Cape Ann Land Development Corp. v. City Council

373 N.E.2d 218, 374 Mass. 825, 1978 Mass. LEXIS 906
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 373 N.E.2d 218 (Cape Ann Land Development Corp. v. City Council) 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
Cape Ann Land Development Corp. v. City Council, 373 N.E.2d 218, 374 Mass. 825, 1978 Mass. LEXIS 906 (Mass. 1978).

Opinion

Following our decision in Cape Ann Land Dev. Corp. v. Gloucester, 371 Mass. 19 (1976), the trial judge, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, thereby annulling the city council’s denial of the special permit, 371 Mass, at 24 n.7, and ordered the council to issue the permit within ten days. The defendant appealed. The special permit was denied by the city council for [826]*826five specific reasons. Three of the reasons concerned traffic congestion. The other two reasons involved the cost of street improvement and the reduction of the vitality of downtown Gloucester. None of these reasons nor all of them collectively were legally valid reasons for the denial of the permit under our decision in Cape Ann Land Dev. Corp. v. Gloucester, supra at 24. In these particular circumstances it was proper for the judge to order the issuance of the permit, See Lapenas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 533-534 (1967); Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. 555, 559-560 (1954).

H. Sage Walcott, City Solicitor, for the defendant. F. Anthony Mooney (Kenneth Berman with him) for the plaintiff. Charles Francis Mahoney ir Maria J. Krokidas, for Gloucester Civic and Garden Council, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Finally, the city council argues that it should have the opportunity to reconsider Cape Ann’s application in light of our earlier opinion. However, when the city council considered the application it held a comprehensive hearing and issued a decision denying the permit on specified grounds. No argument is made that new data have become available or that additional grounds for denying the permit exist. Further consideration of the application is therefore not necessary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Cicatelli v. Board of Appeals
786 N.E.2d 1216 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2003)
Grace Community Church v. Planning & Zoning Commission
615 A.2d 1092 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Nash v. Warren Zoning Board of Adjustment
569 A.2d 447 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1989)
Newbury Junior College v. Town of Brookline
472 N.E.2d 1373 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Berg v. Zoning Board of Appeals
3 Mass. Supp. 505 (Massachusetts District Court, 1982)
Berg v. Zoning Board of Appeals
1982 Mass. App. Div. 100 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1982)
Exxon Co. Usa v. Town of Chelmsford
2 Mass. Supp. 776 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1981)
Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
415 N.E.2d 840 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 N.E.2d 218, 374 Mass. 825, 1978 Mass. LEXIS 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cape-ann-land-development-corp-v-city-council-mass-1978.