Durand v. Superintendent of Public Bldgs. of Fall River
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINS; REARDON |
| Citation | 354 Mass. 74,235 N.E.2d 550 |
| Parties | Albert J. DURAND, Jr., et al. v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF FALL RIVER et al. |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1968 |
Page 550
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF FALL RIVER et al.
Decided March 28, 1968.
John T. Farrell, Fall River (William A. Torphy, Fall River, with him), for intervener Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River; William F. Long, Jr., Fall River, for petitioners, also with him.
Richard C. Levin, Special Corporation Counsel, for respondents.
Daniel A. Sullivan, Fall River, for intervener John L. Clorite.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, and REARDON, JJ.
Page 551
REARDON, Justice.
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the superintendent of public buildings of Fall River [354 Mass. 75] to enforce the zoning ordinances of that city as they existed prior to an alleged amendment of May 24, 1966, and ordering the respondent city clerk to strike the amendment from the record of ordinances of the city. A judge of the Superior Court made findings of fact and rulings of law and dismissed the petition. The petitioners and an intervener appealed but later withdrew their appeals upon a report by the judge for the purpose of 'determination of the legality of * * * (the) amendment of the Zoning Ordinances, dated May 24, 1966 * * *.'
On May 24, 1966, the city council of Fall River adopted an ordinance changing the zoning classification of a twelve and one-half acre parcel of the land (locus) from single family residence to local business. The locus is close to a traffic circle and one portion of it is occupied by a restaurant with parking facilities for thirty cars. It is bounded on one side by land of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River, an intervener, upon which exists a high school recently constructed. It is situated in an area which otherwise is entirely residential although the locus itself has never been so developed. There was testimony from the city planner which indicated that designating the locus for business was designed to lessen traffic congestion in the area, that the planning board had recommended that the area be zoned for local business, and that hearings on this recommendation were held before the planning board and the city council. It appears that after the public hearing before the planning board, and upon recommendation of that board, the city council passed the ordinance in question through its first reading on April 12, 1966, and referred it to the city council committee on ordinances. On May 24, 1966, the committee unanimously recommended that the ordinance be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Canton v. Bruno
...OF BILLERICA, MASS., 275 N.E.2D 525;A Hardy, Municipal Law, §§ 151, 164. 6 Compare Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 76--77, 235 N.E.2d While we have said that a court will consider 'whether an asserted minor noncompliance in fact is significantly inconsis......
-
Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield
...an area which is not wholly devoted [3 Mass.App.Ct. 43] to residential use (compare Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall Rive, 354 Mass. 74, 77 (235 N.E.2d 550) It is clear that the petitioners have not sustained the heavy burden of proof placed upon one attempting to invalidate ......
-
Hallenborg v. Town Clerk of Billerica
...proposed amendment and to the planning board's purely advisory report on it. Cf. Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 76--77, 235 N.E.2d 550 (where in a city there was compliance with c. 40A, § 6, but not with requirements of the city itself with respect to z......
-
Knight v. Building Inspector of Shrewsbury
...Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 40--42, 234 N.E.2d 884 (1968), and Durand v. Page 469 Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 75, 77, 235 N.E.2d 550 (1968), rather than by such cases as Leahy v. Inspector of Bldgs. of New Bedford, 308 Mass. 128, 129--130, 133--134, 31......
-
Town of Canton v. Bruno
...OF BILLERICA, MASS., 275 N.E.2D 525;A Hardy, Municipal Law, §§ 151, 164. 6 Compare Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 76--77, 235 N.E.2d While we have said that a court will consider 'whether an asserted minor noncompliance in fact is significantly inconsis......
-
Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield
...an area which is not wholly devoted [3 Mass.App.Ct. 43] to residential use (compare Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall Rive, 354 Mass. 74, 77 (235 N.E.2d 550) It is clear that the petitioners have not sustained the heavy burden of proof placed upon one attempting to invalidate ......
-
Hallenborg v. Town Clerk of Billerica
...proposed amendment and to the planning board's purely advisory report on it. Cf. Durand v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 76--77, 235 N.E.2d 550 (where in a city there was compliance with c. 40A, § 6, but not with requirements of the city itself with respect to z......
-
Knight v. Building Inspector of Shrewsbury
...Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 40--42, 234 N.E.2d 884 (1968), and Durand v. Page 469 Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Fall River, 354 Mass. 74, 75, 77, 235 N.E.2d 550 (1968), rather than by such cases as Leahy v. Inspector of Bldgs. of New Bedford, 308 Mass. 128, 129--130, 133--134, 31......