Zoning – Setback requirement

Listen to this article

Where (1) a building inspector ruled that a structure on the plaintiffs’ property was not in violation of the 15-foot setback requirement of the local zoning by-law, (2) a defendant abutter successfully challenged the building inspector’s decision before the codefendant zoning board, (3) a Superior Court judge upheld the zoning board’s ruling and (4) the plaintiffs have now appealed, we conclude that the appeal must fail.
We so decide because we find that the trial judge acted properly in holding: that the defendant abutter, a foreign limited liability company, had proper standing; that the seven-member zoning board was duly constituted; that the quantum of vote required by the board was a two-thirds majority; and that the zoning board’s decision was based on legally tenable grounds.
Affirmed.
Cottone, et al. v. Cedar Lake, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-214-06) (13 pages) (Perretta, J.) (Appeals Court) Case heard by McCann, J., on motions for summary judgment. Edmond A. Neal III for the plaintiffs; Mark L. Donahue for defendant Cedar Lake, LLC; Jonathan D. Eichman for the defendant town of Sturbridge and another (Docket No. 05-P-1302) (Sept. 28, 2006).