Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 16 (2026)

Final unfavorable decisions by permit granting authorities; reconsideration; withdrawal of petitions for variance or applications for special permit

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 16. No appeal, application or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special permit granting or permit granting authority shall be acted favorably upon within two years after the date of final unfavorable action unless said special permit granting authority or permit granting authority finds, by a unanimous vote of a board of three members or by a vote of four members of a board of five members or two-thirds vote of a board of more than five members, specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and describes such changes in the record of its proceedings, and unless all but one of the members of the planning board consents thereto and after notice is given to parties in interest of the time and place of the proceedings when the question of such consent will be considered.

Any petition for a variance or application for a special permit which has been transmitted to the permit granting authority or special permit granting authority may be withdrawn, without prejudice by the petitioner prior to the publication of the notice of a public hearing thereon, but thereafter be withdrawn without prejudice only with the approval of the special permit granting authority or permit granting authority.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases, 1958–2019 · leading case: Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeal, 909 N.E.2d 1161 (Mass. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeal, 909 N.E.2d 1161 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 3× “40A, § 14, 18 and reconsideration, G. L. c. 40A, § 16, 19 of prior decisions.”

Shalbey v. Bd. of Appeal of Norwood, 378 N.E.2d 1001 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). · cites it 4× “The decision contained no finding of "specific and material changes” or description of such changes as were required by the new G. L. c. 40A, § 16, if it was then in effect.”

Fabiano v. Hopkins, 352 F.3d 447 (1st Cir. 2003). “His complaint to the Zoning Board plainly sought to redress these matters. Indeed, Fabiano would not have had standing to bring suit had he lacked a personal interest and particularized harm.”

Ranney v. Bd. of Appeals of Nantucket, 414 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Under G. L. c. 40A, § 16, as appearing in St. 1975, c.”

Petrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 841 N.E.2d 266 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “); the similar lapse of variance rights, and certain provisions for reestablishment of those rights (G. L. c. 40A, § 10, third par.); and the potential for further consideration of applications, and the potential for reconsideration, upon matters initially denied (G.”

Klein v. Plan. Bd. of Wrentham, 583 N.E.2d 892 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 3× “40A, § 17, was from the *779 board’s denial of an application for a modification under G. L. c. 40A, § 16, and not from the original imposition of conditions.”

Shafer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 966 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “See G. L. c. 40A, § 16. David S. Reid (Michael F.”

York Ford, Inc. v. Bldg. Inspector & Zoning Adm'r, 647 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). “The town officials and the abutters advance somewhat different arguments to sustain the action of the board. We find these arguments unpersuasive and hold that York may challenge the building inspector’s order.”

Patterson v. Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Mass. 2000). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 16. Plaintiffs filed the Patterson 1 suit on November 8, 1999.”

Paquin v. Bd. of Appeals, 541 N.E.2d 352 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 2× “40A, § 15, applies to a proceeding for reconsideration, sometimes called a repetitive petition, of a previously denied zoning variance pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 16. On May 22, 1986, the board of appeals of Barnstable (board of appeals) denied the plaintiff’s petition for a…”

Hahn v. Plan. Bd., 24 Mass. App. Ct. 553 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that if gravel must be removed a permit will not be needed. See Glacier Sand & Stone Co. v.”

Burwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Worcester, 306 N.E.2d 455 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974). “ertheless seek to have us penalize the applicant for failures of the board over which the applicant had no control (see the Richardson case, 351 Mass, at 377-378) by departing from a long and almost unbroken line of decisions which demonstrate a reluctance to construe the word…”

Show all 24 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.