Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINS; SPALDING |
| Citation | 354 Mass. 38,234 N.E.2d 884 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1968 |
| Parties | Lawrence J. BARRETT et al. v. BUILDING INSPECTOR OF PEABODY et al. |
Page 884
v.
BUILDING INSPECTOR OF PEABODY et al.
Dicided March 8, 1968.
[354 Mass. 39]
Page 885
John A. McNiff, Peabody, for petitioners.Lewis L. Wadsworth, Jr., Boston (Donald J. Wood, Boston, with him), for interveners.
M. Irving Herbster, City Sol., for Building Inspector of Peabody and others.
Before [354 Mass. 38] WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, and REARDON, JJ.
[354 Mass. 39] SPALDING, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the building inspector of the city of Peabody to enforce a zoning ordinance as it existed prior to an amendment adopted in July, 1965. The owners of the land (locus) affected by the amendment were permitted to intervene. The judge made detailed findings of fact and ordered the petition dismissed. From this order the petitioners appealed. G.L. c. 213, § 1D. The evidence is reported.
We summarize the findings of the judge as follows. 'The locus, a 13.83 acre parcel of land at the junction of Lowell and Russell streets in West Peabody, was classified Residence A--1 under a 1937 zoning ordinance. From 1930 to 1960 the locus was used as a mink farm. During that period it was so covered by trees that it had the appearance of a forest. In 1961 it was sold and the purchaser stripped a large portion of it of trees and topsoil, leaving it 'denuded vacant land.'
In 1964 the owners applied to the city for reclassification of the locus from a Residence A--1 district to a Business A [354 Mass. 40] district as defined in § 6B of the zoning ordinance. After public hearings the planning board recommended the reclassification. A written protest was filed with the city clerk under G.L. c. 40A, § 7, and a public hearing was held by the city council. The amendment reclassifying the locus was duly adopted by the council on July 8, 1965, and was approved by the mayor on July 15.
The owners of the locus intend to construct on it a shopping center with a floor space exceeding 100,000 square feet and costing about $1,000,000. The plans contemplate a department store, a supermarket, various specialty shops, a branch bank, and a branch post office.
Page 886
In all of West Peabody there is only one grocery store and one gasoline service station. There are no hardware stores, laundries or cleaning establishments, and no branch bank. In recent years there has been a substantial growth of population in West Peabody as shown by the fact that in 1950 the population was less than 1,000 and in 1966 it was in excess of 12,000. At present many of the residents have only inconvenient access to shopping facilities. As early as 1954 and 1956 professional planning engineers recommended the establishment of a shopping center in West Peabody. In 1961, pursuant to a recommendation of the planning board that the locus be rezoned, a referendum was held in which a slight majority of the voters favored rezoning. 1
The locus is at the geographical center of West Peabody. It is a triangular parcel of vacant land, lying in a valley, with high hills rising to the north and south upon which there are two large residential developments known as Presidential Heights and Jordan Acres. It is bounded on the west by railroad tracks. To the west of the tracks there is also a parcel of property zoned for industrial use (the Jefferson premises) with a manufacturing plant on it. To the southwest of the locus is a fifty-eight acre tract which is [354 Mass. 41] zoned for business. All of Peabody off Route 1 (which is the area known as West Peabody) prior to the amendment was in a residential zone except the fifty-eight acre tract and the Jefferson premises.
Although the fifty-eight acre tract is presently zoned Business B, it would appear not to be feasible for development as a shopping center. Of this tract, only two and one-half acres with frontage on Lake Street remain available for use as a shopping center. The Lake Street site would provide 8,460 square feet of store area whereas the locus can accommodate 100,000 square feet of store area and provide a greater variety of services. Moreover, the road network for a Lake Street shopping center is not as suitable as that in the vicinity of the locus. The land of the locus is fairly level in the easterly portion but gradually drops off to a two acre swamp in the southwest. The soil is suitable from a weight-bearing standpoint for one and two story residences as well as for the buildings of a shopping center.
Directly opposite the locus to the southeast is Crystal Lake which occupies twenty-five acres. Because of groundwater seepage from the lake to the locus, the water table of the locus, considered as a whole, is only two or three feew below the surface. The high water table presents serious drainage problems for the construction of dwellings. Houses could not be built with useful full basements. Slab foundations for houses would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Canton v. Bruno
...board appointed by the selectment. G.L. c. 40, § 27, as appearing in St.1933, c. 269, § 1. See Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 45, 234 N.E.2d 884; Poremba v. Springfield, 354 Mass. 432, 436, 238 N.E.2d 43; Hardy, Municipal Law, § 349. In the instant case, these proce......
-
Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield
...Kennedy v. Building Inspector of Randolph, 351 Mass. 550, 553--554, 222 N.E.2d 860 (1967); Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 42, 234 N.E.2d 884 (1968); Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. v. Reading, 354 Mass. 181, 186, 236 N.E.2d 188 (1968). Moreover, '(o)nce it is est......
-
Grasso v. New Bedford, 9201987
...or reasonable, the private views, desires, or motives of individual citizens are immaterial. Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 43 (1968) (evidence that the City Council received petition signed by 1,016 voters favoring a zoning change is not relevant to the validity of......
-
Green v. Cappy Homes Co.
...Wallace v. Williams, 156 Cal.App.2d 646, 651, 320 P.2d 211. The mutual mistake can be seen in the subsequent conduct of the corporation[354 Mass. 38] in seeding the plaintiffs' land thirty-five feet out from the house and in the Iollis' failure over two years to object to the plaintiffs' ac......
-
Town of Canton v. Bruno
...board appointed by the selectment. G.L. c. 40, § 27, as appearing in St.1933, c. 269, § 1. See Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 45, 234 N.E.2d 884; Poremba v. Springfield, 354 Mass. 432, 436, 238 N.E.2d 43; Hardy, Municipal Law, § 349. In the instant case, these proce......
-
Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield
...Kennedy v. Building Inspector of Randolph, 351 Mass. 550, 553--554, 222 N.E.2d 860 (1967); Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 42, 234 N.E.2d 884 (1968); Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. v. Reading, 354 Mass. 181, 186, 236 N.E.2d 188 (1968). Moreover, '(o)nce it is est......
-
Grasso v. New Bedford, 9201987
...or reasonable, the private views, desires, or motives of individual citizens are immaterial. Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 43 (1968) (evidence that the City Council received petition signed by 1,016 voters favoring a zoning change is not relevant to the validity of......
-
Green v. Cappy Homes Co.
...Wallace v. Williams, 156 Cal.App.2d 646, 651, 320 P.2d 211. The mutual mistake can be seen in the subsequent conduct of the corporation[354 Mass. 38] in seeding the plaintiffs' land thirty-five feet out from the house and in the Iollis' failure over two years to object to the plaintiffs' ac......