Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 6. The 1971 amendment to the zoning by-law did not adversely <br /> affect the petitioner ' s rights under the 1964 special permit. <br /> 7. By reason of the 1964 special permit , the locus may be <br /> used for the purposes set forth in the petitioner' s application for <br /> a building permit, notwithstanding the 1971 zoning by-law <br /> amendment. <br /> 8. The petitioner, by continuously conducting extensive <br /> operations throughout the entire tract of 1, 240 acres , at great <br /> expense, including the laying out and construction of ways , the <br /> construction of structures , a water supply system, facilities for <br /> recreation and the like, has physically appropriated the tract <br /> involved in the 1964 decision to the uses for which the special <br /> permit was granted. <br /> 9. Furthermore, the entire 1, 240 acre tract may be used for <br /> the purposes set forth in the 1964 special permit, notwithstanding <br /> the 1971 zoning by-law amendment. The petitioners have made use of <br /> the special permit wiih' respect to the entire tract. Seekonk v. <br /> Anthony, 328 Mass . 236, 237 (1952) , citing Billerica v. Quinn, 320 <br /> Mass . 687 , 689 (1947) held that "The testing of the soil and the <br /> preparation for stripping that had preceded the adoption of the <br /> zoning by-law devoted the whole land '.;to the use by actual occupation <br /> of the land in a manner physically appropriating it to the use. "' <br /> 10. The. petitioner has a valid nonconforming use with respect <br /> to those rights granted by the 1964 special permit. d <br /> -12- <br />