Harbor Schools, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Haverhill
| Decision Date | 19 August 1977 |
| Citation | Harbor Schools, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Haverhill, 366 N.E.2d 764, 5 Mass.App.Ct. 600 (Mass. App. 1977) |
| Parties | HARBOR SCHOOLS, INC., et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF HAVERHILL et al. 1 (and a companion case 2 ). |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Donald G. Tye, Boston (Edward J. Barshak, Boston, with him), for Board of Appeals of Haverhill and another.
James P. Cassidy, Jr., Lowell, for Harbor Schools, Inc. and others.
Before KEVILLE, GOODMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
These are appeals from two judgments, each in an action in the Superior Court, both of which upheld a claim made under G.L. c. 40A, § 2, 3 by Harbor Schools, Inc.(Harbor Schools), that it is entitled to operate a facility on the premises without regard to the use restrictions of the Haverhill zoning ordinance.One of the actions (see fn. 1) is an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, from the decision of the board of appeals of Haverhill (board), revoking a building permit (G.L. c. 40A, § 13) to make repairs and changes in the building on the premises in contemplation of its use by Harbor Schools.The only reason given by the board for its decision was that "(t)heBoard of Appeals feels that this type of facility is not exempt from the zoning ordinance under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 2."The judgment entered in that action determined that the "(p)laintiff, Harbor Schools, Inc., conducts facilities of an educational nature which serve a public purpose and, in accordance with (G.L. c. 40A, § 2), is exempt from the operation of the zoning by-laws of the City of Haverhill and is entitled to a building permit at 475 Main Street, Haverhill."The board and one of the individual residents, Dorothy Tye, who owns property at 681 Main Street in the vicinity of the premises, appealed (see fn. 1).
The second judgment was entered in a companion case for declaratory and injunctive relief (see fn. 2).It raised the same issue as did the appeal from the decision of the board under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, and the judgment entered was to the same effect as the judgment in that case; Dorothy Tye appealed.
Both cases had been referred to a master who had heard them together and had filed two separate reports which were confirmed and in which the findings of substantive facts are identical.(References hereafter to the master's report, in the singular, are intended to include both reports.)The only question before us is whether the master's report yields an adequate basis for the judgments.Whaler Motor Inn, Inc. v. Parsons, --- Mass.App. ---, ---a, 339 N.E.2d 197(1975), and cases cited;4S.C., --- Mass. ---, fn. 4b, 363 N.E.2d 493(1977).We hold that it does.
The master found that Harbor Schools was a corporation organized under G.L. c. 180 and that it operated three facilities, two in Maine and one in Amesbury, Massachusetts, "which are devoted to the education and improvement of emotionally disturbed children"; the premises in Haverhill are proposed as the site of a fourth such facility.Harbor Schools admits children from the ages of five to eighteen years.It is anticipated that admissions to the Haverhill facility will be confined to girls from the ages of thirteen to eighteen.The master further found that Harbor Schools had fifty-one "students" referred through agencies of the Commonwealth primarily by the Department of Public Welfare.However, individual private admissions are possible.
The master viewed the facility in Amesbury, which the parties agreed "was typical of the other units operated by The Harbor Schools, Inc. and would, in a great measure, be similar to the facility intended to be operated in Haverhill."He found that
He further found, with reference to Harbor Schools generally, that each facility had two teachers who 5He also found that the executive director of the facilities was a "well educated man of vast experience in special education" and was amply qualified "to administer the program of these facilities which are devoted to the education and improvement of emotionally disturbed children."
The master found that 6
The master's findings find support in the purposes of Harbor Schools set out in its articles of incorporation which, as listed by the master, indicate an emphasis on education and instruction.Further, the master found that Harbor Schools was given a tax exemption "under Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code, as a non-profit educational institution permitting it to purchase gas and lubricating oil tax free"(presumably under I.R.C. § 4221(a)(5)and§ 4221(d)(5)).
In view of the master's report the board (see fn. 4) has properly abandoned the contention apparently made to the master that (as stated in the master's report), "the use to which the building is to be put is merely a care facility for children, with underlying medical facilities and with minimal educational aspects . . . ."The board now argues that (as stated in its brief)"at the very most the education supplied to them is an equal objective with their rehabilitation."But "education" and "rehabilitation" do not denote functions so distinct that the master could be required to quantify them relative to each other.They are not mutually exclusive.Almost one hundred years ago the Supreme Judicial Court characterized "education" as Mount Hermon Boys' Sch. v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139, 146, 13 N.E. 354, 357(1887).Emerson v. Trustees of Milton Academy, 185 Mass. 414, 418, 70 N.E. 442(1904).Assessors of Dover v. Dominican Fathers Province of St. Joseph, 334 Mass. 530, 541, 137 N.E.2d 225(1956).
The definition seems to us still serviceable despite the new jargon (e. g."rehabilitation,""therapeutic") which has accompanied attempts to create new disciplines.The definition is echoed in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) which gives as one of the definitions of "education": "the act or process of providing with knowledge, skill, competence, or usu(ally) desirable qualities of behavior or character or of being so provided esp(ecially) by a formal course of study, instruction, or training."
We see nothing inconsistent with educational purpose in the fact that the facility provides live-in accommodations.This is well settled.President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Assessors of Cambridge, 175 Mass. 145, 146-147, 55 N.E. 844(1900).SeeTrustees of Phillips Academy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 118, 125, 55 N.E. 841(1900);Emerson v. Trustees of Milton Academy, supra;South Lancaster Academy v. Lancaster, 242 Mass. 553, 556, 136 N.E. 626(1922).Nor is its purpose any the less educational because it is confined to emotionally disturbed children.Assessors of Lancaster v. Perkins Sch., 323 Mass. 418, 421-422, 82 N.E.2d 883, 885(1948)().Armstrong v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 158 Conn. 158, 257 A.2d 799(1969)().Wiltwyck...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Carroll County v. Raymond I. Richardson Foundation, Inc.
...see Fitchburg Housing Authority v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 380 Mass. 869, 406 N.E.2d 1006 (1980); Harbor Schools, Inc. v. Board of Appeals, 5 Mass.App. 600, 366 N.E.2d 764 (1977); Areba School Corp. v. Mayor & Council of Randolph, 151 N.J.Super. 336, 376 A.2d 1273, cert. denied, 75 N.J. 58......
-
Goldman v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
... ... 92-1773 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... First Circuit ... Heard Nov. 4, 1992 ... 56(e). See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 ... ...
-
Tull v. Mister Donut Development Corp.
...to, the master's report. Contrast Jones v. Gingras, 3 Mass.App. 393, 395, 331 N.E.2d 819 (1975); Harbor Schools, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Haverhill, 5 Mass.App. ---, --- n. 4 C, 366 N.E.2d 764 In June, 1968, Robert T. Piccarelli, identifying himself as a representative of Mister Donut, e......
-
Kiely v. Raytheon Co., Civil Action No. 95-10529.
... ... O'Brien v. Analog Devices, Inc., 34 Mass.App.Ct. 905, 606 N.E.2d 937, 939 ... ...