Smith v. Board of Appeals of Needham
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINS; RONAN |
| Citation | 339 Mass. 399,159 N.E.2d 324 |
| Parties | Barbara Bailey SMITH and another, Trustees, v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF NEEDHAM. |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1959 |
Page 324
v.
BOARD OF APPEALS OF NEEDHAM.
Decided June 12, 1959.
[339 Mass. 400] John B. Dolan, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Benjamin Y. Piper, Town Counsel, Needham, for defendant.
Before [339 Mass. 399] WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, COUNIHAN and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
[339 Mass. 400] RONAN, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Superior Court adjudicating that a decision of the board of appeals sustaining a denial of applications of the plaintiffs for permits to construct two-family dwelling houses on lots of land owned by them in Needham was within the jurisdiction of the board and that no modification of the decision was required. The case was submitted to the Superior Court upon a statement of all the material facts amounting to a case stated.
It appears that the plaintiffs are the owners of a certain parcel of land in Needham which in July, 1957, they had subdivided as shown on a plan submitted to the planning
Page 325
board. The planning board, after notice and hearing and due compliance with the statute, approved said plan in August, 1957. As approved, the plan was recorded in September, 1957, in the registry of deeds. At that time the land was in a general residence zoning district in which two family dwellings were permitted by the zoning by-law.At a town meeting in March, 1958, it was voted to change the area in which the plaintiffs' land is located from a general residence district to a single residence district, in which two-family dwellings were not permitted. The applications of the plaintiffs on April 2, 1958, to the building inspector for permits to erect two family dwellings were denied because of such change in the zoning of the plaintiffs' land. On appeal to the board of appeals the denial of the applications was sustained, as the board was of the opinion that the action of the planning board did not prevent a change [339 Mass. 401] in the zoning of the plaintiffs' land from a general residence to a single-residence district.
The only controversy between the parties is whether G.L. c. 40A, § 7A, prevented the change in zoning from a general residence district to a single residence district from applying to the plaintiffs' land where the plan thereof had previously been approved within three years by the planning board.
Statute 1957, c. 297 (which inserted §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayco Inv. Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Raynham
...construing § 7A have similarly involved what were unquestionably amendments 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, 35......
-
East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, No. 35178
...333, 273 A.2d 775 (1971); Harris v. Planning Commission of Ridgefield, 151 Conn. 95, 193 A.2d 499 (1963); Smith v. Bd. of Appeals, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 2 The zoning-enabling legislation of a majority of states contains the requirement that zoning regulations be made in accordance w......
-
Island Properties, Inc. v. Martha's Vineyard Commission
...unquestionably amendments to zoning by-laws'; examples were the Bellows Farms case, supra note 21, 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......
-
Bellows Farms, Inc. v. Building Inspector of Acton
...Appeals Comm. in the [364 Mass. 259] Dept. of Community Affairs, Mass., a 294 N.E.2d 393. In Smith v. Board of Appeals of Needham, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 (1959), when this court was first required to interpret G.L. c. 40A, § 7A, which had been inserted by St.1957, c. 297, we quoted t......
-
Rayco Inv. Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Raynham
...construing § 7A have similarly involved what were unquestionably amendments 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, 35......
-
East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, No. 35178
...333, 273 A.2d 775 (1971); Harris v. Planning Commission of Ridgefield, 151 Conn. 95, 193 A.2d 499 (1963); Smith v. Bd. of Appeals, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 2 The zoning-enabling legislation of a majority of states contains the requirement that zoning regulations be made in accordance w......
-
Island Properties, Inc. v. Martha's Vineyard Commission
...unquestionably amendments to zoning by-laws'; examples were the Bellows Farms case, supra note 21, 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......
-
Bellows Farms, Inc. v. Building Inspector of Acton
...Appeals Comm. in the [364 Mass. 259] Dept. of Community Affairs, Mass., a 294 N.E.2d 393. In Smith v. Board of Appeals of Needham, 339 Mass. 399, 159 N.E.2d 324 (1959), when this court was first required to interpret G.L. c. 40A, § 7A, which had been inserted by St.1957, c. 297, we quoted t......