Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusions of Law <br /> 1. The 1964 special permit was validly issued by the Board <br /> under the provisions of section F.V. of the zoning by-law. <br /> 2. The special permit granted by the decision of the Board <br /> dated February 21, 1964 was not required to be recorded or registered <br /> for there was no condition or limitations set forth in the decision <br /> of the Board as required under G. L. c. 40A, §18. <br /> It is clear that a zoning board of appeals <br /> has the inherent power, in connection with <br /> the granting of a special permit to impose <br /> such reasonable conditions and restrictions <br /> as are directly related to and incidental <br /> to the proposed use of the property and <br /> which are not inconsistent with the pro- <br /> visions of the local ordinance. <br /> Pearson v. Shoemaker, 25 Misc. 2d 591 , <br /> 02 -.NYS d 779. (1960) ...- As .cited in <br /> Anderson, American Law of Zoning, §15. 35 <br /> (1968) : <br /> Therefore, if there is authority to attach conditions to a special <br /> permit , the conditions will be imposed properly, where no pro- <br /> visions of the ordinance are offended, where it is expected to <br /> protect adjacent land interests , and intended to achieve some. legit- <br /> imate objective of the zoning ordinance. Anderson, American Law of <br /> Zoning, §15. 36 (1968) . No such 'conditions were attached to the <br /> special permit of 1964, and therefore, no recording was necessary <br /> under the statute. <br /> 3. The 1964 special permit was properly implemented as <br /> required by said section F.V. thereby fulfilling the requirements , <br /> namely: <br /> a) A portion of the registered land, sufficient to constitute <br /> a dominant tenement was deeded to the town. <br /> b) The deed stated that the land thereby conveyed was <br /> benefitted by restrictions imposed thereby upon all of the land. <br /> -10- <br />