Adams v. Brolly
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1DissentLaurence, J.
The majority properly recognize the “well-established principle” that a property owner’s self-imposed hardship cannot serve as the basis for obtaining a variance, as well as the fact that Brolly knowingly created the nonconformity when he subdivided his property and transferred one of the newly created lots, leaving his remaining lot with insufficient frontage. They attempt to save this situation from application of that principle by emphasizing, as did the trial judge, Brolly’s good faith — he “did not create the [nonconforming] lot in anticipation of being granted a variance,” and he took…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Warren v. Zoning Board of Appeals of AmherstMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Smith v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of WarehamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- Arrigo v. Planning Board of FranklinMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Paulding v. BruinsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.