National Amusements, Inc. v. Commissioner of Inspectional Services Dept. of Boston

• Decision Date: 26 July 1988
• Citation: 26 Mass.App.Ct. 80,523 N.E.2d 789
• Parties: NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF the INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF BOSTON. 87-799.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 789

523 N.E.2d 789

26 Mass.App.Ct. 80

NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF the INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF BOSTON.

87-799.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued March 14, 1988.

Decided May 31, 1988.

Further Appellate Review Denied July 26, 1988.

Robert M. Bonin, Boston (Jonathan D. Tamkin, Brookline, with him), for plaintiff.

Mary Ellen Nolan, Quincy, and Marsha Weinerman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Somerville, for defendant.

Before ARMSTRONG, CUTTER and BROWN, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

National Amusements, Inc. (National), appeals from a judgment denying relief upon a complaint in the nature of mandamus brought by National against the commissioner (sometimes hereafter referred to separately) of the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) of Boston. National seeks to compel the commissioner to issue permits for the construction of a neighborhood shopping center on about 602,000 square feet of land (the locus) at 1213 Veterans of Foreign Wars Parkway in the West Roxbury section of Boston. The questions before us involve statutory provisions, applicable only to Boston, different from those which would apply if the locus had been situated in any other city or town, to which (at least in most instances) G.L. c. 40A, as amended, would be applicable. ¹ See Emerson College v. Boston, 393 Mass. 303, 471 N.E.2d 336 (1984).

In 1985, the locus was in a B-1 (business) zone where a shopping center was a permitted use. In late 1985, National had retained an engineering firm to design a shopping center for the locus. On April 25, 1986, an engineer from that firm and a building consultant (Alice Boelter) retained by National filed for National with ISD a building permit application, two plans and a check for $64,000 for a permit fee.

On May 1, 1986, representatives of National had attempted to file with ISD a landscape and parking plan. The plan was refused. Edward S. Whelan of ISD informed National's representatives that the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) ² was attempting to secure a rezoning of the area (including the locus), and, indeed, on April 16, 1986, the director of BRA had written to the commissioner of ISD suggesting that no permit be issued in the area.

On May 2, 1986, BRA and West Roxbury Neighborhood Council applied to the zoning commission (by application for map amendment No. 250) to change the zoning of the locus from B-1 to R-5, a residential district, and on the same day (by application No. 251) BRA applied to change the B-1 zoning of the area including the locus to other zoning categories. Both applications were set down and advertised (on May 5, 1986) for hearing before the zoning commission on June 2, 1986. On this latter application (No. 251) the record indicates that the zoning commission never took any definitive action.

On June 2, 1986, at the advertised hearing, no action was taken by the zoning commission on map amendment No. 250. Again, on June 25, 1986, no action was taken. ³ In the meantime, there was correspondence between the commissioner of ISD and counsel for National. In that correspondence it was made clear that the commissioner was taking the position that no permits would be issued by ISD while the proposed rezoning was pending. ⁴

The present mandamus complaint was filed on December 15, 1986, requesting that the Superior Court order the commissioner to issue appropriate permits for the shopping center project. A judge of the Superior Court on December 26, 1986, by order, after reviewing the ISD's frustrating delays in acting on National's requests for building and other permits needed for the shopping center project, referred to § 5 of the enabling act (St.1956, c. 665) set out in the margin, ⁵ and stated, "The nine months which the [b]oard has taken so far is not reasonable delay, especially considering ... that no rezoning has yet been adopted."

The trial judge then referred to Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 278-279, 285 N.E.2d 423 (1972), which discussed G.L. c. 40A, §§ 11 and 12, as they read prior to the very substantial revision by St.1975, c. 808. Then § 11 contained language found in the final sentence of § 5 of the enabling act, and § 12 contained language found in § 7 of the enabling act. The Ouellette opinion (discussing old c. 40A, § 12) pointed out (at 279, 285 N.E.2d 423) that there was a "distinction between a proposed zoning amendment ... and an amendment which has been adopted but has not yet been approved and published.... Because of this ... difference, while a building inspector may refuse to issue a permit because of a newly adopted zoning amendment, we are unwilling to say that he may refuse to issue a permit merely because of a proposed zoning amendment," i.e., one that may never be adopted by the body authorized to adopt the change. ⁶ In any event, the Ouellette decision (at 280, 285 N.E.2d 423) held that while the similar language found in old c. 40A, § 12, and in § 7 of the enabling act, viz., "would be in violation of any zoning ordinance ... or amendment thereof" could be regarded as "sufficiently broad to encompass an amendment which has been adopted but is not yet effective, ... a fair construction must exclude a mere proposed zoning amendment " (emphasis supplied). ⁷ Probably because of this language, the trial judge ordered the commissioner "within ten ... days ... [to] issue the building and other appropriate permits to ... [National] or give ... [National] written notice of his reasons for denying ... [the] permit." ⁸

The trial judge's decision stimulated ISD to very rapid activity on National's permit application. On January 6, 1987, ISD's acting zoning administrator denied National a permit for the asserted reason that National's plans then filed did not delineate individual parking spaces. On January 13, 1987, National's engineers filed a parking plan showing 652 individual parking spaces, which more than complied with the parking requirements for the proposed facility (419 spaces) in a B-1 zone. ⁹ ISD's acting zoning administrator gave zoning approval to the application on February 3, 1987. The application then went to ISD's chief plan examiner, who ordered his subordinates to give the application a quick review, which enabled him on February 6, 1987, to come up with a memorandum of thirty-two alleged deficiencies in National's application.

The zoning commission (see note 2, supra ) also was roused to action by the court order of December 26, 1986. On February 6, 1987, more than seven commissioners (see note 3, supra ) voted to rezone the business area containing the locus from B-1 to R-.8. The vote was based on map amendment No. 250, which had proposed a shift of the locus from a B-1 zone to an R-.5 zone. No published notice or advertisement of the hearing on map amendment No. 250 had been given since the notice published on May 5, 1986. ¹⁰

Trial of the complaint began before the same Superior Court judge who had framed the order of December 26, 1986, which had awakened ISD to perform its duties. Evidence was presented at trial which justified the judge's findings that, on National's application, ISD "did not follow its normal procedures, but halted action due to the BRA letter" (of April 16, 1986) to the commissioner "relative to a proposed rezoning of the area." Even if the commissioner and various units of ISD had thought it was in the public interest for them to delay action on National's application in view of a zoning change about to be recommended by BRA, it was their duty (as the board of appeal had in effect told them) to proceed with reasonable diligence and promptness to afford to National, as a property owner, the commissioner's best judgment about National's permit application under the zoning provisions then in effect. See Castelli v. Selectmen of Seekonk, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 711, 713-715, 448 N.E.2d 768 (1983), in addition to what was said in the Ouellette case, 362 Mass. at 275-278, 285 N.E.2d 423. There should have been no abnormal delays in ISD by reason of requests from other city officials, such as BRA's request of April 16, 1986, that no permits be granted for the locus. ¹¹ There probably also should have been greater effort by the commissioner of ISD to make it plain to BRA that it should move promptly on its proposed map amendment so as to avoid unnecessary loss to, and expenditures by, National (and other owners similarly situated) arising from any new map change. The record suggests that the zoning commission, on the basis of BRA's recommendations, could have moved perhaps five months earlier. ¹²

The trial judge's findings of May 11, 1987, after trial, show that he fully understood the difficulties of the situation presented to him. He ruled that § 5 of the enabling act (see note 5, supra ) controlled the determination whether the map amendment, adopted on the very eve (February 6, 1987) of trial, was applicable to National's permit application of April 25, 1986. He stated that the application, by virtue of § 5, was "subject to any ... amendment adopted as a result of the notices of hearing published on May 5, 1986, ... if the ... amendment was in substantial accord with the notices and was adopted without unreasonable or unnecessary delay" (emphasis supplied). After making note that National's application for a permit did not vest any rights in National, see Collura v. Arlington, 367 Mass. 881, 888, 329 N.E.2d 733 (1975), and the various differences between an R-.5 zone and an R-.8 zone (see note 10, supra ), he concluded, first, that the change of zoning was "in substantial accord with the proposed amendment advertised" on map amendment application No. 250.

For this conclusion the judge cited Burlington v. Dunn, 318 Mass. 216, 219-220, 61 N.E.2d 243, cert. denied, 326 U.S. 739, 66 S.Ct. 51, 99 L.Ed. 441 (1945), and Johnson v. Framingham, 354 Mass. 750, 753, 242 N.E.2d 420 (1968). In the Burlington case, 318 Mass at 218-219, 61 N.E.2d 243,...