourke v. Rothman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtCowin, J.
In this case we consider the meaning of the words “then existing requirements” in a “grandfather” provision of the Zoning Act, G. L. c. 40A, § 6. The defendant Stuart Roth-man is the owner of a plot of land in Orleans (town), which ap*191pears as “Lot 12” on a 1915 town plan (locus).3 Rothman sought to build a single-family residence on the locus, but the town building commissioner (commissioner) denied the permit on the ground that the lot did not have the minimum area and frontage required by the town’s present zoning bylaws. Roth-man appealed to the town’s zoning board of appeals (board),…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Adamowicz v. Town of IpswichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Sturges v. Town of ChilmarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of WarehamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- Inspector of Buildings of Burlington v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- C.O. v. M.M.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bellalta v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
- Plainville Asphalt Corp. v. Town of PlainvilleMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
- Berg v. Town of LexingtonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Timperio v. Zoning Board of AppealsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
- Gund v. Planning Board of CambridgeMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.