Y. D. Dugout, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Canton

• Decision Date: 10 February 1970
• Citation: Y. D. Dugout, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 255 N.E.2d 732, 357 Mass. 25 (Mass. 1970)
• Parties: Y. D. DUGOUT, INC. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF CANTON.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 732

255 N.E.2d 732

357 Mass. 25

Y. D. DUGOUT, INC. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF CANTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued Jan. 7, 1970.

Decided Feb. 10, 1970.

Eugene J. Galligan, Canton, for defendant.

John E. Bradley, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

This is an appeal by the town's board of appeals (the board) from a final decree determining that certain aspects of the town's zoning by-law are invalid and that the board's refusal to approve a site plan filed by Y. D. Dugout, Inc. (Dugout) was 'arbitrary and capricious.' The evidence is reported. The trial judge made voluntary findings and rulings.

Dugout proposes to erect a building for a restaurant or cafe on land (the locus) at 4 Royall Street, Canton. The owners of the locus desire approval of Dugout's project. The locus is in an area zoned for business purposes. ¹ On May 12, 1967, Dugout applied to the board of appeals for 'site plan approval' of a proposed new building under the town zoning by-law, § IV D.

The Canton zoning by-law (§ II A) establishes classes of districts, including (among others) business districts, limited industrial districts, and industrial districts. The term 'Non-Residential Districts' (§ II B) refers to any one of these 'three types of use districts.' Section III of the bylaw prescribes use regulations for each class of district. The provisions (§ III D) governing 'Business District Uses' read in part (emphasis supplied): '1. * * * In a business District, the following uses are permitted as of right: * * * (j) Restaurant or similar place for the serving of food or beverages only to persons inside a completely enclosed building, subject to the condition that no mechanical or live entertainment is regularly furnished except as hereinafter authorized (in Section III-D 3).' ²

Section IV of the by-law contains 'Special Provisions in Non-Residential Districts,' among which are subsec. D, upon which the board of appeals places principal reliance. Section IV D reads in part: 'Site Plan Approval. 1. Requirement for Site Plan. In all Non-Residential Districts, no commercial building shall be constructed or externally enlarged, and no commercial use shall be expanded in ground area * * * except in conformity with a site plan bearing an endorsement of approval by the Board of Appeals' ³ (emphasis supplied).

Under § IV D 3, applications for site plan approval are to be submitted directly to the board of appeals. The board then is to refer the application to the planning board which may report upon it. After receipt of the planning board's report or after the lapse of thirty-five days without such a report, the board of appeals may take action which (emphasis supplied) 'shall conform to all requirements of procedure applicable to a board of appeals when deciding requests for special permits under * * * (G.L. c.) 40A, as amended (including the requirements thereof for public notice and hearing).' Under § IV D 4, '(i) n considering a site plan * * * the Board of Appeals shall assure, to a degree consistent with a reasonable use of the site for the purposes permitted or permissible by the regulations of the district in which located: (a) Protection of adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses on the site. (b) Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site, and in relation to adjacent streets, property or improvements. ⁴ (c) Adequacy of the methods of disposal for sewage, refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted or permissible on the site, and the methods of drainage for surface water. (d) Adequacy of space for the off-street loading and unloading of vehicles, goods, products, materials and equipment incidental to the normal operation of the establishment' (emphasis supplied).

The board of appeals on June 8, 1967, denied site plan approval for the locus, and in its decision set out matters summarized in the margin. ⁵ The board's principal findings were as follows: '1. Royall Street is primarily used for residential purposes. 2. The parking problems * * * on Royall Street are of long standing. 3. * * * Dugout * * * (does) not (now) provide any parking * * *. 4. The proposed * * * (plan) would provide some parking facilities but the entrance area would be on Royall Street, a narrow street. 5. The entrance area would be an inducement to further parking on Royall Street and aggravate a present poor situation. 6. The adjoining premises cannot be adequately protected against * * * noise, loud music, drunkards, parking illegally, blocking of safe passage along Royall Street. * * * 8. The entrance way on Royall Street is detrimental to the area residents and lessens the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement in relation to adjacent streets, property, and improvements.'

1. The trial judge, in setting aside the board's decision, first ruled, in effect, that the provision (in § IV D of the by-law) for site plan approval went beyond the authority of the town under G.L. c. 40A to give to its board of appeals power to grant variances and exceptions from the general provisions of its by-laws. He concluded that § IV D in effect gave to the '(b)oard power to limit * * * the type (of) business that might be operated in an area * * * designated for business' by imposing additional unauthorized restrictions.

Section III D 1, presumably adopted pursuant to the general zoning power described in G.L. c. 40A, § 2, defines the type of uses permitted 'as of right' in a business district. Section III D 2 (fn. 2) indicates certain additional uses which the board of appeals may allow in a business district 'where not detrimental to the normal use of any adjacent (residential district) property.' Section III D, however, does not contain the complete by-law restrictions upon the use of 'Non-Residential Districts' for § IV also prescribes applicable regulations. As already noted, § IV D requires that approval (by the board of appeals) of a site plan be given before any construction or enlargement of a commercial building in a business district after the board's determination that the standards set out in § IV D 4 have been met. This, in effect, requires that the use of land in a business district shall meet the following requirements. (1) The use must be permissible either as of right or by special permit under § III D. (2) If the use is permitted only by special permit, the board of appeals must determine that the general standards for granting a special permit for that use have been satisfied. (3) After opportunity for consideration of a site plan by the planning board, the board of appeals (complying with the procedural requirements of G.L. c. 40A, § 4), ⁶ in all instances involving a 'commercial building,' must determine that the further standards contained in § IV D 4 have also been met in the particular case.

The purpose of § IV D 4 is obviously to ensure, not only that the use of land in Non-Residential Districts complies with the principal general use regulations of the by-law, but also that each particular proposed commercial building avoids injury to aspects of the public interest reasonably specified in § IV D 4. The town, we assume, in its by-law (1) might have defined geographically the business zone in which Dugout seeks to put up its cafe and then (2) might have provided in terms that the area could be used only for residential purposes and, upon special permit, also for the commercial purposes set out in § III D, 1 and 2, provided that the standards set out in that section and § IV D 4 were met. All nonresidential use of the defined area then would clearly have been a matter of special permit granted in accordance with standards stated in the by-law. If these were sufficient to guide the action of the board of appeals, this would have been a valid traditional type of exception described in G.L. c. 40A, § 4 (fn. 6). See e.g. Burnham v. Board of Appeals of Gloucester, 333 Mass. 114, 116--119, 128 N.E.2d 772; Coolidge v. Planning Bd. of No. Andover, 337 Mass. 648, 650--651; Shoppers' World, Inc. v. Beacon Terrace Realty, Inc., 353 Mass. 63, 68--70, 228 N.E.2d 446; Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, pp. 54--1 to 54--30; Anderson, Am. Law of Zoning, §§ 15.17--15.21; note, 82 Harv.L. Rev. 668, 671--676. Cf. Weld v. Board of Appeals of Gloucester, 345 Mass. 376, 378--379, 187 N.E.2d 854.

We think that, in substance, the Canton by-law may be viewed (a) as prescribing valid general rules for application to commercial buildings and uses in Non-Residential Districts which include satisfaction of the standards stated in § IV D 4, and (b) is equivalent to permitting any commercial building construction in such districts only upon special permit if the board determines there is compliance with § III and also with the standards set out in § IV, especially subsec. D 4. The authorities already cited indicate that towns may adopt reasonably flexible methods, consistent with the substantive and procedural provisions of c. 40A, § 4 (fn. 6), of allowing boards of appeals to adjust zoning regulation to the public interest in accordance with sufficiently stated standards. We look at the substance as well as the form of the attempted regulation and conclude that the method of regulation adopted by § IV D is permitted under c. 40A, §§ 2 and 4.

2. We next consider whether, under § IV D 4, the board of appeals erred in its completely refusing site plan approval. The board's authority to enforce compliance with § IV D 4 is only to 'assure' protection of the public...