Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Com'r of Medford
| Decision Date | 04 April 1955 |
| Citation | 332 Mass. 471,125 N.E.2d 791 |
| Parties | FELLSWAY REALTY CORPORATION v. BUILDING COMMISSIONER OF MEDFORD and another. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Emanuel Kurland, Boston, for petitioner.
Mark E. Gallagher, Jr., City Sol., Boston, for respondents.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus for the issuance of building permits by the respondent building commissioner to enable the petitioner to erect a drive-in restaurant and a small storage building upon a parcel of land which it owns in the city of Medford. The plans and specifications for the proposed structures comply in every respect with the building code of the city, and the proposed use of the land is lawful and within the classification of uses permitted by the zoning ordinances of the city. Subsequent to the filing of the applications for building permits, an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend the zoning ordinances in such a way that the petitioner would be required to obtain the prior approval of the city council for the proposed use of the premises. The building commissioner would have issued the permits but for the instruction of the city manager, who was added as a respondent by amendment to the petition, to hold the matter in abeyance. An appeal by the petitioner to the board of appeals, in accordance with the building code, was not heard, the board declining 'jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of the fact that there had been no decision by an administrative officer of the city.' It appeared from the statement of agreed facts upon which the petition was submitted to the judge that the petitioner had done everything on its part to be done in order to entitle it to the issuance of the building permits. The judge ordered the writ to issue 'specifically commanding the respondent * * * [building commissioner] to definitely act' and dismissing the petition as to the city manager. Later he allowed a motion that judgment be entered in accordance with said order.
We agree with the petitioner that it was entitled to a fuller measure of relief and to an order commanding the building commissioner to grant the permits.
A landowner has a right to improve his premises by the erection and use of buildings thereon where the complies with the existing statutes and ordinances, and he is entitled to whatever permits may be necessary to enable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham
...it. Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 279-280, 285 N.E.2d 423 (1972). See Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Comm'r of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 125 N.E.2d 791 (1955). Where a zoning by-law allows a particular use, the personal opinion of a local zoning administrator as......
-
Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy
...instruct the respondent building inspector has 'no validity.' The law is clear on this matter. See Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Com'r. of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 472--473, 125 N.E.2d 791. 9 The intervener contends, however, that, although the city council acted improperly in giving dir......
-
Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough
...Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 275, 276, 278, n. 9, 285 N.E.2d 423 (1972). See also Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Commr. of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 472--473, 125 N.E.2d 791 (1955), and P & d Serv. Co. Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Dedham, 359 Mass. 96, 104, 268 N.E.2d 153 The ......
-
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
...220 A.2d 286, 289 (1966); State Dept. of Health v. Walker, 238 Md. 512, 209 A.2d 555, 561 (1965); Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Comr. of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 125 N.E.2d 791 (1955); Berry v. Embrey, 238 Miss. 819, 120 So.2d 165, 168 (1960); Vagnoni v. Brady, 420 Pa. 411, 218 A.2d 235,......