Cornell v. Board of Appeals

This zoning case requires us to decide the actions a variance holder must take to “exercise” a dimensional variance under G. L. c. 40A, § 10, to prevent it from lapsing.2

*889The plaintiff, Paul Cornell, owns a fourteen-acre lot in Dracut. He proposed a plan to divide the property into two parcels, with the intention of erecting a home on the smaller of the two parcels. Because the frontage on that parcel was twenty-five feet less than the minimum frontage required by the Dracut zoning bylaws, a variance was necessary. On March 7, 2002, the board of appeals of Dracut granted Cornell a variance.…