Goldlust v. Board of Appeals
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
Goldlust’s claim to the issuance of building permits as matter of right for two industrial buildings he proposes to build on land in North Andover (the “locus”) turns on whether the required rear yard setback shall be measured from his rear lot line or a zoning line which transects his property. Compare Tambone v. Board of Appeal of Stoneham, 348 Mass. 359 (1965), and Tofias v. Butler, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 89, 92-96 (1988). We conclude that, under the particular language of the North Andover by-law, the zoning boundary is the line that governs. Accordingly, we reverse so much of the judgment as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Holt v. City CouncilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Gamache v. Town of AcushnetMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
- Neuhaus v. Building Inspector of MarlboroughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Tambone v. Board of Appeal of StonehamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
- Clark & Clark Hotel Corp. v. Building Inspector of FalmouthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Drummey v. Town of FalmouthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
- Rodman v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2014
- Martin Wheelan v. City of Gautier and David A. VindichMississippi Supreme Court · 2022
- PINECROFT DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF WEST BOYLSTONMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2022