Grady v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 465 Mass. 725

Stepanidis owners planned Lot B development and sought a variance from Peabody zoning to permit a two-family house on Lot B with street-frontage issue.
Variance granted June 23, 2008, with conditions (setbacks, height, one structure, drainage plan, possible easement revision) and filed with city clerk.
Notice to interested parties was provided; no abutter appeal was filed against the variance.
The variance stated it was applicable for one year and recording was required for effectiveness; Stefanidises failed to record within the one-year period.
A building permit was issued February 24, 2009 based on the variance, enabling construction planning and financing, including loan and construction expenses.
Construction activities began in June 2009, after substantial reliance on the variance, and Grady requested revocation of the permit on June 29, 2009 citing non-record within one year.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial reliance can prevent lapse under §11 when recording misses the one-year period	Grady	Stefanidises	Yes; lapse not found due to substantial reliance.
Whether the Stefanidises' building permit and construction reliance sufficed to make the variance effective	Grady	Stefanidises	Yes; rights exercised within a year supported effectiveness.
Whether late recording within a brief window after lapse is sufficient to preserve the variance	Grady	Stefanidises	Yes; recording within days after lapse preserves effectiveness.

Cornell v. Board of Appeals of Dracut, 453 Mass. 888 (Mass. 2009) (examined whether substantial reliance can save unrecorded variance under §10/§11)
Hogan v. Hayes, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (actions constituting exercising of a variance may include feet of construction and financing)
McDermott v. Board of Appeals of Melrose, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (special permit not lapse due to failure to record where substantially used)