Cornell v. Michaud, 947 N.E.2d 1138

Historic lot 48, part of Edgewater Drive, was split from adjacent lots (33, 47) and reconfigured into two buildable lots in 1986, with a condition to remove an abandoned building on lot 48.
Roland Michaud acquired historic lot 48 in 1985; title later transferred within his family, with various parcels held by Roland, Suzanne, father, Ernest, and Norman Michaud over time.
A 1986 variance allowed reconfiguring three lots into two, but required removal of the abandoned building on lot 48, which did not occur.
The 2000 Superior Court judgment held historic lot 48 not a buildable lot and restrained further construction; Norman’s 1996 special-permit request was denied and final judgment entered in 2000.
In 2005, a building permit for historic lot 48 appeared despite the 2000 judgment; Cornells challenged Rivet, the town building inspector, and the board denied their enforcement appeal in 2005.
In 2008, the Superior Court ordered Rivet to revoke permits and Roland to remove structures and restore historic lot 48, concluding the permit was void ab initio and the by-law violations could not be cured.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal to the board	Cornells justify enforcement appeal despite no timely board appeal due to void permit.	Gallivan requires thirty-day appeal for a permit as an order; permit here was not an appealable order.	Board and court had jurisdiction; the permit was void ab initio and not a enforceable order.
Standing to seek judicial review	Cornells are aggrieved by the construction affecting their property.	Cornells lack private interest or plausible violation.	Cornells proven as persons aggrieved; record supports standing.
Laches bar to equitable relief	Delay was reasonable given contested permit; no prejudice to Roland.	La- ches should bar relief due to delay and awareness of judgment.	No laches; delay reasonable and Roland’s awareness undermines his claim.
Remedy—demolition vs conformance	Remedy should be tailored to allow compliance if possible.	Court can order demolition given nonconformity and unlawful construction.	Court properly ordered removal and restoration; Roland acted at his own peril and could not cure nonconformity.

Hogan v. Hayes, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399 (1985) (standing and enforcement review considerations for zoning appeals)
D’Errico v. Board of Assessors of Woburn, 384 Mass. 301 (1981) (void or illegal municipal action as unenforceable nullity)
Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Assn., Inc., 418 Mass. 175 (1994) (void acts cannot be valid to override final judgments)
Gallivan v. Board of Appeals of Wellesley, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 850 (2008) (timeliness of appeals under 30-day remedy; precludes six-year action in some contexts)
Wells v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Billerica, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 726 (2007) (remedy modalities when nonconformity has notice and adjudication)
Marashlian v. Tuning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1996) (standing and aggrieved party analysis under zoning act)
A.W. Chesterton Co. v. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, 445 Mass. 502 (2005) (standard for laches and equitable relief considerations)
Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 55 (1992) (standing considerations for nonconforming parcels)
Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491 (1989) (criteria for person aggrieved and standing)