Parrish v. Board of Appeal of Sharon

• Decision Date: 09 January 1967
• Citation: 223 N.E.2d 81,351 Mass. 561
• Parties: Malby V. PARRISH v. BOARD OF APPEAL OF SHARON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 81

223 N.E.2d 81

351 Mass. 561

Malby V. PARRISH v. BOARD OF APPEAL OF SHARON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued Nov. 9, 1966.

Jan. 9, 1967.

Daniel G. Rollins, Brookline, for defendant.

Edward M. Dangel, Boston (Leo E. Sherry, Boton, and Dewey C. Kadra, Framingham, with him) for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

SPIEGEL, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant board of appeal from a final decree of the Superior Court that a decision of the board affirming a decision of the inspector of buildings denying the plaintiff's application for a building permit exceeded its authority and was therefore invalid. The judge viewed the locus and made a 'Report of Material Facts, Findings, Conclusions and Order for Decree,' which he subsequently adopted as a report of material facts. The evidence is reported.

The material facts do not appear to be in dispute. The plaintiff, a dairy farmer, is the owner of thirty-eight acres of land, more or less, and buildings at the intersection of Bay Road and East Street in Sharon. Since 1932 he has 'continuously conducted an extensive milk and dairy products producing business upon * * * (the) premises * * * (and has) a dairy herd now numbering approximately twenty cows. * * * (A)pproximately fifteen per cent of the milk sold has been produced on the premises * * * (and) the customers in the area number approximately 2,000.' In his desire to 'stabilize the financial upkeep of the dairy business during the slack summer season, and thus to dispose of its products,' the plaintiff applied for a permit to erect a frame building about forty-five feet in length and twenty-six feet in width. The building would be used for the manufacturing, storing and selling of ice cream. According to the plan of the proposed construction there would be windows on the outside to 'be used for people that would come to buy the ice cream such as cones, milk shakes and this type of thing. They would be what * * * (is called) outside service windows.'

The 'method of operation of the * * * dairy farm * * * included the bottling, packaging and sale of dairy products both produced upon the premises and purchased from other sources for resale, including milk, ice cream, cheese, and orange fruit drinks * * * which have been sold and distributed to the customers upon the retail milk routes of the * * * (plaintiff) * * *. (He) intends to sell ice cream in cones as well as packages of the same, and also milk shakes, frappes and sundaes, none of which will be consumed within the contemplated structure, but will be delivered through three windows of the usual type found in ice cream stands. * * * (T)here will be ample parking space for cars to enter the premises * * * (to make) purchases without interference with any parking upon the highways approaching the locus. * * * (T)he * * * structure will be some distance from the streets with entrances of approach therefrom.'

The building would have a self-service room with open-top freezer and refrigeration cases. Prepackaged ice cream, milk and cream would be sold from that room. Fruit punch in half-gallon bottles would also be sold from the self-service room.

Section 2(A) of the zoning by-law of the town of Sharon provides: 'In the single residence districts, no new building or structure or part thereof shall be designed, constructed or used and, except as provided in Section 6, no building or structure or part thereof shall be altered, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or used and no premises shall be used for any organized business, trade, manufacturing or commercial enterprise, or except for one or more of the following purposes: * * * 6. Farm, market garden, nursery or greenhouse; including the sale of products raised on the premises only.' The trial judge ruled '(t)hat the proposed sale of dairy products aforesaid does not come within the contravention and intent' of the above zoning by-law or of G.L. c. 40A § 5; '(t)hat the granting of the building permit would not be contrary to the provisions and intent of the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon'; and that 'the Building Inspector and the respondent Board of Appeals acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying said permit.'

The board's first contention is that the by-law prohibits the use of premises in a single residence district for 'any organized business, trade, manufacturing or commercial enterprise' even though it is a farm use. It argues in effect that if the proposed use can be characterized as an 'organized business * * * (and so forth)' it is forbidden, even though the use is also for a farm purpose. We do not agree. Section 2(A) of the by-law, contains a specific reference to 'any organized business' and it is clear from par. 6 of this section that farming is exempt from the restriction pertaining to an organized business as defined in § 18, par. 1, of the by-law. ¹

The board next contends that the proposed structure is not exempt from § 2 of the zoning by-law either as a nonconforming use under § 6 of the zoning by-law ² or under G.L. c. 40A, § 5. Although the judge did not specifically so state, it seems clear that his decision was based, at least in part, on a finding that the proposed building would either constitute an 'alteration, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, raising or moving of a non-conforming building, or * * * changing, extension or moving of a non-conforming use' within § 6 of the zoning by law or would not 'amount to (a) reconstruction, extension or structural change, * * * (or to an) alteration * * * to provide for * * * (a) use for a purpose or in a manner substantially different from the use to which it was put before alteration * * *' within G.L. c. 40A, § 5.

Since no building existed in which the sale of farm products was carried on in the manner here contemplated, the proposed construction of the ice cream stand is clearly not exempt from § 2 of the by-law either under § 6 of the by-law or under G.L. c. 40A, § 5. Chilson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro, 344 Mass. 406, 413, 182 N.E.2d 535; Town of Stow v. Pugsley, 349 Mass. 329, 331, 332, 207 N.E.2d 908.

The only remaining issue is whether the proposed use of the building comes within the requirements of § 2(A) and should be permitted as a conforming use. The board argues that the sale of products other than 'products raised on the premises only' is contemplated and therefore § 2(A), par. 6, of the by-law is not satisfied. There is uncontradicted testimony that the milk and cream to be used to produce the ice cream sold from the stand will be produced only from the cattle on the plaintiff's farm. ³ One question is, therefore, whether certain products which the trial judge found the plaintiff intends to sell, namely, 'ice cream in cones as well as packages of the same, and also milk shakes, frappes and sundaes * * *,' are 'products raised on the premises only.'

In Deutschmann v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 325 Mass. 297, 299, 90 N.E.2d 313, 314, we held that 'milk in cartons and in paper cups, milk shakes, ice cream and cheese * * * (where) the ice cream was to be made on the farm from milk and cream produced on the farm with the addition of sugar, flavoring and gelatin; and * * * (where) the ingredients of the milk shakes, except flavoring, and of the cheese would be raised on the farm' were 'products raised on the farm of their owner.' The zoning by-law being construed in that case permitted the use of buildings for the purpose of farming 'and the sale of products raised on farms in the town of Canton from any...