Lamarre v. Commissioner of Public Works of Fall River

• Decision Date: 11 July 1949
• Citation: 87 N.E.2d 211,324 Mass. 542
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: ALVIN L. S. LAMARRE & others v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF FALL RIVER.

324 Mass. 542

87 N.E.2d 211

ALVIN L. S. LAMARRE & others v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF FALL RIVER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

July 11, 1949

May 4, 5, 1949.

Present: QUA, C.

J., DOLAN SPALDING, & WILLIAMS, JJ.

Zoning. Housing.

An amendment of the zoning ordinance of a city placing in a district where residences for more than three families were permitted a parcel of about nine acres of vacant land, which was situated adjacent to residential sections already built upon, was capable of development for single family residences and previously had been zoned partly for single family residences and partly for residences for not more than three families was not invalid as unreasonable or as "spot" zoning where it appeared that there was a substantial "shortage of rental housing" in the city and that the amendment was designed to further a contemplated project of the local housing authority to build multiple family "rental" housing on such parcel and so "partially relieve the housing shortage": it might reasonably be thought that the amendment would promote the public welfare.

PETITION for a writ of mandamus, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Bristol on June 22, 1948.

Upon transfer to the Superior Court, the case was heard by Smith, J., upon an auditor's report and was reported to this court.

A. E. Seagrave, (P.

H. Harrington with him,) for the petitioners.

J. T. Farrell Corporation Counsel, for the respondent.

WILLIAMS, J. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to enforce the zoning ordinance of the city of Fall River as it stood prior to an amendment thereto redistricting a certain area, passed by the city council and approved by the mayor on June 15, 1948, the validity of which is here in question. An auditor, to whom the case was referred under the usual rule, made specific findings of fact and a general finding that, "so far as they may be questions of fact I find that (1) the 1948 amendment to the zoning ordinance is valid and that (2) the present proceedings were not prematurely brought." Motions by the petitioners that the report of the auditor be recommitted and that certain portions of it be struck out and by the respondent for judgment on the auditor's report were denied by a judge of the Superior Court. He found the facts to be as stated in the report and, at the request and with the consent of the parties, reported the case to this court.

The findings of the auditor are substantially as follows: The original zoning ordinance was passed in 1927 and imposed restrictions on "a substantial but not a major" portion of the city of Fall River. Of the districts established by the ordinance, only three need be considered in this case -- namely, single residence districts, general residence districts in which residences for not more than three families are permitted, and multiple family residence districts in which residences for more than three families are permitted. The area in question is located in the northerly section of the city some two miles from the business center. In shape it is a rectangle three hundred twenty-five feet wide by twelve hundred feet long, containing, therefore, slightly less than nine acres. Sixty per cent of it lies within a single residence district and forty per cent within a general residence district. There are no buildings upon it, although it is "adaptable to the development of single family residences."

According to the zoning map of the city, which by reference is made a part of the auditor's report, the area lies on the outskirts of residential sections already built upon. By the amendment of the ordinance it is converted into a multiple family residence district. Through the foreclosure of tax titles the city of Fall River has acquired title to more than one half of the area and has authorized its sale to the Fall River Housing Authority established under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 121, Section 26K, as appearing in St. 1946, c. 574, Section 1. The housing authority has either purchased or acquired options on the entire area and proposes to build thereon multiple family residences each accommodating four families and sufficient in all to accommodate one hundred forty families. The amendment was requested by the housing authority and was unanimously approved by the planning board and city council. The petitioners own residential property in the vicinity and the contemplated change in the area will result "in some but not great depreciation" in the market value of their property. It is found that "There is a shortage of rental housing in Fall River and the housing authority has on hand fifteen hundred applications for rental houses such as" are intended to be built in this area. The project contemplated will tend "to partially relieve the housing shortage in the city."

No question is raised as to compliance with the procedural requirements necessary for the enactment of a valid amendment to the zoning ordinance. It is the contention of the petitioners that the passage of the amendment was an unauthorized exercise of legislative power by the city council. The authority of the city to amend its zoning ordinance must be measured by the terms of the enabling statute, G. L. (Ter Ed.) c. 40, Section 25, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 269, Section 1. Caires v. Building Commissioner of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589 , 594. 122 Main Street Corp. v. Brockton, 323 Mass. 646, 648. By this statute the power to regulate and restrict is granted to the city for the purposes of "promoting the health, safety, convenience, morals or welfare of its inhabitants." Regulations and restrictions contained in an ordinance enacted under its authority may be designed, among other purposes, to prevent the overcrowding of land and "to avoid undue concentration of population." The chief purpose of the zoning statute is the promotion of the public welfare. Phillips v. Board of Appeals of Springfield, 286 Mass. 469 , 472. Every presumption is to be made in favor of the validity of an ordinance passed under its enabling provisions. A zoning ordinance will be sustained unless it is shown that there is no substantial relation between it and the furtherance of any of the general objects mentioned in the statute. Building Commissioner of Medford v. C. & H. Co. 319...