McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINS; SPIEGEL |
| Citation | 241 N.E.2d 840,354 Mass. 660 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1968 |
| Parties | Richard H. McCARTHY et al., Trustees v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF ASHLAND. |
Page 840
v.
BOARD OF APPEALS OF ASHLAND.
Decided Nov. 4, 1968.
Page 841
John V. Phelan, Lynn, for defendant.
Eugene L. Tougas, Waltham, for plaintiffs.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
SPIEGEL, Justice.
This is a bill in equity by way of an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, by the trustees of the Lakeridge Realty Trust from a decision of the board of appeals of the town of Ashland (board) sustaining the building inspector's denial of a building permit. The board appealed from a final decree annulling its action and directing the issuance of the building permit. The judge filed 'Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree' which he subsequently adopted as a report of material facts. The evidence is reported.
[354 Mass. 661] The specific lot in question was at one time one of nine lots comprising a tract of land owned by one Farese. Four of these lots were front lots not requiring the approval of the planning board for subdivision and were sold to a developer who constructed single family dwellings on them.
On June 6, 1962, a preliminary plan for the subdivision of the remaining five lots was submitted to the planning board and notice of its submission was given to the town clerk. A definitive plan was approved on December 6, 1962. On both of these dates the controlling provision of the zoning by-law of Ashland read as follows: 'Section 11. Use Regulations. 1. In residential and agricultural districts. Buildings, structures, and premises may be used for any residential * * * purpose. * * *' The lots shown on the definitive plan were within a residential district. At the annual town meeting on March 11, 1964, the zoning by-law was amended to create Residential 'A' and Residential 'B' districts. In Residential 'A' districts the use of buildings, structures and premises was limited to 'any single residential * * * purpose * * *.' The lots shown on the definitive plan are within a Residential 'A' district.
On March 7, 1966, the plaintiffs acquired title to the five lots from one Quinn who had purchased them from Farese the previous year. On July 20, 1966, one of the plaintiffs filed with the building inspector an application for a building permit for an apartment building on one of the lots shown on the definitive plan. The application was disapproved because of the 'Residential area 'A' (zoning).' The plaintiffs appealed to the board which held a public hearing and filed a decision upholding the action of the building inspector. The trial judge ruled that, in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 40A, § 7A, the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. DeMatteo Const. Co. v. Board of Appeals of Hingham
...until the doubts were resolved. See Woods v. Newton, 351 Mass. 98, 104, 217 N.E.2d 728 (1966); McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968) (directing--without discussing the point--on an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, the issuance of a building Page 59 per......
-
Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham
...Mass.L.Q. 24, 27-28 (1976). We have repeatedly approved of such relief in appropriate cases. See McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968); Deutschmann v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 325 Mass. 297, 90 N.E.2d 313 (1950); D'Ambra v. Zoning Board of Appeal o......
-
Rayco Inv. Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Raynham
...to zoning by-laws. Smith v. Board of Appeals of Needham, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 (1959). McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968). Vazza v. Board of Appeals of Brockton, 359 Mass. 256, 269 N.E.2d 270 (1971). Nyquist v. Board of Appeals of Acton, 35......
-
Beale v. Planning Bd. of Rockland
...of lots within a subdivision, or to the buildings which may be constructed thereon...." See McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 662-663, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968) (under § 81Q, a planning board may only restrict lots to require compliance with existing zoning by-law and......
-
M. DeMatteo Const. Co. v. Board of Appeals of Hingham
...until the doubts were resolved. See Woods v. Newton, 351 Mass. 98, 104, 217 N.E.2d 728 (1966); McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968) (directing--without discussing the point--on an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, the issuance of a building Page 59 per......
-
Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham
...Mass.L.Q. 24, 27-28 (1976). We have repeatedly approved of such relief in appropriate cases. See McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968); Deutschmann v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 325 Mass. 297, 90 N.E.2d 313 (1950); D'Ambra v. Zoning Board of Appeal o......
-
Rayco Inv. Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Raynham
...to zoning by-laws. Smith v. Board of Appeals of Needham, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 (1959). McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968). Vazza v. Board of Appeals of Brockton, 359 Mass. 256, 269 N.E.2d 270 (1971). Nyquist v. Board of Appeals of Acton, 35......
-
Beale v. Planning Bd. of Rockland
...use of lots within a subdivision, or to the buildings which may be constructed thereon...." See McCarthy v. Board of Appeals of Ashland, 354 Mass. 660, 662-663, 241 N.E.2d 840 (1968) (under § 81Q, a planning board may only restrict lots to require compliance with existing zoning by-law and ......