Mclaughlin v. City

2 Citing cases

  1. Barth v. City of Peabody

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-13794-MBB (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Section 7.2, however, is subject to chapter 40A, section six, see Chilson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro, 182 N.E.2d 535, 539 (Mass. 1962); McLaughlin v. City of Brockton, 587 N.E.2d 251, 252 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (lower court's interpretation "would place that ordinance in conflict with the enabling Zoning Act, . . . in G.L. c. 40A, § 6"), which also existed at the time Barth purchased the property and, consequently, forms the statutory and regulatory background or expectations in which Barth made his investment in purchasing the property. See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. at 1030.

  2. Perez v. Bd. Appeals Norwood

    54 Mass. App. Ct. 139 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    To the extent that (as Vara appears to argue) the new subdivision plan creates no new nonconformities, but see note 5, supra, the house and garage situated at 62 Oliver Street might enjoy the protection of G.L.c. 40A, § 6, despite the more stringent requirements of § 4110 of the by-law. See McLaughlin v. Brockton, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 932 (1992). Indeed, the trial judge may have endorsed this possibility in a cryptic fashion, see note 5, supra, without citation to § 4113 of the Norwood zoning by-law which states, "In certain other cases current regulations are made inapplicable by provisions of Section 6 of Ch. 40A, G.L."