Tracy v. Board of Appeals of Marblehead
| Decision Date | 14 May 1959 |
| Citation | 339 Mass. 205,158 N.E.2d 317 |
| Parties | William A. TRACY and others v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF MARBLEHEAD and others. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William A. Tracy, Boston (Leo H. Tracy, Boston, with him), for plaintiffs.
Morris Michelson, Boston (William Sevinor, Boston, with him), for interveners.
Daniel Santry, Town Counsel, Lynn, for Board of Appeals of Marblehead and others.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, and CUTTER, JJ.
This is an appeal to the Superior Court under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, as appearing in St. 1957, c. 199, § 1, from a decision of the board of appeals of Marblehead affirming the action of the building inspector of the town in granting to one Leo Sevinor a permit to erect a building on Smith Street to be used for commercial purposes. The locus is a portion of a much larger area purchased in 1939 by one Ralph Sevinor, the father of the applicant. Leo Sevinor is engaged in the business of building construction with his brothers William and Philip under the name of Ralph Sevinor Sons. The permit was issued for the construction of a one-story cement block building thirty-two feet wide, one hundred feet deep, and eleven feet high. The parties are landowners in the vicinity, the building inspector and the members of the board of appeals. Leo Sevinor and his brothers have been allowed to intervene. A judge of the Superior Court made findings of material facts, decided in favor of the plaintiffs, annulled the decision of the board of appeals, and invalidated the permit. In his decree, the Sevinors were enjoined from constructing a commercial building on the locus and from making any use of the premises excepting such uses as are allowed in a single residence district. The members of the board of appeals and the interveners have appealed from the decree. The evidence is reported.
The locus was zoned as a business district under a zoning by-law of the town adopted in town meeting on March 26, 1928. The by-law provided for four districts, (1) unrestricted districts, (2) single residence districts, (3) general residence districts, and (4) business districts. There were eleven business districts, generally small in area and scattered throughout the town. The locus was a lot containing 22,500 square feet on the westerly side of Smith Street, a way approximately 1,300 feet long running northwest and southeast between Pleasant Street and Atlantic Avenue. It contained a carpenter shop used by one Doane. Across the street was a lot, which appears from the scaled zoning map to be from three to four times larger in area than the Doane lot, owned by one Snow, a general contractor, and used by him in his business. The Doane and Snow lots were joined in one business district. The Snow lot extended from Smith Street in a northeasterly direction to a point on the track of the Boston and Maine Railroad opposite the Devereux Station. This track crossed Smith Street about 700 feet southeasterly from Pleasant Street. The land surrounding this business district was zoned for residences. Some single family houses had already been built on the easterly side of Smith Street but on the westerly side there were no buildings except the Doane shop between Pleasant Street and the railroad track. The land westerly of Smith Street between Pleasant Street and the track was a large undeveloped tract consisting of farm land and woods in which, as appears from the map, there were no streets. Except for two small houses later erected on the westerly side of Smith Street near Pleasant Street the land on that side of the street appears from photographs to be in substantially the same condition as it was described to be in 1928. The businesses carried on by Doane and Snow have been discontinued.
The interveners own the land between Pleasant Street and the railroad track on the westerly side of Smith Street except for the lots, which as above stated, have been built upon.
The plaintiffs contend that the zoning by-law is invalid as applied to the locus and constitutes spot zoning. The question of invalidity depends upon whether, as applied to that lot, the provisions of the by-law were 'clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crall v. City of Leominster
...'The fact that the question is debatable does not empower the court to substitute its judgment.' In Tracy v. Board of Appeals of Marblehead, 339 Mass. 205, at 208, 158 N.E.2d 317, at 319, we said: 'It often is difficult to draw the line between neighborhoods that should be devoted to differ......
-
Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield
...589, 595, 83 N.E.2d 550 (1949); Pierce v. Wellesley, 336 Mass. 517, 521--522, 146 N.E.2d 666 (1957); Tracy v. Board of Appeals of Marblehead, 339 Mass. 205, 207--209, 158 N.E.2d 317 (1959); Lanner v. Board of Appeal of Tewksbury, 348 Mass. 220, 228--230, 202 N.E.2d 777 (1964); Kennedy v. Bu......
-
Becket v. Building Inspector of Marblehead
...of the neighborhood." Milton v. Donnelly, 306 Mass. 451, 459, 28 N.E.2d 438, 442 (1940). See also Tracy v. Board of Appeals of Marblehead, 339 Mass. 205, 208, 158 N.E.2d 317 (1959); Van Sant v. Building Inspector of Dennis, 352 Mass. 289, 292, 225 N.E.2d 325 Rockett's ownership of the 7,500......
-
Doliner v. Town Clerk of Millis
...of power to impose zoning restrictions either generally or in its application to any specific lots. See Tracy v. Board of Appeals of Marblehead, 339 Mass. 205, 207-208, 158 N.E.2d 317. It is not fatal to the validity of the revised by-law that the preexisting by-law imposed less onerous res......