Bjornlund v. Zoning Board of Appeals

231 N.E.2d 365, 353 Mass. 757
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 1, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 231 N.E.2d 365 (Bjornlund v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bjornlund v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 231 N.E.2d 365, 353 Mass. 757 (Mass. 1967).

Opinion

The town’s zoning board of appeals on November 2, 1966, filed with the town clerk its decision granting a permit. The plaintiffs brought this bill in equity to review the board’s decision. G. L. c. 40A, § 21 (as amended through St. 1960, c. 365). The bill was dismissed because of the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirement of § 21 that notice of filing the bill “with a copy of the bill ... be given to . . . [the] town clerk so as to be received within . . . twenty days” after the board’s decision had been filed in the town clerk’s office. The trial judge, on the basis of stipulations, found that notice of filing the bill had been sent to the town clerk by certified mail from Boston on the afternoon of November 21, and had been received in Marshfield on November 23, more than twenty days after November 2. It was stipulated, in effect, that normally a notice mailed in Boston on November 21 would have been received in the Marshfield Post Office on November 22. The case is governed by Lincoln v. Board of Appeals of Framingham, 346 Mass. 418, 420. Nothing in that case, in § 21, or in its 1960 amendment, permits us to interpret the section as requiring only that notice be mailed early enough “so as to be received” in normal course of the mails within the statutory period. Section 21 requires seasonable receipt of the notice by the town clerk and makes no allowance for slow and inefficient postal service, as it would if the section merely required that the notice be mailed and postmarked within the twenty day period.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holdcraft v. Town of Brookfield
D. Massachusetts, 2019
Holdcraft v. Town of Brookfield
365 F. Supp. 3d 190 (District of Columbia, 2019)
Hickey v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Dennis
103 N.E.3d 750 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2018)
Rabin v. Taylor
18 Mass. L. Rptr. 623 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2004)
Mason v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission
2001 Mass. App. Div. 125 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2001)
Trustees of Tufts College v. City of Medford
616 N.E.2d 433 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1993)
O'BLENES v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynn
492 N.E.2d 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Upton Planning Board v. Upton Zoning Board of Appeals
3 Mass. Supp. 316 (Massachusetts District Court, 1982)
Upton Planning Board v. Upton Zoning Board of Appeals
1982 Mass. App. Div. 34 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1982)
Pierce v. Board of Appeals of Carver
343 N.E.2d 412 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
Costello v. Board of Appeals of Lexington
333 N.E.2d 210 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Pierce v. Board of Appeals
329 N.E.2d 774 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Carr v. Board of Appeals of Saugus
280 N.E.2d 199 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1972)
Garfield v. Board of Appeals of Rockport
247 N.E.2d 720 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 N.E.2d 365, 353 Mass. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bjornlund-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-mass-1967.