Laserfiche WebLink
764 <br />1, - A&a Kv .. `,rs0 <br />395 Mass. 757 <br />unconstitutional result or the likelihood thereof. Vaughan v. <br />Mas's Marker, Inc., 343 Mass. 394, 397 (1%1), and cases <br />cited. O'Malley v. Public Improvement Comrn'n of Boston, <br />342 Mass. 624 (1%1). Amendments to statutes, especially <br />those dealing with property, generally have prospective effect <br />only. Our "general rule )is that) statutes operate prospectively <br />unless a contrary legislative intent is clearly shown." Nantucket <br />Conservation Found., Inc. v. Russell Management, Inc., 380 <br />Mass. 212, 214 (1980). The sentence at issue does not indicate <br />a contrary intent. 7ltemfore, we read 16. fourth par., first <br />sentence, as having a prospective effect..Such a construction <br />furthers the purpose of 16. which is to protect once -valid <br />buildable residential lots. See Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at <br />261. <br />71►e answer to the fust question certified to this court is that <br />in the fust sentence of the fourth paragraph of G. L. e. 40A, <br />16. the word "recording" does not necessarily refer to a plan. <br />The answer to the second question is that compliance of a <br />lot with the common ownership requirement in the relevant <br />sentence of G. L. e. 40A, 16. is determined by looking at <br />the most recent instrument of record prior to the effective date <br />of the zoning change from which the exemption is sought. <br />The answer to the third question is that a lot does meet the <br />statutory requirements if the most recent instrument of record <br />prior to a restrictive zoning change reveals that the lot was <br />separately owned, even though a previously recorded subdivi- <br />sion plan may reveal that the lot was at one time part of land <br />held in common ownership. <br />0 <br />0 <br />r <br />