Zoning – Removal of construction

Listen to this article

Where the defendants have appealed a Superior Court decision which ruled that they had built a large single-family home on an unbuildable lot and must remove it, we hold that the judge acted permissibly and that the decision must be affirmed.

            In rendering today’s decision, we conclude: (1) that the Blackstone zoning board and the Superior Court had proper jurisdiction to consider this matter; (2) that the judge committed no clear error in determining that the plaintiffs had standing to seek judicial review; (3) that laches principles did not bar the plaintiffs from seeking equitable relief; and (4) that the judge did not act impermissibly in ordering the defendants to restore the subject lot to its preconstruction condition.

            Cornell, et al. v. Michaud, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-101-11) (16 pages) (Mills, J.) (Appeals Court) Case heard by McCann, J., in the Superior Court. Howard P. Speicher, of Davis, Malm & D’Agostine, for defendant Roland M. Michaud; Gerald M. Moody for the plaintiffs (Docket No. 09-P-2184) (May 31, 2011).