Laserfiche WebLink
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P. C. <br />Memorandum to Municipal Clients <br />• September 19, 1985 <br />Page 2. <br />1. The lot is for single or two-family residential use; <br />which at the time of its recording or endorsement, <br />whichever occurs sooner; <br />3. was not held in common ownership with any adjoining <br />land; <br />4. conformed to then existing requirements; and <br />5. had at least 5000 square feet of area and fifty <br />feet of frontage. <br />The words "recording or endorsement' indicate that <br />to be "in existence" for the purpose of grandfathering <br />means that the lot was separately described in a <br />recorded deed or was shown on a plan endorsed by the <br />Planning Board pursuant to its authority under the Sub- <br />division Control Law. <br />In the recent case of Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 295 <br />• Mass.'757 (1985), a copy of w ich is attached, the Massa- <br />chusetts Supreme Judicial Court has settled at least one <br />vexing question under the second requirement for isolated <br />lot protection listed above. The court ruled, in response <br />to three questions certified to it by the United States <br />Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, that it is the <br />status of a lot immediately prior to a change in a Zoning <br />By -Law which is controlling for purposes of determining <br />if it is held in common ownership with contiguous land. <br />This ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed the <br />earlier interpretation of this sentence of C. 40A S6 <br />which had been made by the Massachusetts Appeals Court <br />and Superior Court in the case of Sieber v. Zoning Board <br />of Appeals of Wellfleet, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (1983). <br />The plaintiffs in the Adamowicz case owned certain <br />lots of land in Ipswich which did not have sufficient <br />area to comply with the Town's Zoning By -Laws. The Town <br />refused to issue building permits, stating that the <br />plaintiffs did not comply with all the requirements of <br />C. 40A §6 to be entitled to grandfather protection. It <br />argued that the non -common ownership requirement applies <br />to the status of the lot as of the date that the first <br />instrument on which the lot is shown is recorded. <br />• <br />