Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> status of a non-conforming use, both under G. L. C. 40A, the <br /> Zoning Enabling Act, and under the definition contained in section <br /> 2.20B of the present zoning by-law. The town recognized this <br /> when in 1971, .by vote of town meeting, it modified the restrictions <br /> in the 1964 deed. Since the use of the land is a non-conforming <br /> use, it is not adversely affected by the 1971 zoning by-law. <br /> 12. Conclusion: New Seabury Corporation has the right, under its 1964 <br /> speciaTpermit, under the restrictions in the 1964 deed as <br /> modified by the December 1971 agreement and as a valid non- <br /> conforming use, to construct the dwelling units covered by the <br /> building permits in accordance with filed, plans. <br /> i <br /> The order or decision of the Assistant Building Commissioner revoking <br /> the permits was erroneous. The permits should be restored. <br /> New Seabury Corporation <br /> By its attorneys, <br /> Rollins & Rollins and Ropes & Gray <br /> byC�er <br /> i <br /> Daniel G. Rollins <br /> 1300 Boylston Street <br /> Brookline, Massachusetts 02167 <br />