Laserfiche WebLink
395 Mass. 757 757 <br />Adme.in I. *wich <br />/0 ` EPHRAim A. ADAMOWICZ, & others' vs. TOWN OF IPSWICH. <br />iWraa. M" 7. 1%5. — Aa9w 22. 1995. <br />F e : Mua+ws. W[m. Aa . No ". l O'C wro . P. <br />Zoning, Lot, Exemption. Statute, Construction. <br />For a determination whether a particular la is not held in common ownership <br />with any adjoining land, ud thus fulfils a condition for an exemption <br />under G. L. c. 40A, 16. fourth par., from restrictive suing changes. <br />the white looks to the most recent instrument of record prior to the <br />effective date of the toning change from which exemption is sought. <br />( l <br />CERTIFICATION of questions of law to the Supreme Judicial <br />Court by the United Slates Court of Appeals for the Fust <br />Circuit. <br />Douglas A. Randall for the plaintiffs. <br />Charles C. Dalton, Town Counsel, for the defendant. <br />AeRAms, J. We address three questions certified to this <br />court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fust Cir- <br />cuit; pursuant to S.I.C. Rule 1.03, as amended, 382 Mass. <br />'Mary T. Adatnowicz. Elizabeth M. Fleming. John R. Fleming. Ann <br />Gallo, Louis E. Gallo, Jr., Jo C. Garland, Philip J. Hanshury, Charles <br />Lambros. trustee, Helen C. Lang, Robert M. Lang. Nancy Lac MacDonald. <br />Annard Marcaurele, John H. Moore, lames A. Nelson, Mary T. Nelson, <br />Lillian T. Pacheco. Carole E. Phillips, Richard C. Phillips. A. Daniel <br />Rubenstein, Delilah R. Rubenstein, Louis C. Schlaufman. Jahn A. Thoren. <br />Jr., Frank M. Torperer, Shirley M. Torpezer, Loraine F. Walsh. Thomas <br />J. Walsh. Marvin Weiss, Ven J. Weiss. and Eva L. Wright <br />'The questions e u follows: (1) Does holding 1 [that the wad record- <br />ing as it appears m G. L. e. 40A. 1 6. does not Dearvrsly refer to the <br />recording of a "plan') correctly gate the law of the Commonwealth?: (2) <br />Does holding 2 [that it should be taken to refer "to the most recent instrument <br />of record prior to the effective date of the zoning change from which the <br />exemption is sought") correctly sate the law of the Commotrsrealth?: and <br />(3) Does a lot meet the requirement set forth in the quoted staotay language <br />if the most Leant instrument of record prior so a restrictive inning change <br />