This case is the plaintiffs, Kevin M. Fulgoni, G.L. c. 40A, § 17 appeal of the defendant Town of Reading Zoning Board of Appeals (the ZBA) decision upholding the building inspectors denial of the plaintiffs application for a building permit to construct a single-family dwelling on the property identified as Lot A, South Street in Reading (Lot A). Lot A was once part of a larger parcel of land and was located in a Business C Zoning District. After the Commonwealth took a portion of Lot A by eminent domain as part of a taking for the alteration of Route 128 (which effectively severed Lot A and other properties from the towns central business district), the town rezoned the property (and the other affected properties) to a Residential A-1 Zoning District. At the time of the zoning change, Lot A did not meet the area and frontage requirements for a buildable lot in the Residential A-1 Zoning District.
In 2006, the plaintiff applied for a building permit to construct a single-family dwelling on Lot A (now located in an S-15 Residential Zoning District). The building inspector denied that request, stating (among other reasons) that the property did not meet The Town of Reading Zoning By-Laws (the Bylaw) requirements for the S-15 Zoning District. The plaintiff appealed to the ZBA, arguing that he was entitled to grandfather protection under G.L. c. 40A, § 6 and the Bylaw since Lot A, prior to the rezoning, was in compliance with the Bylaw. The ZBA upheld the building inspectors denial, finding that Lot A was not entitled to grandfather protection since it could not be developed for residential purposes prior to the zoning change (only certain commercial uses) and thus it was never a lawfully created residential lot prior to the zoning change.
The plaintiff now appeals from the ZBAs decision. Both parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set in the courts Memorandum and Order on the Parties Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment of this date, I ALLOW the defendants motion for summary judgment and DENY the plaintiffs motion. Lot A is not entitled to grandfather protection under either G.L. c. 40A, § 6 or the Bylaw. Accordingly, the ZBAs decision is upheld. The plaintiffs claims are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice.
By the court (Long, J.)